Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

450 SEL 6.9

For some reason the Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 has been afforded a separate article from Mercedes-Benz W116, even though it is just a subvariant of the W116. Anyone care to weigh in?  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this really ought to be merged. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

More than half of the W116 article is about the 450SEl 6.9. To keep the balance there are 3 options:

1. trim back the 6.9 information - which is almost a crime for an encyclopedia,
2. expand the other variants - which is unlikely to happen from a volunteer editor base anytime soon,
3. split the article into smaller articles for each variant, leaving a short summary in the parent article.

I think splitting is the better solution in order to maintain a balanced article, considering the 6.9 article is big enough to survive on its own.  Stepho  talk  03:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Some expanding of the W116 material is definitely overdue, but the 6.9 is nothing more than the top-of-the-line W116. It's even badged as a sub-model of the 450 SEL. The fact that some interested editors have been able to compile large amounts of information and trivia about the 6.9 does not make it, in my eyes, worthy of a free-standing article. I also think that the 6.9 content will receive more attention in its proper place than hidden away in a separate article.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I remember the 6.9 as a quite remarkable car - evidenced by the preponderance of guff about it in the article. While it may be technically accurate it is much more than a top of the line W116 to my mind. Eddaido (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz W116 is a far more important article, and it gets far more page views. Making the W116 article better and more comprehensive while ignoring the 6.9 article is a much better use of your time than struggling over what to do with an article few are reading anyway. When the W116 is perfect, or at least Good, then maybe come back and devote your time to thinking about what to do with the other one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis Bratland, and also Eddaido. In my view, the 6.9, like its predecessor the Mercedes-Benz 300SEL 6.3, is worthy of a separate article. Both models are more than just a sub-variant or top of the line version of W109 or W116 (as applicable). Both were fitted with a different engine and with different suspensions from all other versions of the relevant chassis. These differences were not trivial: the Mercedes-Benz M100 engine (MB's first ever V8) that was fitted to both was shared only with the even rarer Mercedes-Benz 600, and whereas most 109s and 116 had spring suspensions, the 6.3 had air suspension, and the 6.9 was MB's first ever model with hydropneumatic suspension. These special engines and suspension systems combined to make the 6.3 and the 6.9 the fastest 4 door saloons of their day; the 6.9 also had a unique modified gearbox, a different braking system, a dry sump lubrication system (usually fitted only to race cars) and a different engine displacement from other M100s that made it the biggest post-WW2 displacement engine ever series-manufactured in Western Europe. By contrast, the 6.9's "successor", the 560 SEL, had the same suspension system as all other Mercedes-Benz W126 models, and the same Mercedes-Benz M117 engine as was fitted to many W126s and many other models (albeit with a variety of displacements) - in other words, the 560 SEL, unlike the 6.9, was just a sub-variant or top of the line version of the relevant chassis. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would the 6.9 need a separate article when both the W 116 (SWB) and V 116 (LWB) models share a page? The modern-day AMGs do not have separate articles, so what makes the 6.9 so special? Separate articles for single trim levels/versions are rarely desirable. Just becuase the car is notable does not mean it requires its own article (WP:NOPAGE). The fewer number of articles the better—Mercedes-Benz W116 is by no means a long page. There is also substantial content duplication between Mercedes-Benz W116 and Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:43, 12 July 2016‎ (UTC)

Here's one I photographed (Mr.choppers)

There is very little difference between the W116 and the V116 - the latter just has a bit more legroom in the back seat. As for AMG: when AMG was independent, it simply tuned up existing MB models, and, as time went on, performed cosmetic upgrades as well. There was even an AMG version of the 6.3. Although AMG is now a division of MB, its function has remained much the same: eg the S65 is basically an S600 with a tuned up engine and cosmetic changes. So the S65 is, like the 560 SEL, just a sub-variant or top of the line version of the relevant MB chassis. There are other German-based tuners that perform similar upgrades, eg Carlsson and Brabus. English Wikipedia actually does have some articles about individual Brabus models, eg Brabus E V12, but note that that article is about an E class fitted with an MB V12 engine, and that MB doesn't fit V12s to its own E class cars (and note also that both the 6.3 and the 6.9 were more different from their "base model" counterparts than the E V12s are from their MB counterparts). I agree about the substantial content duplication - the W116 article content about the 6.9 needs to be reduced to a minimum. I also agree that the W116 article is not a long one, even with the duplicated content. But that simply reflects the fact that that article, like almost all of English Wikipedia's articles about automobile models, could do with substantial improvement. There is plenty of reliable source information available to enable someone to improve the W116 article to featured article status (like Holden Commodore (VE), to cite a very rare example of an FA automobile model article) - someone just needs to improve it. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Dennis: I agree that my energy is better spent improving the W116 entry. I was hoping that other editors would do the boring work for me. Bahnfrend, I do not think that any of us are in doubt about what the 6.9 is nor in its relevance nor in its impact. What I disagree on is having a separate entry for it - I feel that it obscures the car, since it doesn't follow the usual standards no one would find it. It was pure chance that I came upon the entry myself (which is also when I discovered the separate 300 SEL 6.3 page). I want the 6.9 content to be findable to everyone, and as such it ought to be at Mercedes-Benz W116 - an article name which by definition includes the 6.9, unless one would think that the V116 deserves a separate page.

