Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Example article

I say the Ford Taurus article should be the example article of the project, as it was a featured article candidate and is already listed as a good article. Anyone have any other suggestions? --ApolloBoy 05:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I Agree that's a good one, though I would like those engine spec tables moved to one section. I did this in the Lincoln Town Car article and I think it really worked well. (FYI: I also nominate the Lincoln Town Car article- I know self-nomination ;-)) Signaturebrendel 06:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know when it was given GA status or how many edits have been done since then, but it needs (i) a thorough copyedit to fix the basic spelling/grammar errors, and (ii) someone to make the article 'flow' properly - right now it reads like a typical WP page, i.e. written by ten different people who didn't consult each other.
  • Opening paragraph...
"This model was a bold new step in American automobile design..." This whole paragraph looks tacked on, is full of POV, and needlessly refers to two other automobiles. If it should be in the article at all, it should be in a 'Design' section, not in the opening.
"During that period, the Ford F-150 remained the country's best-selling vehicle, leading sales along with several other vehicles not classified as 'cars'" reads like it has been tacked on by an F-series fan. Just rewrite the last line before this to specify that the Taurus was the best selling passenger car.
  • First generation
"The Taurus and Sable siblings used flush aerodynamic composite headlights...etc etc" Again, what's with the Audi 5000 infatuation? That's two Wikilinks to it in the first five paragraphs. And putting a blurb about headlights above all the details on the different engines?
  • First generation SHO
"It is said that the reason why the SHO was created was..." isn't cited. Avoid weasel words.
There looks to be the remnants of an edit war with a Toronado fan at the bottom of that paragraph. Either the Toronado was faster, in which case ditch the SHO's claim, or the SHO was faster, in which case ditch the Toronado owners' whines.
  • Future
"Retail Taurus sales had slumped significantly..." Incorrect use of the <ref> tag needs repaired.
  • Popular Culture and Famous Owners
There's an awful lot of duplication here, mostly of irrelevant info. So Rachel Dawes drives a 1992 Taurus in Batman Begins? Who cares? Unless it has a specific contribution to the movie plot, it's just a car - she had to drive something. These two sections should be combined into one, and pruned mercilessly.
  • Categories
Cult car?? (note: I'd just like to say that I think that entire category is a CfD candidate, if you ask me...)
  • External links
A Ford Taurus tribute video gets precedence above the official site? And there's a "Ford Taurus quiz" link?? See WP:EL, please.
  • WP:MOS#Pictures is pretty clear about not sandwiching a slim column of text between two images. Since there's so many infoboxes, the various left-justified pictures are interfering with the article more than contributing to it. I'd recommend a gallery at the end, or just ditching the extra images entirely.
  • Anything else I may have missed
The above list is not exhaustive, so don't just fix the above and think you're done.
Overall, I'd say this is a bad choice as an example article. Aside from the basic quality issues, there's the fact that an article as popular as this is going to be difficult to keep in a stable condition. Find out which version of the article was actually given GA status, and compare it with what we have now. I'm going to guess that things are getting worse, not better.
Finally, User:Bravada's only recently had the Talbot Tagora article promoted to FA status, and it's much less likely to become the subject of questionable editing. Why not use that or one of the other FA vehicle pages instead?
Regards, the always pernickity --DeLarge 08:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
DeLarge was quicker than I - and he is right! DeLarge, how about moving your review to the Taurus talk page or FA nomination page so that other editors could take advantage of it?
I agree it would be good to have an example article, and the Taurus would be a very good choice for this role, as it is a mainstream car spanning over multiple generations, so the article would give examples how to deal with most issues found in car articles. Nevertheless, I believe that the example article should be absolutely flawless and follow all WikiProject guidelines and standards. I find the Ford Taurus article still lacking in those areas - by flawless I mean actually "on FA level", and it clearly isn't there yet, given that the nomination will most likely fail for good reasons listed by reviewers. Please also note that it is NOT a GA, it has only been nominated for GA (and with vague criteria of GA promotion I am beginning to lose faith in this status anyway).
So, I believe what we should do is get together and further improve the article - it's getting closer every day, there is much less work to be done to make it worthy of being an FA than it was. A good copyedit with emphasis on style, cleansing the article of irrelevant info/POV and finally completing references would take us there. I think this could be a good start for a Collaboration of the Week/Fortnight/Whatever You Want - other projects have it and it turns out to be very productive.
As concerns Lincoln Town Car, the article is quite peculiar, especially the Trim Levels section, so its goodness notwithstanding, I think it would not be a good example article. Bravada, talk - 08:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. Please do not credit me with FA'ing the Tagora, it was a collective effort, also involving my dear colleague DeLarge :D I of course like the article very much, but I guess it was in some ways easier to advance to FA because a few issues do not pertain to it - therefore, it could not serve as an example for other auto articles. Other automotive FA's are also quite peculiar, and therefore I'd say there isn't a good example as of now - and enhancing the Taurus to be one is therefore a very good idea.

