Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

Manufacturer use in Infobox Automobile

I just started a discussion in Template:Infobox automobile about the use of the Manufacturer field. It's currently used inconsistently, so we should come to a conclusion on how it should be used. I see this has come up several times over the years, and things have been changed, but we still seem to have a consistency problem.

I think it should be the brand and parent company. Some articles do like so: "Brand (Parent company)." For example, Mini Clubman currently lists Mini (BMW) as the Manufacturer.

Any other thoughts? Please share them at Template_talk:Infobox_automobile#Manufacturer_use. -- heat_fan1 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Fisker

Recently, Fisker Automotive was moved to Fisker Inc. but these are two separate companies. Henrik Fisker left FA before it died, and its assets were bought out by Wanxiang to create Karma Automotive. So this seems to be conflating two companies together due to having the same founder. Yet Fisker Coachbuild also has the same founder, and was not conflated into this new article. Further, development of the Fisker Karma continued (as the VLF Destino) at yet another company involving Henrik Fisker, VLF Automotive, which is also not part of this "merged" article. This seems misleading, since the two companies are unrelated.

Shouldn't "Fisker Inc." be returned to "Fisker Automotive" (where the edit history is mostly about that) and "Fisker Inc." be split off into a new article instead? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. Fisker Inc. is the new company, Fisker Automotive is the defunct company and Karma Automotive is the successor to Fisker Automotive. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Chevrolet Bolt as a Crossover

It was suggested that I come here for help resolving a question of classification of the Chevrolet Bolt. The Bolt website states: "This crossover does not compromise." [1] Scroll down, select "Cargo" tab. The Bolt order guide is listed under the "Chevrolet Truck" section as a "5-Door Crossover." [2] Select "Bolt EV" from dropdown at top right. The Kia Soul is classified by Wikipedia as a Subcompact crossover. I believe the Kia Soul and Chevrolet Bolt should be classified the same way. The two are nearly identical in exterior dimensions[3] and both are front wheel drive, tall wagons. Their respective manufacturers refer to them as crossovers. What's the consensus? Please participate at Talk:Chevrolet Bolt and/or discuss here as appropriate. Many thanks. Freeinfo (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The way vehicles are categorized is highly arbitrary, and should not be taken this seriously. Can a car be a truck, an SUV, a crossover and a station wagon? Absolutely. Rather than trying to find the correct category for any car, of which there is none, we should be treating classification as an arbitrary construct.

Beyond that, we can classify vehicles in two distinct ways: one, based on the physical dimensions and construction, and two, how the vehicle is marketed. Much confusion disappears when you treat these two things as distinct. A third classification is legal class, which varies greatly by country, and breaks down further by tax, emissions, fuel economy, safety, drivers qualification, and insurance classes. It's a quagmire, and Wikipedia is not qualified as the authority to sort it out. But we can make sure readers are aware it is a quagmire. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bolt has a height of 1,595mm, which is too much for a hatchback. It seems like a mini MPV. --167.58.181.5 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Stutz Bearcat

Can someone take a look at the Stutz Bearcat article? When I am not logged in, the text shows several times $Error when using {{Inflation}}: NaN, check parameters for non-numeric data: |end_year={{{4}}} (parameter 4) and |r={{{r}}}. in 2015[1]). When I am logged in, it looks normal. Strange. --Don Minestrone (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried both logged in and logged out with no obvious problems. Possibly it was displaying a old cached version that has since been refreshed.  Stepho  talk  03:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
There was a bug which has been fixed since. See history of {{Inflation}}. Od1n (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ford Fairlane year commons category

I recently tried to standardize all the year commons categories for Ford Fairlanes, but an administrator rejected the cat move tags. Does anybody else want to explain the standards to this person? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

List of automobile manufacturers

I'm not around as much as I would like, but this is a bit of a mess, too many red links. I think we need to change to only including names that already have articles here on Wikipedia, which would exclude all red links. Red links are useful in articles to show where we need to create a new article, but no so much in lists, where they tend to just attracts spam (mainly in computer and biotech lists) or just lots of links that are unsourcable, like this one. Wanted to drop off and get input about changing that article. I think it would be better to discuss here rather than at that one list, more eyes. I will put a pointer to this discussion on the list. In short, I support changing the criteria for this list (and other auto related lists) to include only entries that have articles on wikipedia, as the red links aren't helpful in lists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox automobile