Again: the reason I am opposed to a separate page for the 6.9 is because I absolutely adore the car. I believe that needlessly hiding it on a subpage is doing the car a disfavor. I am now going to read WP:NOPAGE and see if I can't find a nice official policy to quote. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't have been created, but having a separate page in no way stops you from making Mercedes-Benz W116 into the article you think it should be. If you want to expand the 6.9 section to the point where it eclipses the 6.9 article, you should. The only reasons to delete or limit content from the W116 article should be based on the needs of making the W116 article the best it can be. If somebody complaints it's redundant, first, redundancy is totally fine, and second, that is a problem to be solved on the 6.9 article not the W116 article. This is precisely what I did on Kawasaki triple: I expanded it in all the ways I thought it should be expanded, and I didn't get distracted worrying about the many problems that existed on Kawasaki S1 Mach I and Kawasaki S2 Mach II and so on. The best way to cover the subject was in one article, and the main article is the most important. I might someday want to improve, or delete, the Kawasaki Mach II, III, and IV articles, but only after the Kawasaki triple article is in a state of utter perfection, and it's got a ways to go yet. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Atkinson cycle

Myself and another editor are having a protracted disagreement over whether 'Atkinson cycle' is defined by the Atkinson thermodynamic cycle or by the internal linkages detailed in the original patent. Neither of us is able to convince the other. Please do not respond here but add your comments to talk:Atkinson cycle#Modern Atkinson Engine.  Stepho  talk  01:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

What general level of weight needed to include recall information on a manufacture page

I'm repeating a question I asked a few months back because it wasn't sufficiently answered. In short, how do we as a group decide if a recall or series of related recalls (or other similar issue) should be mentioned on a manufacture's page vs a model page? In 2015 a related discussion asked about including recalls on automotive pages [[1]]. The discussion used an example of a model page and offered common sense suggestions that were accepted by consensus. However, I think we can agree that a manufacture's page should have a higher bar. As an example, the first year of the US Ford Focus was plagued with recalls. Because the car was a big deal to Ford and due to the large number of recalls, the issue was mentioned by MSN and on the wiki page [[2]]. However, while having weight in context of the Focus, I think we would agree these recalls don't have sufficient weight to be covered on the Ford Motor Company page. Conversely, the Explorer-Firestone tire recall was significant enough to merit mention on both the model and manufacture page.

Question: What standard should we apply when considering recall or other similar information for inclusion on a manufacture's page? I don't have a hard and fast rule but I would generally say those that are associated (proven or otherwise) with deaths or wide spread injury, those which resulted in changes to regulations (the Firestone tire issue helped push the tire pressure monitor regulation), resulted in Congressional hearings or had some other notable impact should be included. I'm interested in the views of others in this area. Thanks. Springee (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that any recalls that adversely affect the company, beyond immediate sales blips and such. VW diesel engines, GM diesel engines, all obvious. If there were a huge number of lesser recalls - in themselves not noteworthy enough - that combine to say something about the overall performance of the company, then they should be included. How to tell? If non-automotive media directly concern themselves with such a situation, then presto. I feel that the standards should be similar to whether or not we include awards: It would be correct to include that Renault, for instance, has won the second most European Car of the Year awards, or that Nissan was the first Japanese manufacturer to receive it. But listing them all and so forth is not particularly fruitful. Personally I believe in judgement over policy, though. Oh, and see the Chrysler talk page for more on this fascinating topic...  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that when a series of recalls aggregate into something then they should be covered in that fashion. This is how the Focus recalls were included on that car's model page. It's not that any particular recall was significant but the MSN covered them in aggregate because it was, if I recall, the most recalled car of all time at the time. That said, I think we agree that those recalls didn't receive anywhere near the media coverage heaped on the Explorer-Firestone tire recall and shouldn't make it to the manufacture page. Springee (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Status quo. The convention we adopted in July 2015, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 39#Recalls-notability, is adequate for all automobile (and motorcycle) articles. There's no need for a separate rule for company pages and model pages. Adding on extra hoops to jump through, like Congressional hearings, or new regulations, is not needed. The mainstream media is our guide. When you start adding conditions so that you can ignore what the MSM tells us worth paying attention to, you're making due weight a reflection of who is editing. The same article with different editors would look totally different, depending on what kind of MSM coverage those particular editors choose to discount as "trivial". But if you accept dispassionately whatever the MSM tells you is important, articles will tend to turn out with the same content no matter who edits the or what those particular editors like or don't like.