My informal peer review of the Ford Taurus article has been copy/pasted to its discussion page as per User:Bravada's suggestion. --DeLarge 09:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to a two-month-old database dump, the following articles are/were GA/FA. Perhaps one of them would be preferable instead?
--Interiot 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps we could simply list all these under "example article" as WikiProject Computer and video games does? (Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Featured articles has been created in case this is agreeable) --Interiot 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the template, Interiot! Good to see somebody's really paying some attention to our neglected Project Page (not to mention Portal). As concerns the link you pasted it's HORRIFYING to see all those games and stuff with FA and GA tags while looking at our puny list. There is a few times more Pokemons featured than cars! I sometimes have the impression that half of GA and FA nominations are Pokemons and computer games. We have to shape up, guys! Bravada, talk - 10:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's several obvious short-term things we can do to improve the quality of some of the articles... starting with addressing the quality issues in the Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 FA review to see if we can get it back up to FA level, and see if we can restore some of the former-FA/GA articles to FA/GA quality again. --Interiot 11:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should also get some of those GAs into FA. I have noticed that we don't have any FA nominees- we should really gets some of our articles nominated-there must be some that are GA material and some of those GAs only need minor edits to get up to FA status. As to an example article why shouldn't we use more than one? I think it is much better to provide several examples of example articles, as every article differs from one another- it should give the editors browsing thorugh the project page a much better idea. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before... But I've noticed that automobile articles tend to have more external links than other types of pages. Is this something that's been arrived at through community consensus, or is this a problem that I should feel bolder in fixing? In particular, Ford Mustang, one of our few featured articles, seems to have one of the largest sets of external links around (48 links). Would it be reasonable to say that most articles should have no more than 15 external links? --Interiot 13:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It certainly would, 48 links it just too much. Signaturebrendel 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new article

I can find nothing about automobile air con or climate control. Has anyone the expertise to start one? Can we have a 'Requested articles' heading on the project page? - Ballista 10:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If there isn't one, just go ahead and start one- BE BOLD!. I also have a picture of the climate controls in my car that I'll put once you create the article. Signaturebrendel 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that we do not have an article for headrest and armrest. I have added the two. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to keep you updated I am going to keep looking for missing articles for now. My latest addition is taillights. Signaturebrendel 00:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

List of successful automobiles up for deletion.

I have nominated this article for deletion (List of successful automobiles). (Personal attack removed) among other things have made this article an (Personal attack removed). I would like for this (Personal attack removed) to be removed from Wikipedia (Personal attack removed). Please lend your opinion. Karrmann 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This rfd is a hostile and thinly veiled WP:NPA personal attack, as shown by the language of his nominations. Please review the grounds for deletion, removal is primarily for original research, not verifiable or copyright, none of which apply in this case. POV is not grounds for removal as long as it can be edited, and it is not clear which entries have a POV with the exception of the Taurus entry, which was written by User:Karrman himself. Please note that Karrmann has also managed to violate almost every rule of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:COOL, and his edits have been so marked by an intervening editor. I am highly disappointed that so many people are effectively condoning such behavior by supporting this rFD. I have found that I have been able to get along with many editors, but why others keep coming up for this sort of a battle distresses me greatly. --00:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Hmmmm. Let's see....