When was doors field added to this template? and is it really needed? because it should read in body-style field ? -->Typ932 T·C 18:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the doors field is redundant. Much better to simply use the body-style field. And how would we list it for a car that had a 2-door hardtop, 4-door sedan, 3-door wagon and 5-door wagon. We could list that as |body-style=hardtop, sedan, wagon and |doors=2,3,4,5 but how woudl we know which doors go with which body. We could list it as |body-style=hardtop, sedan, wagon and |doors=2-door hardtop, 4-door sedan, 3-door wagon, 5-door wagon but that's double the effort and no gain.  Stepho  talk  21:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Spam or not spam? grandprixhistory.org

Is grandprixhistory.org a legitimate source, or spam? The articles there appear to be original, so it's not a obvious scraper site. This seems to indicate it's a pay-to-play kind of operation, where someone commissions articles to their benefit? "If you are interested in having an article written, wish to use one of the existing articles or require research conducted on any topic having to do with the history of motorsports please do not hesitate to contact me at..." 99.25.36.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has added links to this site to 8 articles so far. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. An interesting site but mostly filled will random bits pulled together according to what interested him at the time. I'd treat it as an enthusiast's web blog that has many quotes (although he doesn't say where he got the quotes from).  Stepho  talk  03:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 46 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Karma Revero

BushelCandle (talk · contribs) is inserting unreferenced nonsense into Karma Revero claiming that the Fisker Karma is a Finnish designed car and the Karma Revero is a Chinese designed car. (Both cars were designed in California by the Danish designer Henrik Fisker, as is the VLF Destino, which also uses the same design) The Revero is built in California, while the Fisker Karma was built in Finland. Both Karma Automotive and Fisker Automotive are based out of California (ie. US companies). For Karma Automotive, owned by a Chinese company, it's the same as claiming all Chrysler cars are Italian-designed cars because Fiat is in Italy (or previously German, because Daimler is in Germany) Or that the Apple iPhone is Chinese because it is built in China. The design studio is in America, and the designer is neither Chinese or Finnish (Mr. Fisker being a Dane) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Vehicle security companies

Hello,

Can you help me edit a few of my recently edited articles to bring them up to wiki standards? And maybe the same for TG21 / Vodafone Automotive / Subaru and other vehicle manufacturers and vehicle security companies?

Kind regards INTRX009 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

At Subaru#Subaru in the United Kingdom, your edits were pretty good. I did a minor rewording. I also added a link to International Motors, as per WP:REDLINK - hopefully somebody will be tempted to make an article for it. I formatted the reference (see {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} for details) but that reference doesn't really say much except that Subaru UK likes a finance company called Subaru Finance, which is a trading style of International Motors Finance Limited. We need references about how it started in 1974 and the current relationship. All up, its a good first pass.  Stepho  talk  01:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about vehicles is updated - Skysmith (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Local customs

Is there an infobox for custom cars & movie cars? Red Baron & California Kid could both use one, & I'm (slowly...) working up a page on the Panthermobile that could, too. (Pix would be good for all, if anybody can find them...)

Second issue: any thoughts on pages for pioneering funny cars? I'm thinking of a couple of influential first-generation cars (which would be stubby pages, with the limited info I now have...), but they'd have gotten significant magazine coverage in their day, & have affected FCs as they now exist.

FYI: I'm online (very) intermittently these days, so my reply (if any) won't be soon... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The template {{Infobox automobile}} or {{Infobox motorcycle}} is used for one of a kind or small production like Dodge Tomahawk, Beatnik Bandit, Cadillac Sixteen. Is there a field missing from that infobox that you need? Adding a field is easier to maintain than a new infobox. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Help identifying a car