  Chrysler is the only article where this has ever been in dispute. And there has never been a problem of Chrysler sandbagged with mentions of 100 trivial recalls. Or 50, or 10. Or 5. Chrysler mentions zero recalls, and so far every single attempt to add even one recall has been reverted. Even recalls that meet the current convention, and even recalls that have been shown to impact the company as a whole, or set records, or have been included in MSM lists of most/worst/notorious recalls. If the marque/company articles on Chrysler or BMW or whatever do end up with what looks like a too-long list of recalls that all meet the above convention, and the rest of the article has been so improved that it is a GA candidate, then perhaps the numbers could be trimmed back in that article. But that is totally hypothetical, and per WP:BEANS, we don't need a new rule to protect us from going over a cliff we haven't even begun to approach. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How would "status quo", the 2015 conversation which I already linked in the opening question, address something like the Ford Focus recalls? I guess it could in a sense because the weight the media gave to the Explorer-Firestone recall was far greater than that given to the Focus recalls though both made it to the MSN and in sufficient coverage to pass the bar set in the 2015 discussion. The Chrysler article is the only case where this, thus far, has been in dispute but I think the issue can apply to any manufacture's page. Simply saying that the list of recalls is short isn't justification for including or excluding a particular recall. Earlier this year the only recall listed on the Chrysler page was a brake booster recall. I removed that recall as insignificant [[3]]. At the time that meant removing the whole recall section. Dennis seems to be arguing that removing that one recall was wrong because the article wasn't flooded with recalls. In that case should we add the Honda CR-V oil filter fire issue, covered by MSN, to the Honda page (it has zero recalls right now)? Regardless, I would suggest leaving the Chrysler specific arguments to that talk page. I made a comment on the Ford Motor Company talk page regarding similar edits [[4]]. The policy of WEIGHT doesn't say we should include a minor recall just because the article isn't currently flooded with other recall information. The problem with the 2015 discussion is if we read it as Dennis is suggesting that the "test of weight" is MSN coverage. I think we can all agree that given the far broader scope of a manufacture page the needed weight for inclusion should be greater. After that the question becomes how do we judge. Springee (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

My answer to your question is that recalls of the Ford Focus should be "mentioned in articles when they have received widespread attention in the MSM. This does not include single MSM articles mentioning them as they are announced." What is the problem?

What "Dennis seems to be arguing" is right there for anyone to read. Maybe I should add that given the choice between options listed at WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM vs the blunt instrument of WP:CANTFIX, this and this were not absolutely necessary. Especially given the ugly edit war and astoundingly long, and bitter, discussions that followed. Meanwhile Rome burned, so to speak: Chrysler was and still is a really poor article. It failed to mention -- at all -- the 1979 bailout, a critical event in Chrysler's history, and American financial history as a whole. Totally left out! Meanwhile the article falsely claimed Chrysler faced bankruptcy in 1955. Oops. The spirit of policies like WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is to put your energy into building an encyclopedia by building articles, not triggering angry edit wars over. You put a roof on your house before fighting over where to put the coffee table. Imagine how much bloodshed would have been averted if you had replaced the recall that didn't quite meet the convention with any one of several Chrysler recalls that do pass that bar? Or just tagged it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. The Focus recalls were mentioned by several MSN sources and are rightly included in the Focus article. If an editor decided to add the recall information to the Ford Mo Co article would you support them? The rest of your comment is Chrysler specific and should be discussed there. Springee (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, why wouldn't I? Something about the Ford Focus recalls is bothering you and I can't read your mind. What's the problem? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging editors involved in 2015 discussion and those involved in the recent Chrysler discussion. @CZmarlin:, @Damotclese:, @Markbassett:, @Historianbuff:, @Arthur Rubin:, @Collect:, @Greglocock:, @CtrlXctrlV:, @OSX:, @Charles01:, @Trekphiler:, @Dennis Brown:

I think that maybe we ought to mention that the reason we are discussing this again is because a few editors are trying to turn the Chrysler entry into a quadriplegic. If the discussion seems weird and heated, it's because most of it is taking place on another plane entirely. And I don't reckon that the Focus recalls currently ought to be on the FoMoCo page. However, if there are noteworthy articles that suggest that the company is plagued with recalls to the point that it is seriously impacting their profitability or long-term survival, then such recalls should be included.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Too much stress for me, but thanks! I think I am better suited for adding content than deciding arguments...  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Citroën 2CV

Hi all, User:John has correctly taken a dislike to the sprawling and unkempt 2CV entry. However, he has decided to use a katyushka rather than pruning shears and I am struggling to restrain his deletionist enthusiasm while also adding sources. Would love a few additional eyes if there are any around. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

H6, F6 or flat six?