  • really mad right now (WP:COOL)
  • claiming all this crap (Civility: language)
  • User:Wiarthurhu needs to be blocked immediately.(Civility: Calling for bans or blocks)
  • claiming all this crap and about how I am voiolating Wikipedia rules (see above)
  • crap about how it is a low key fleet special (Civility language: Fact, Uh, that's a verifiable statement, see taurus article)
  • that bullies are just putting him down by deleting this article (Do you believe that bullying behavior should not be tolerated on WP? Maybe we do agree on something)

Just keep going, and don't change a thing Mr. Karrman. --matador300 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand how angry you are with him, but whatever you do, DON'T make it worse by being incivil towards him. Incivility doesn't solve anything and it only makes matters worse.

--ApolloBoy 22:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you, that's a very valid statement that I agree with very much. I've gotten along relatively well, except for his siding with a person who has shown unbelievably poor WP conduct today I still wonder why Karrmann is advocating deleting his own Taurus entry, it doesn't make much sense to me. --matador300 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
He put his favorite pinewood derby car back into AMC Matador again - I rv'ed it...again...<sigh>. SteveBaker 00:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Why so many angry hostile people? Why can't we be friends? BTW, where does it say in Wikipedia policy that a scale model section has to be removed when there are dozens if not hundreds of toys across the various car pages, or that a page can't be devoted to toy cars like Hot Wheels? --matador300 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
He put his favorite pinewood derby car back into AMC Matador again - I rv'ed it...again...<sigh>. This is a photo he took of a car he built (at least according to the image description) - this is definitely 'original research'. If you make a model of a car take a photo of it and attach it to an article about that car - you did original research - and it's flat out not allowed - no matter how relevent it might be to the article. It's also 'WP:Vanity' - which is also not allowed. Also, we do not put material about toy cars into articles about real cars - just about every real car ever made has one or more toys made of it - so this fact is quite utterly non-notable. If we're going to document the toys made for real cars then I'm going to have to start photographing my 300 toy MINIs! This has to be the fifth or sixth time we've been through this - and I'm getting pretty sick of it. SteveBaker 00:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


User:Wiarthurhu has now violated WP:3RR - I have taken this to mediation. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-03 AMC Matador SteveBaker 01:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)



Among nasty personal attacks, the essence of the matter was lost. I believe that the article actually still should be deleted, so I have renominated it. I invite you cordially to take part in the process restraining from personal attacks and writing essays. Please discuss the matter concisely and referring to the issues raised directly. Thank you, Bravada, talk - 09:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

AMC The Machine

Presented for your approval, what do you think guys? --matador300 01:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would get rid of the toys section as well as the toy pics themselves, I'm actually going to go ahead and add more information about the car itself. --ApolloBoy 02:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody else agree that removing good quality pictures of a model improves the quality of the article instead of effectively vandalizing it and detracting from the quality? The thinking that goes around here is just unbelievable. You know that the Boeing 787 is pictured only as a model, and people don't complain about that. How about changing the no toys rule to allowed if no pictures of real cars are available, at least??? Isn't that a reasonable compromise? --matador300 02:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stop accusing me of vandalism (per WP:NPA), especially when pics of the actual car are quite easy to find. I would add one myself, but I no longer upload fair use images except if there's no free alternative for the actual thing (in this case, the actual Machine).--ApolloBoy 02:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a picture of a real "machine" Karrmann 02:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you have a picture of an actual "Machine" use that instead of the toy pics, but otherwise a toy pic is fine if it is high quality. Please note though that if there is real pic available it should be used-it just gives the user a better idea of what the car looks like in real life. Signaturebrendel 04:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an OK article, but I guess it could be even better :D
  1. It actually consists almost entirely of technicalities not very understandable for regular WP readers (most of whom aren't car enthusiasts) - more wikilinking and explanations would make it much more accessible.
  2. As such, it doesn't read too well as prose, which I am saying being fully aware of some WP reviewers' prose-mania, and could perhaps be more legible as a table (but please not the awful grayish table infesting so many car articles).
  3. It actually does not deal with a single car model, but two option packages/special versions of two models (regardless of how related they were), so I guess splitting it and including in the main model articles could be much more informative and less confusing to the reader. Mentioning the preceding/succeeding Machine in respective articles would ensure continuity, and if AMC specialists here feel it was important enough, it could also be highlighted in the main AMC article.
Regards, Bravada, talk - 09:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an "AMC Machine". They were either Rebels or Matadors. Information from this article pertaining to the Rebel Machine should be incorporated into AMC Rebel, and information pertaining to the Matador Machine should be incorporated into AMC Matador. --93JC 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am not an AMC expert and was just talking about whether or not it is okay to use a toy pic. So perhaps the article should be split and merged. But again I am not an AMC expert. Signaturebrendel 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