Unknown car
1925 Chevrolet Series K Tourer

Anyone know what kind of car this is? (All I can tell is that it's a Chevrolet.) Kaldari (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Tear off the USA front bumper along with its anachronistic wheels and does it look a bit like the second image? Eddaido (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It's Cuban. So those wheels might not be anachronistic, so much as a later retrofit. Fitting later wheels (and their drum brakes) wasn't unheard of, as brakes developed. Also I don't know what the life expectancy of wooden artillery wheels would be in the Cuban climate. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
To my mind it is astonishing that it looks so original. I was getting ready to try to identify individual items. There are detail differences which I guess will be because (I'm pretty sure) even early Australian Chevrolet bodies were entirely made by Holden but I'd have expected a major component like the windscreen to have been made in USA and yet they are different (the split in size of pane). Regards, 10:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Chevrolet seem to have split the windscreen at different heights by different years. See File:1923 Chevrolet Superior Series B, National Road Transport Hall of Fame, 2015.JPG for a similar one. Earlier and later than 1923 are both different.
Disc wheels came in the mid 1920s (1925?) and may have been an extra-strong option for cars on rougher roads. One of the French wheel makers made a business of this, selling alternative wheels. The wire wheels with prominent brake drums seem to be a 1930 arrival. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Does anyone have a view on adding hatnotes to unrelated cars that share a name, eg Lotus Excel and Hyundai Excel. Is there a need to place notes on the tops of such pages, listing all other models with the same name? Feel free to weigh in at Talk:Nissan Caravan.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The debate is about the necessity of the hat note. It comes down to whether there is sufficient confusion when searching for a car with a model named Caravan to warrant a hat note when the Caravan page clearly indicates all four different models and most people who were searching for the model would end up on that page. The application of rule hat note rule 3., which states Only mention other topics and articles if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind, is under discussion. The discussion is not about the editor. NealeFamily (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User making large unilateral changes to vehicle articles over short time period without discussion

Hi y'all, I've alerted admin NeilN at: User_talk:NeilN#Possible problem spanning multiple vehicle articles about some concerns with recent editing activity in vehicle articles as so:

Hi NeilN, would you (or another whose tact is backed by authority) please take a look at Reattacollector's recent, 11 February 2017, edit history? In a relatively short period of time they've unilaterally made multiple large excisions and converts of established pages to redirects without merging data to new targets and without offering either proposals or explanations on talkpages; all taking place within vehicle articles.

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

I've reverted one instance which affects something I'm working on [12] but sorting out the remaining situation (which may require reverting a single user multiple times across multiple articles) en masse seems like more than I'm pragmatically empowered to deal with.

Thanks for your time and consideration, --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to be sure to make folks here aware of the activity I've noted and offer y'all an opportunity to help sort things out. Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Articel about Morris FG is missing

Hello, maxbe you could take a look to this portal discussion? thanks! --Max schwalbe (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No one here is much interested in trucks. I did upload quite a number of pictures but then found no one at all (even on the internet with Google) seemed to know much about even the commonest trucks (or else far far too much — too scary to summarise and hope to be accurate — about an occasional individual model) and it seemed pointless to upload more. I say that with regret (that no one else has done anything in WP) but I would also point to this project's subject — which is after all automobiles. Eddaido (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with NADA update

Hi there, WikiProject Automobiles! On behalf of NADA, I am hoping to make some improvements to the National Automobile Dealers Association article, which is outdated and missing some key details. I've posted an edit request for a few small, straightforward updates, and am hoping an editor from this project may have a few minutes to take a look at this request. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Road & Track

Now that cars have become tall again their ability to stay upright surely must be much reduced. Its a factor of their track (I think) and so please may we have in infobox automobile a slot for track? I have just found whoever did the original Austin-Healey 3000 infobox (not me) has had it in there all these years but its never been displayed. Sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean track width or are you referring to Road and Track magazine? I would have nothing against adding track width just as we would add wheelbase. Springee (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I mean the distance between centres of pairs of wheels on opposite sides. I imagine the founders of the magazine saw the possibility of attracting attention by their choice of name too. Eddaido (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Austin 7

An IP with a Dubai location has just (very near) tripled the above article without providing so much as one source. What should be done? Eddaido (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The editor seems to have made an article for himself by cutting and pasting from a variety of internet sources and then pasting the lot here. Taking random sentences from the additions and doing a search using that text brings up a variety of sources but they all seem to have word for word matches. What with that and the numerous non-existant photographs leads me to cry foul and I would revert the lot. Malcolma (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Eddaido (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate articles?

Do Warm air intake and Heated air inlet cover the same subject? — Gorthian (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No Heated air inlet is a very common system to improve Winter cold starting. Warm air intake is an aberration to fool a primitive ECU (measuring volume air flow with a swinging flap meter) and thus lean out the mixture a little to give greater efficiency. It's sheer shade-tree mechanicing. The paper cited is about a rather different approach, that used around stratified charge engines to actually achieve this. Nor will "warm air" even begin to work for an ECU that use mass flow air measurement, such as a hot-wire meter. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Andy Dingley. I clearly know only enough about cars to drive one! — Gorthian (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Warm air intake is "esoteric", to put it mildly. And AfD material. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: (and anyone else from this project), could you give a quick look at Warm air intake (disambiguation) to see if I've extracted the correct descriptions from the articles? — Gorthian (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

GAZ-2332 CityVan

I know light vans tend to fall uncomfortably down a gaping crack between trucks and automobiles. Nevertheless, if anyone is minded to improve the entry on the GAZ-2332 CityVan ... please do it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Carsalesbase.com

There's a discussion of the source carsalesbase.com at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Carsalesbase.com. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Multi-function display

FYI, the MFD article at Multi-function display is up for deletion -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for segmentation practice

In some cases even quite old cars are categorised according to the car classification defined by the European Commission. I don't know when it was taken into use, but I am quite sure that production of Fiat 600 was ceased before the concept of A-segment was defined.