Is there a standard for which is used in articles (and info boxes) I've noticed H6 in some Porsche articles, and flat six in others. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox automobile engine credit for designer

Is there a reason there is a parameter for designer in the automobile version but none in the engine version? There have been famous automobile engines and I think their deservedly famous designers should be given credit in the infobox. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC).

Request for comments in the article “Diesel engine”

Hello. I have opened a request for comments in the article Diesel engine regarding the contribution of George Brayton to the development of this type of engines. I am posting this to invite editors who are knowledgeable on the history of internal combustion engines to contribute to the discussion. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

Requested move: Infiniti M to Infiniti Q70

FYI, Talk:Infiniti M#Requested move 24 August 2016. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Third-generation VW Touareg

Recently, an editor that I consider at large a disruptive (and acting in bad faith) one, Matvei Gromov (even if some of his edits can seem "neutral" in nature), has included info about a supposed third-generation Touareg. I may be wrong, but I understand it will be launched in 2017 or 2018 and will use the MLB platform, not the (really outdated) PL71. I also doubt it will be actually smaller than the previous generation, as the automotive industry tendency is exactly the opposite. It seems he copy-pasted the first generation specs. As no editor with knowledge on the marque seems to question it, I wonder if VW really launched the third-generation Touareg in any market. Someone can confirm this to me? I want to know how much is true on his claims before take any action. Also, the picture he uploaded and included didn't seem a "new generation" but the restyling at best (as a sidenote, I doubt he really took it...). --Urbanoc (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Until the third-generation is actually announced it should not be discussed at all. There is nothing encyclopaedic about reporting on rumour mills. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - I removed the unsourced info and requested all new info on that to come with a source from now on. As for the image, I highlight Dennis Bratland who discovered its origins, it was not a Matvei Gromov picture and it wasn't a "third-generation" Touareg either. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

CCOC, Crosley Cars Owners Club

The CCOC original club remains as a part of Service Motors, continuing yet today as a supplier of Crosley parts. The current internet CCOC has no relation to the original one, but continues as a marketing and communications outlet outside of the Crosley Automobile Club or Service Motors, Inc.

Fred Syrdal editor, CROSLEY Quarterly and national board member, Crosley Automobile Club, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.231.91 (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any sources to that cover this club, in any incarnation, at all. It looks like the club had a classified ad int he back of Popular Mechanics just about every month in the 1950s, and some other car publications mention them in upcoming events calendars. The article Powel Crosley, Jr. says nothing at all about any club, and the biography Crosley: Two Brothers and a Business Empire That Transformed the Nation never mentions any Crosley Automobile Club, Inc. or Crosley Cars Owners Club. So it Crosley Car Owners Club should probably be nominated for deletion. It seems like it could be redirected to Crosley or [Powel Crosley, Jr.]], but we don't have a single source to cite in support of that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crosley Car Owners Club. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"Advanced Technology Vehicle"

Would the U.S. car classification be the primary topic for Advanced Technology Vehicle ? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Propose: Add notoriety statement to Ford F-650 article for use in 1995 for Oklahoma City Bombing Suggestion

Propose: In the Ford F-650 article add: "Notoriety: A 1993 Ford F-700 was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing" The wording can be modified. The source and description is in the bombing article; the details don't have to be repeated in the Ford article.

Reason: The F-700 was used in the bombing, and I think is a notable fact to add to the Ford article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, more than an automobile catalog and includes notable uses, good and bad, of automobiles and other objects.

Background: User:Springee recommended discussing the addition in this project page. A gun article added a notoriety use, and in a discussion it was mentioned there was no statement in regarding the F-700 being used in the bombing, so I thought I would add the statement.

FYI, Additional sources:Denver Post, Michigan Law review Trial Stories, Terrorism and WMDs: Awareness and Response, Nine Principles of Litigation and Life CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability doesn't limit article content, as explained at the top of Wikipedia:Notability. Removing content because it's "not notable" has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The fact that it was an F-700 is undisputed, not a matter of opinion, so WP:UNDUE is irrelevant. The word "notoriety" has no sourcing, however. While it's a fact that the F-700 was used in the bombing, no sources say that the F-700 became well-known for its association with the bombing. This is in contrast to the Ryder truck rental brand, which did receive significant attention due to the use of Ryder trucks in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (a Ford Econoline van, also used in the 1973 Sterling Hall bombing) and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. See NYT 2001 for example. The phrase "Ryder truck" appears in almost every article you find on the Oklahoma bombing, while only a few add the detail that it was an F-700. Ryder played a role in the investigation of both bombings, particularly in the use of their rental records to identify the suspects. So I don't have a problem with stating the fact that the bombing used an F-700 truck, but it shouldn't say the F-700 truck is famous for that. It's an obscure fact, not a notorious one.