<snip>comments moved to article's talk page</snip> -- DeLarge 07:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Thank You For Being Such Wonderful Friends

It's been a loooong day. I'd like to thank you for being such kind, considerate friendly people today, and I hope you have a wonderful evening. Good night. --matador300 01:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I really want you to drop that attitude. What you have done today has violated multiple Wikipedia guidelines. Karrmann 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so IIIIIIIII've violated a couple of (Personal attack removed) guidelines now?? Look who is talking --matador300 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I had a reasonible excuse, I was mad. YOu know what, I'm not going to give you the satisfaction. I'm not gonna get mad, or get in a fight because that's probably what you wanted. Have a nice day. Karrmann 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE this is supposed to be a professional disucssion forum for our articles. Use the matador300 talk page. (See Bravada's comment above.) Thank you. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz E-Class

Can we please trim down the number of photos on the Mercedes-Benz E-Class page? The page is absolutely littered with fuzzy rear-angle shots that, in my opinion, don't add anything. I've removed the pictures myself, but they're always put right back with no explanation. Jagvar 16:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed about 4 pictures and left one for each infobox as well as one of the current generation's tailgate. I also left the police cruiser pic I added. I think it would be interesting for many Americans to know that in Germany the E-Class is used as a police cruiser- for some a very strange thought. (Imagine the LAPD in police trimed Cadillac Escalades ;-)) Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we have a general policy of moving images to a commons page when an article becomes obviously overwhelmed with images? As far as I understand, it's completely acceptable (maybe even desirable) to have oodles of images on commons for a single topic. --Interiot 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
But why are there photos and infoboxes for the last generations only? The history of the E-Klasse spans much longer than that and I believe it would be good to show that in pics too!
As a sidenote, police cruiser is not the most popular role for the E-Klasse in Europe - for many years now, the E-Klasse has been practically the "default" taxi in Germany and many other European countries. I believe it would be good to have a nice photo of the distinctive cream-coloured W124 or W210 - too bad I forgot to take one when I was in Germany :( Bravada, talk - 17:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. Interiot's proposition is right on the money!
True W124 is missing, I have raised that issue on the talk page. Also yes the E-Class is most commonly used as livery service throughout Eruope, though in Germany there are quite a few E-Class police cruisers (Stuttgart, Hamburg, etc... commonly use E-Classes and many Bavarian departements tend to use the 5-Series). Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Automobile lists AFD'd

Both List of automobile model and marque oddities and List of unrelated vehicles with identical nameplates have been marked for deletion. Although I contributed to both articles, I find nothing flawed with the reasoning for deleting them. I'd like to know if any other project members are interested in keeping them. --Pc13 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Image wanted section

Wouldnt it be a good idea to have an "image wanted" section on the main project page where you could list cars that currently have no images. --Dahlis 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I put up a similar request to this awhile back and now we have a section: Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Requested images. ren0talk 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Damn, i missed that. Thanks. --Dahlis 21:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Stack of Hot Wheels Caravans