The segmentation has been established for contemporary marketing research and statistic purposes and I find it not applicable on such models which were not produced any more when this sort of categorisation was taken into use.

Therefore I suggest a such practice in car model articles that the models shall be categorised according to the prevelant classes of their production era. --Gwafton (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. Eddaido (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Rankings.

The ranking of Toyota and GM is being discussed at Talk:General_Motors#World.27s_largest_time_frame. Please add comments to that discussion, not here. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  22:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Nissan Leaf GA reassessment

Nissan Leaf, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Newly created Diesel emissions scandal

Someone created Diesel emissions scandal. However, the title looks biased and may need change. Also, the article lists examples of "scandals" involving car companies, like Volkswagen. More improvement is needed. --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd call it a POV fork of defeat device. Some of these cases are resolved with no admission if wrongdoing, or the EPA's case loses in court. The 1990s Cadillac case was not considered scandalous by the car's buyers, nor by the 1990s commercial hauler buyers. I have no problem calling certain cases "scandals" or "cheating" when there is strong consensus among reliable sources. But we can't apply that word to every case. I'd merge into Defeat device. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ânes-pur-sang: Since you created the article, what do you think of the suggestion? --George Ho (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC); re-pinging Ânes-pur-sàng due to IE's AutoCorrect system. 22:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Out of gasser

Maybe somebody can help? I tried posting a table to gasser, & ended up with the table at the bottom of the page. (Huh?) Can somebody have a look at the page history & see if they can find my mistake? I've got at least two more tables I hoped to post there... Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done The table needed to end with |} on it's own line.  Stepho  talk  12:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Car

Please see Talk:Car#RfC about including the word 'automobile' in the first sentence of the lead paragraph Yngvadottir (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hot shrinking

Hot shrinking is newly created and needs help to expand....and become cool! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Riley RM#The Riley RM series 1945-57 Facebook page

An ip has just added new sections to this article: The Riley RM Facebook page and about it and Riley clubs and about them and the names of books about the Riley cars (not as citations). Is this information desirable / acceptable content? Eddaido (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It is definitely not. The purpose of the added "information" was clearly advertisement. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:LINKFARM covers why those links should not be there. The purpose of external links is to support what the article says, not as a catalogue of possible places to look.  Stepho  talk  10:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Are cars built or born?

So i keep seeing this change in tables over the years and it leaves me scratching my head each time. Was it correct before the change? Or are cars referred to as "born" in this situation? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Cars are manufactured items, not organic creatures. So "born" is definitely wrong.  Stepho  talk  10:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Great, i'll change it back (For the 10,000th time...). Thanks Stepho ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 46/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Automobiles, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed move

It has been proposed that Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile be moved to FIA. Interested editors are invited to participate in the move discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: The discussion was closed as "no consensus". DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Engine cooling systems vs Category:Automotive cooling systems

Category:Engine cooling systems and Category:Automotive cooling systems were kind of muddled so I resorted them. Automotive cooling systems could be renamed Automotive HVAC systems for greater clarity. Engine cooling systems could refer to rocket engine cooling too, and could be renamed to specify automotive type applications only. Locomotive engines or aircraft internal combustion engines are much like automotive engines, so you might want to group some of these topics. Or just not think about it too much. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Supercars.net

Is Supercars.net an accepted source? This is their self confidence level:

"SUPERCARS.NET DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Supercars.net and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk." Eddaido (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I would not say that there is anything special about their disclaimer. You will find something like that ony any website due to legal regulatories. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It might be reliable, but the question is, reliable for what? It appears to be a blog where one or more people comment on things they found on the internet. I don't see any evidence of reporting, such as traveling to a place, or contacting a subject for an interviews. They post links to YouTube videos made by others, but they don't appear to test any cars themselves. Are the blog posts subject to fact checking or editorial oversight? No evidence of that. Do they ever post corrections? Do they name their sources or show their work? I don't see evidence of that. So in the end you could cite the site only for opinions and analysis, or WP:RSOPINION. If the authors are respected and have been around a long time, then you could argue they are recognized experts. But they aren't producing original research or practicing what we normally think of as journalism. If I were to cite a post in an article, I would not just footnote it, but attribute it by name, WP:INTEXT, e.g. "Richard Owen of Supercars.net said that this was one of the most famous cars of..."