On the other hand, there are much stronger reasons for the article Ryder should give more mention to its connection to these two bombings. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose : Yes, the stories mention that the truck was an F700 but that doesn't mean that it's widely or even in limited terms associated with the bombing. This isn't even like the gun articles where often times the type of gun is vilified by anti-[gun type here] views in the media. This just happened to have been the type of truck that was rented. So on simply common sense terms, exclude. We can also talk about weight. A web search for "Ford F700" news articles yields 4720 hits. Add Oklahoma City to that search and you are left with just 87 and almost all seem to be about athletics. Yes, some articles mentioned the type of truck but, unlike the gun articles, none seem to be calling for bans or considerations regarding who has access to Ford medium duty trucks. Springee (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion should be added to the article talk page. Springee (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether anyone calls for a ban on something is a really arbitrary, ultra-specific criterion to introduce. If the sources mention the F700 in relation to the bombing, then we should mention it too, regardless of why. If we consider a source reliable, we should be guided by what the source does. If we don't respect a source's choice to put the bombing and the truck together, then we must not consider that source reliable. In this case, the sources don't frequently put the F700 and the bombing together. Why? Not for us to judge.

They do mention the brand Ryder in the majority of books and news articles about the two bombings, however. We should mention the bombings in relation to Ryder for that reason, without introducing our own personal judgements as to whether or not the source ought to mention that brand. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we can both agree that we don't see many sources linking the Ford truck to the bombing thus we have a weight issue. I think you raise an interesting issue mentioning RS when a thing (truck, gun etc) is mentioned by name in connection with a crime. Either way, it seems we both agree that there isn't sufficient weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not mischaracterize my words. Other editors are perfectly capable of reading what I said and understanding it for themselves, without you reinterpreting it to say the exact opposite of what I said.

You must have missed where I said above we don't have a weight issue. There is no fringe theory that the truck was a Chevy. WP:UNDUE deals with balancing different points of view, and giving space only to those with significant following and minimizing mention of those far out of the main stream. Since there is no "majority view" and no "minority view" about the F700 in the bombing, undue weight is irrelevant. Weight is a part of the Neutral point of view policy, which is also irrelevant. We have no need to be neutral between viewpoint A and viewpoint B.

You also missed the part above where I said "I don't have a problem with stating the fact that the bombing used an F-700 truck". The only thing I object to is the use of the word "notoriety". We should state the fact the truck was used in the bombing, without editorializing.

If you read a little more in the sources on the Oklahoma bombing, the fact that the truck's key was stamped with a code which could be used to find out which truck it came from figured prominently in the McVeigh trial. The key McVeigh dropped was used to corroborate witness testimony against McVeigh.[5][6]. So it isn't as if the characteristics of the truck had no bearing on events. The Ford's axle serial number was relevant as well. Had the truck been a Volvo or Isuzu, without these numbers stamped on the keys, events would have played out differently.

I would not exclude mention of the 1932 Ford V8 in the history of Bonnie and Clyde, nor exclude Clyde Barrow's preference to rob banks in a Ford V8, on the grounds that no group proposed banning these cars because of their use in these crimes. What a weird rule.

The only reason I can think of to expunge mention of these brands in articles about the brands/products is a strong desire to protect the image of the brand. We have no reason at all to do that. If we were protecting a low-profile living person from having their name tied to a crime, that would be entirely different. The Biographies of living persons policy does say we must avoid negative associations of living people without strong, compelling sources to justify that.

The BLP policy does not apply to the Ford F-700, or any other corporation or product. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland, I removed the word notoriety, (using strikethrough for a revision history), from the proposal. I understand your point the sources do not support the word "notoriety", the F-700 did not become bad-famous because of the bombing; and the criteria "notability" does not apply to article content. Thank you for your information, and education on Wikipedia writing.

User:Springee, My comments: The weight issue is irrelevant, as User:Dennis Bratland described above and per Neutral point of view. The F-700 being used in the bombing is a fact, irrelevant of how many search results are found. Not writing the fact I believe is censoring the fact, (much as I dislike fact). User:Dennis Bratland also noted the F-700 key code and axel serial # were important evidence in the trial. Thank you for your comments,CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis is misreading WP:WEIGHT. It applies even in cases when the facts or interpretations aren't in dispute. Yes, much of the section talks about cases where we have differing points of view. However, it also applies in cases where the information is of limited significants with respect to the topic. Thus we don't put something about Ford having a new plant in Kansas (an example I invented) in the Ford parent article. Anyway, of specific interest in WP:Weight (and the balance subsection):

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description...

"Aspects" means that even in cases where the facts aren't in dispute that doesn't mean the subject is of sufficient weight for inclusion. Furthermore, in the WP:BALANCE subsection of weight:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

Again it is noted that just because the facts aren't in dispute doesn't mean inclusion hence the web search results I mentioned. Springee (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we all agree that a Ford F-700 was used in the bombing. In the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing article it is perfectly appropriate to mention this fact because it is relevant to the bombing. However, it did not materially affect the design, marketing, sales or reputation of the F-700. So, according to WP:TRIVIA, mentioning the F-700's use in the bombing in the Ford F-650 article is just trivia and is not suitable. Similar to mentioning it's appearance in a movie.  Stepho  talk  01:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Stepho-wrs, I do not consider the F-700 use in the bombing trivia, nor that WP:Trivia applies, but that the use (bad use) of the F-700 in the bombing is important. It could be added the design, marketing, sales or reputation, due to the bombing were not affected, if it can be sourced, to the statement. But I consider the article more than just the F-700, its use in the world, the bombing is important too. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Springee, I think the statement has due weight. Try googling Ford F-700 Oklahoma city bombing and you will get more results. But I don't think the number of search results is a deciding criteria, it is the use of the F700 in the bombing. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The adjective "neutral" means not supporting either side. "Point of view" refers to an attitude, a belief system, an agenda. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view describes very clearly in the introduction that it is about points of view: how we treat "significant views". It goes on to say we don't describe facts as opinions, or opinions/contested views as facts, and use unbiased language. And, finally, we "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views", which is where undue weight comes in. But OK, some editors think that neutrality also requires focusing on "aspects" -- that the mere mention of a fact, even an undisputed one, is also a neutrality issue even on a non-BLP. Even when there is no significant point of view that asserts that the F-700 should not be spoken of in relation to the bombing. We don't even have anyone, not even Ford, only some editors, who say we shouldn't have it on this article.

We should respect that, that some editors think there is an undue weight issue. So we should write this: "A 1993 Ford F-700 was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing ." Too much of the article, proportionately, is about the bombing, and the tag notes we think that problem needs to be fixed.

At some future date, when the article has grown beyond a mere ~750 word stub and then covers all aspects of the F-650/F-700 comprehensively, it will be very likely that that one sentence, in relation to the much larger amount of content about everything else, will no longer seem disproportionate. Then the tag can be removed. If, even then, consensus says it is still disproportionate, or that one sentence is preventing the article from achieving Good Article status, then it could be deleted. If we are going to insist that every minor part of the Neutral point of view policy page must be followed to the letter, ignoring the overall gist of the policy and instead making sure that even that one paragraph on "aspects" is scrupulously obeyed, to the letter, on this stub article Ford F-650, then it's rather tendentious to fail to follow any other part of the NPOV policy.

Such as the admonition not to use "neutrality as an excuse to delete". Keeping the allegedly unduly weighted text is also consistent with the Editing policy: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research. Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary.".

It's very likely that if Ford F-650 were a GA or FA, it would make at least a passing mention of this fact, and the policy says we should keep it. I'm certain an FA version of this article would give details about the key codes and axle serial number evidence. This is how we build an encyclopedia: one piece at a time. If somebody deletes every addition because it's not perfect, we will never get anywhere. If we must be this strict about policy, then so be it. Do what policy says. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Dennis, weight applies here and says we should not include facts etc that are not significant to the topic even if they are significant in there own right. Please show us an a couple of articles about the truck that focus or even mention the bombing. If such articles exist that would suggest that people, outside of Wikipedia, who write about this subject (the truck, not the bombing) find this to be an important detail. Springee (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland, User:Springee.

1. I think the weight exists, and the statement proposed is significant to include in this article. Articles "about the truck" mentioning the bombing are irrelevant as an inclusion criteria in an encyclopedia, the news articles and books that exist are adequate.

2. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines are subjective general principles, not specific defined measurable criteria. We have different opinions on the principle's meanings. I do not read any policy excluding the statement.

3.I believe we wait for other editors opinions.