If I'm just myopic and someone finds evidence that the site does check off the boxes given above, then that would be reason to call it a reliable source in a more general sense, not limited to opinions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

They say they have published Supercars since 1996 which I suppose earns credit but they do ask for submissions and as Dennis points out there's no evidence of fact checking. I know we require the date of access when citing online sources so backtracking could be done but am I old-fashioned to be wary of unverified internet publications? If you use Google books at least you will find hard copy somewhere - almost certainly and the same with other archival sources from works like magazines first published in print. It seems to me to be far more courageous to write and publish a book (on which you might be pinned down and cross-examined) in the hope that it sells and is respected than to give something away free. And also why should the blogger's opinion be respected more than that of any WP editor? Eddaido (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Richard Owen was apparently a chief designer at Jaguar, and has a design firm. He is cited at Jaguar XJ220 but the footnote doesn't mention the COI. Owen is probably a recognized expert acceptable within the bounds of WP:SELFSOURCE, but the other contributors at supercars.net, I don't know. The other founder Daniel Guillamot [14] doesn't seem to have any particular expertise in the automotive industry. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it the very same Richard Owen? At the foot of the article linked from WP Jaguar XJ220 to Supercars as a reference he seems to describe himself thus. "ABOUT THE AUTHOR THE CAR NUT My first appreciation of cars came when my first boss took me for a drive in an old air-cooled Porsche 911. I don't remember what model year it was, but I do remember I became addicted to all things automotive from that day onwards. I’m an enthusiastic car nut who geeks out over tuned supercars, obscure classic race cars, automotive memorabilia and just about anything else car related." If he was chief designer for the unmodified car (he describes the standard headlights as "clunky" - unexpected comment from the chief designer) he would surely have said so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddaido (talk • contribs) 00:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The designer's headlights are always more elegant than on the car that they produce. The executives will insist on replacing the special shape with off the shelf reflectors and lenses, or regulators will have certain requirements that mess up the lines of the car. He's probably just saying the "director's cut" is better.

Regardless of who he is, the thing about a reliable source is that it speaks for itself when readers see it. We shouldn't have to talk anyone into trusting it. Any source that raises questions every time it is cited is usually more trouble than it's worth. The footnotes are supposed to inspire confidence, not doubt. What fact are we trying to cite here? Why not just replace supercars.net with some other source? Given their lack of original research, it seems likely that any fact that is found only on this site, not published elsewhere, is untrustworthy. And it it is published elsewhere, cite the other source instead, so we don't have to fret over it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • A WHOIS shows they keep their contacts private. The domain was registered in July of 1997, but I have no idea if it has changed hands since then. Looking around at little things doesn't really give me that WP:RS vibe. Essentially, I would agree with Mr. Bratland, that quoting as opinion would be marginally acceptable but they don't appear to truly vet their information and this isn't really journalism in the technical sense. More of an aggregate of information from other websites with some experienced opinion thrown in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw that someone added owner's manual links to Lincoln Town Car and Lincoln Continental. Are these acceptable? --Vossanova o< 13:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

As long as the manual is provided in the external link (as a PDF for instance), I would say that owner's manuals are even citable sources since their purpose is providing information on the vehicle they belong to. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I would say they are not. The problem is that unless it is the car manufacturer themselves publishing the manual, then it is copyright infringement. We can't link to others who publish information they don't own. If the site is the manufacturer, then it is fine, otherwise no. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Usually manuals are printed book(lets) and citing them would hardly be copyright infringement. On the other hand, how could we ensure whether the provided information in an external link is a copyright infringement or not? Are we supposed to check this? What if the site is allowed to provide the original owner's manuals? If the external link links to an obviously illegal site, I agree that we should not provide it. But usually the manufacturers provide their own manuals, and, as you said, linking to them is fine. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
If we aren't sure about the ownership, we don't link. Copyright policy is very strict here, likely as strict or stricter than BLP policy. But yes, if you want to link to chevrolet.com to a manual for a chevrolet, that is fine, but no where else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Mini (marque)

An apparently inexperienced User:Githek has swapped Infobox brand for an infobox company - this is not a company. Or is it? The same editor made many other changes in the contents of the infobox. I've never had any interest in the article knowing nothing about the product. I just thought there might be other lurkers prepared to disagree with Githek. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You know, readers can't see the infobox's name. They only see the fields displayed. It matters a lot less which infobox is used, than the lack of fields in the options: key_people and previous_owners would be useful in both infoboxes. I'd focus on making sure all the most relevant information is in the infobox, adding fields to these templates as necessary, and not worry about the company vs brand question. Mini is a word that triggers a lot of emotion from some, so seek compromise. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for these comments. I plan to do no more than I have done - bring it to the attention of anyone interested. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

User removing General Motors from articles

Lepo1862 has just been on an editing spree and removed General Motors from a whole slew of Opel articles - around 40 or so.