4. Article aside, thanks to both of you for your explanations and viewpoints on Wikipedia.CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The phony requirement for "articles about the truck that focus or even mention the bombing" is a paraphrase of the general notability guideline. That would be the criteria to write a separate article about the truck's role in the bombing. That is not the minimum standard for including a sentence in an article. Once again, we're right back to the erroneous edit summary. Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Is that really an argument you want to hang your hat on? I apologize that my common vernacular use of the term notable was not actually the same as WP:NOTE and seems to have caused you confusion. I guess I should have said "WP:weight" since the issue is insufficient weight to justify mention of the crime on the article page of the vehicle. I would also note... err... mention that it's best to stick with the arguments here. You quoted a sound argument I've made here and tried to discredit it with a quick edit note. Why not explain why WP:weight doesn't apply in this case? You are trying to claim that the bombing is relevant to the topic of the truck (vs the other way around). OK, well since we should follow reliable sources, find a reliable source about the truck that mentions the bombing. If not, please accept that there just isn't sufficient weight for inclusion. What's next, should we add the Columbine school shooting to the BMW 320 page? Also, please do not restore the disputed content when there is clearly an on going discussion about the material AND consensus does not support inclusion at this point. Springee (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:STONEWALL. No version will ever meet all your spurious criteria, nor have 100% consensus. You are preventing forward progress and violating editing policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And see WP:BRD. We were in the discussion phase so why did you jump the gun to the adding phase? Springee (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Weight aside, why add the material to an article about a series of trucks introduced in 2000? The bombing occurred in 1995 and the truck in question was a Ford F-700. The older F-700 doesn't seem to have a page but the best link is probably the B-series page Ford_B-Series which covers the medium duty Ford trucks through 1998 or on this page (which is in poor shape) [[7]] Springee (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If you thought it belonged on that article, why didn't you move it there, instead of delete it? This is item #2 under WP:STONEWALL: "Bad-faith negotiating – Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised."--Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the accusations of bad faith. To be 100% honest, I hadn't initially noticed that the article under current discussion relates only to the MY2000 and later medium duty trucks. I think we can all agree that the arguments for and against inclusion would apply just as aptly to the older article as here. Either the content has weight for inclusion in the correct Ford truck article or it doesn't. Perhaps the bad faith accusation would have merit had I not suggested the correct subject article at all or if I had noticed sooner (note that others also didn't notice this error). Springee (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I knew it. You weren't going to accept it on any article. Exactly the bad faith I was talking about. Tomorrow you'll make up five new hoops you hve to jump through before you can so much as mention this bad thing that happened on an article about Ford. Please stop what you're doing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, until earlier this evening I, like apparently everyone in this discussion, mistakenly assumed the F-650/F-750 article was the correct target article. I, like you and the rest, put forth a number of reasons for/against inclusion. Anyone of us COULD have noticed that the article only covered MY2000 and later trucks but we didn't. So now I have noticed that it was added to the wrong article. OK. So how is that bad faith? How does it change any of our arguments to realize the material should be in some other Ford truck article? It would only be bad faith on my part if consensus was for inclusion and I deliberately used this to prevent inclusion in the appropriate article. I don't see how that could happen in this case. Springee (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Springee When I searched Wikipedia for Ford F-700, the search result directed me to the Ford F-650 article, which is the reason I thought the proposed statement belonged in the F-650 article per: top of article"...Redirected from Ford F-700)"CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Totally understandable. Please don't take my comment as a criticism. That said, while F-700 redirects here, it is also clear that this article is about the 2000 and later trucks developed in collaboration with Navistar. The truck used in the bombing was a 1993 model not covered in this article. Springee (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Springee re:"find a reliable source about the truck that mentions the bombing." Again, this is an irrelevant argument, the news articles and books are adequate for the statement.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this is relevant. To include in the article the material must have WP:Weight with respect to the article in question. We can use external coverage of the subject (ie articles about the truck that also mention the bombing) to establish that weight. As Andy rightly pointed out, notoriety is not commutative. The volume of "F-700" coverage in the bombing articles pales in comparison to the total volume of F-700 coverage in all sources (hence very limited weight overall) and so far we have no sources about the truck that feature the bombing (indicating that external sources don't find the use of the truck in that case to be relevant when discussing the truck itself). Springee (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think, not commutative is invalid and irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Volume of "F-700" articles is invalid and irrelevant. I think these are false invalid arguments and work against building an encyclopedia.CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Springee re: "What's next, should we add the Columbine school shooting to the BMW 320 page?" This is an irrelevant argument, a slippery slope argument.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I used it as an example to illustrate the problem with inclusion. I found a number of articles talking about the Columbine murder's BMW yet no mention on the BMW 3-series pages. This certainly suggests that such notoriety isn't always commutative. (Editing note: I replied to you as 3 entries to preserve your nesting. Please feel free to group my replies if you think that is easier to read) Springee (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The "Notoriety" word was removed from the proposal. I think the slippery slope argument is invalid and irrelevant. Commmutative is invalid and irrelevant. The Wikipedia Columbine page does not mention the BMW, but if someone thinks it important to add I do not oppose the add and the add in the BMW page. I think the BMW was peripheral to the Columbine crime, the Ford truck was a main instrument in the bombing. The BMW does seem to be notorious now to car collectors. Also because facts do not exist in an article is invalid and irrelevant as justification to excluding facts in other articles, in an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a work in progress.

User:Springee, again thanks for your viewpoints.CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

CuriousMind01, you're welcome and thank you for your courteous replies even in disagreement. Springee (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Did the use in the bombing affect the design of the truck?
• Did the use in the bombing affect the design of the truck's successor?
• Did the use in the bombing affect the sales of the truck?
• Did the use in the bombing affect the marketing of the truck?

• Did the use in the bombing affect the reputation of the truck?

• Did the use in the bombing affect the way the truck was used afterwards?

• Was this an intended use of the truck? Actually it was, if the use is counted as transferring a load to somewhere. The load wasn't a good thing but that's part of the bombing article, not the truck article.
• Was the truck especially suited to the task (of transferring a load) compared to other trucks in that class?
• Could he have accomplished his task with a similar size truck from another brand?
• Was there any particular statement being made by the bomber in using that particular model of truck?

So, I see a truck, that could have been replaced by any other truck, being used as ... a truck! The use in the bombing was not affected by any particular aspect of the truck and did not affect the design, sales, marketing or reputation of the truck. I fail to see why this could be considered important to the truck article.  Stepho  talk  07:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Stepho-wrs. Wikipedia is more than a car catalog, WP includes uses, the fact the F-700 was used in the bombing I think makes the the fact important to state.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This sort of notoriety is not commutative. The choice of truck had no influence on the bombing. Any generic truck would have done. Nor did the bombing affect the truck afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact the F-700 was used in the bombing I think makes the the fact important to state. The word "notoriety" was removed from the proposal.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Why? Outside a truck-length radius, absolutely nothing in the world would have changed if he'd used a Chevy. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley, "nothing in the world would have changed" is irrelevant to the fact. If a Chevy truck had been used then the encyclopedia statement would be "A Chevy xyz" truck was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing" in the Chevy Truck xyz article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Andy, what about the use of unique codes stamped on the keys? Other makes -- Volvo, Isuzu? -- avoid this potential security risk. You can cut a working key if you know the number. But when they found the dropped key, it helped prove the case against the bomber. Similarly, the practice of stamping serial numbers on the axle helped catch the bomber. Are you saying you know that every possible truck had exactly these same unique codes stamped on the key and the parts in this way? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland, Your explanatory note above,seems like good additional information to add to the article text.

• Support: It seems like when the use of a commercial object in a famous bombing is mentioned by name in many reliable sources that's an indication that it deserves mention. Otherwise how do we decide what to put into the article? If we ranked the most noted things about this vehicle, excluding enthusiast publications, this bombing is undoubtedly among the most reported aspects. Felsic2 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Felsic2, the truck was a 1993 truck. The first sentence of the article clearly states the scope of the article is the MY2000 and later trucks. Please explain how a 1993 truck falls into the scope of that article. Springee (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Similar addition of material to the Chevy Caprice article

A similar addition of a car used in a crime was added to the Chevy Caprice article as a new section [[8]]. It appears that we have to address the question of when such material constitutes due weight. For the record I oppose the material on the Caprice article. Springee (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree the text added belongs in Wikipedia, WP is more than a car catalog, and with WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTCENSORED and the text is not Trivia and has due weight, especially in an encyclopedia.18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)CuriousMind01 (talk)

Preserve says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. ". In this case the problem is not how the material is presented but should it exist in that article at all (ie WEIGHT). I don't see how it can be fixed so removal is the correct option. Notcensored doesn't help either. Remember the information does exist on Wikipedia. Notcensored also says the material will be removed if "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies ". NPOV, ie WEIGHT is one of those policies. I think at this point we need to get more outside views on this subject. I mean consider that the F-700 discussion is currently 3:3 for:against. That means no consensus for addition which WP:ONUS says means we don't make the change. Dennis's accusations of bad faith towards me make it hard to have a discussion on the mater. Springee (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Springee, I have opposite opinions and opposite interpretations than you, the weight exists, is valuable, removing the text from this article is censoring the article, the text is within WP Policies.CuriousMind01 (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-inclusion is not censorship. There could be any number of legitimate reasons why something is not included in a particular article. Also, if the vehicles used are mentioned in the articles for the events, but not the vehicle articles, they're not censored because the info is still available. Be careful throwing WP:NOTCENSORED around in inclusion/exclusion arguments. --Vossanova ^o< 17:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Vossanova. I am careful. The info may exists in other articles, but if the info is being excluded from an article for not a legitimate reason in an article, ex: a single person's opinion, I can consider the exclusion censorship in an article. We may have different opinions. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is just an opinion that the reason is not legitimate. Please note that we aren't dealing with one person objecting. The current majority of people who have weighted I'm don't support your opinion on the subject. Springee (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Springee, Whatever the final majority supports, I accept. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

CuriousMind, you said "the info is being excluded from an article for not a legitimate reason". From my viewpoint, I could equally say that you are trying to include info for a not legitimate reason. Instead of saying "not legitimate reason" both sides should be saying "for reasons that I don't agree with". Then we can have an intelligent discussion about why our reasons differ.  Stepho  talk  01:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Stepho-wrs, good point thanks for the advice.

• Dennis, the outcome of the RfC below is ~20:5 against inclusion yet you just restored the material to the articles. <redacted> The closure request really shouldn't be needed in this case. As you said, closers are only needed when the results aren't clear or are in dispute. Do you think the results below are in dispute? If so please say why rather than reverting the removal of the information, a removal that seems clearly against the group consensus. Springee (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the above paragraph which was mistakenly refactored. Springee (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Springee's relevant, accurate comment restored. Please discuss before removing. Unless there is consensus at WP:ANI for removal of the comment, it should stay. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)