This isn't my area of expertise (if indeed any area is,) but is this correct behaviour - there are no edit summaries to accompany the removal.

I've not discussed it with Lepo1862 either yet, but as I've tagged him here he should be made aware of the topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

First, GM is no longer the owner of Opel. Second, Opel is the manufacturer (See VIN-numbers of Astra, Zafira and Co.). I haven´t seen Skoda, Seat, Audi,... articles saying "Skoda Auto (Volkswagen)" or "Audi (Volkswagen)".--Lepo1862 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably prompted by the recent agreement to sell subsidiaries to PSA; see report here. Eagleash (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Operating costs for electric cars?

The What Wikipeida is not policy says under WP:NOTSALES "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention... Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products". We aren't supposed to always give readers the kind of information you'd find in Consumer Reports or What Car?, "like model 1 costs $$$$ and model 2 costs $$$, but model 1 has xyz features." We routinely quote fuel economy, but not costs per mile. It's one thing to quote a reviewer who justifies why a given price is extraordinary and worth highlighting, but it's something else to give comprehensive dollar values broken down by model and trim level, locality, usage, etc.

At Tesla Model S and Nissan Leaf, we have detailed tables of each model year, each battery option, city, highway and combined energy consumption, and quotes of dollar costs per mile and annually. Not every electric car article has this, but Tesla Model 3, Tesla Roadster, Tesla Model X, BMW i3, and Chevrolet Bolt all quote dollar values for operating costs, based on some number assigned for the price of electricity and gasoline. These street prices are mostly US-centric (naturally...) and only refer to a particular year.

Obviously prospective electric car buyers are eager to know whether they will save money or not compared to a gasoline car. But that is why price comparison and shopping guides exist. Wikipedia is not a price comparison or shopping guide. Given that we don't have tables of operating costs for petroleum vehicles, you can't actually compare the electric car costs to anything. And you can't convert the US dollar prices to Euros or other currency to see what you would pay in other countries, because the price of electricity and fuel is drastically different, due to different taxes, subsidies, supply and demand balances, etc. This is why that kind of detail is unencyclopedic: we have no hope of giving an objective and comprehensive assessment for each model of car.

It makes sense that broader articles about electric vehicles in general would discuss the economics of the cars, particularly tracking the changing costs of operation and ownership over time as technology and supply changes, because that's not a shopping guide. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree on that. In my opinion, the fuel price has a big impact on the cars people actually purchase. In the US, where fuel is incredibly cheap, around 5-6 times cheaper than in Austria, nobody needs cars with Diesel engines. But over here cars with Otto engines that run on petrol are VERY expensive to fuel. If you really need a car, you would always choose a Diesel vehicle since they don't need so much fuel. Uncommon in the US. In the city I live the busses on the other hand have Otto engines that run on actual gas, not on petrol. Again, I guess that's also very uncommon. The tax paid on cars depends on the engine power output, while in Germany, it depends on the engine capacity. Since electric vehicles don't have engine capacity, there is no tax for them in Germany. This means we can neither compare electric vehicle prices nor internal combustion engine vehicle prices in any way. Operating cost for cars in general does not belong into any Wikipedia articles. There are exceptions, for instance in articles on historic vehicles. But those are just a few exceptions. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Generally agree, but I think we can still publish some metrics, like range, miles per kW, similar to gas. I just don't want us provide less information than for gas. If we have to err, I would rather err on providing more info than less, simply because the technology is still new and the reader is likely interested in these metrics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
With the Tesla article it seems we can keep the encyclopaedic information and simply delete the rows/columns (i count three total in 2 tables) which list the prices. That'll solve everything right? I agree completely that Wikipedia isn't a price comparison site. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Mini Metro (video game)

See discussion about the notability of the car. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

COI requests

Hello. There are several requests by editors with a conflict of interest over at Talk:Carvana that could use a review. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_46&oldid=1257898249"