This is a dubious use of toy cars on an automobile page if I ever saw one. Image and history indicates that some kid who identifies himself as Karmann posted both the picture and put it in the article. I fully expect equal treatment of all authors, and I will be watching. Karmann has also placed an image which infringes copyright since it is neither open source nor promotional from the origina website on AMC The Machine. He has replaced a high quality image of an accurate scale model of the car in question, and reverted back after numerous warnings. I am apalled that this sort of behavior is condoned in this project. At least one editor above has stated, as official policy that a high quality image of a model is acceptable if no image of a real car is available. A stack of Hot Wheels certainly does not meet this guideline.--matador300 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My pal Warithu, I will not yell scream, and I will remain civil. I will let this stay up, and maybe the image should be removed. We'll say what the rest of the project has to say. Karrmann 22:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your newly civil attitude. Very interesting that you worked so diligently to erase a legitimate use of a toy, yet you yourself had already put in a very questionable one --matador300 01:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the offending image - it really had nothing to do with the article. SteveBaker 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Address Posting --Taboo?

I have compiled a list of addresses of various facilites for automobile manufacturers for a indirect project. I have aquired the addresses through public information channels (mainly the internet). I was wondering if it would be taboo of me to post this information on Wiki. The information as I said was obtained publicly so I dont think there should be much of a deal, but I wanted to post the thought here first. --LSX 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. That also mentions that there are places that likely welcome that sort of information, such as Yellowikis. --Interiot 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image of toy vs car

Comments deleted. Please see User talk:DeLarge#Deceptive copy/paste for details. --DeLarge 21:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


A truly accurate scale model (a nicely built Revell kit or something) might be acceptable in the specific case where all efforts to find a real picture of the car have failed. But I'm not saying "Oh - I can't find a photo right now - let's use a model" - I'm saying that if you've emailed owners clubs, fan sites, museums, the original car company, hunted for adverts & brochures (under fair use) - and after months of strenuous but fruitless efforts you turn up zip - then consider using a nice photo of a good model. But small-scaled HotWheels, Pinewood derby cars and other toys are (IMHO) not useful at all - it's impossible to verify their accuracy - and they almost never are sufficiently accurate to add significant information to the article. Bear in mind that if we couldn't turn up a good photo - what are the odds that a toy manufacturer will have bothered? I have a 'toy' model of the MINI that was converted into a snowmobile on 'Monster Garage' - the back half of the toy looks just like the 2003 BMW MINI that they chopped in the show - but the front half is a reasonable model of a 1960's classic Mini! Evidently the modeller was given the stock publicity shot of the back of the car (which he faithfully copied) - but couldn't find a shot of the front - so he probably typed 'Mini' into Google Images and found a totally different car to model for the front end!! Who knows how many such atrocities might go unnoticed if we trusted a toy to be representative?
Worst of all a toy photo might well actually mislead the reader - and that's infinitely worse than failing to inform him/her. But if we can get real photo's, that's a million times better and we should only resort to these other tactics if absolutely all avenues of enquiry have failed.
However, our recent debacle(s) have not been about any of those issues - they have been about the principle that we don't want to include information about toy cars in the article about the corresponding real car - it's just not notable. I could perhaps think of one case - some of the wilder hotwheels cars have been turned into actual drivable real cars - and in that case, it would be unforgivable not to have a photo of the toy along with the real car. SteveBaker 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
True a hot wheels model of car on the page regarding the actual car hurts WP credibility. As I said only when there is no pic of the car avaiable - which is a rare circumstance than it is okay to use a toy car-but not the kind you buy at the local grocerystore. A dozen hot wheel minivans stacked on top with a plate of mustard in backgroung is not acceptable. Signaturebrendel 23:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the pile of minivans is history - I reverted it - and (thank god) nobody has yet tried to un-revert it. SteveBaker 14:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The other image

Is of the model in the context of a notable Johnny Lightning special reproduction. It is also notable because that edition includes a reproduction of an original ad (see back of picture). On request, I would be happy to scan the ad, but it would be a scan of a toy reproduction of an ad, and that might produce another firestorm of controversy since so many people object to pictures of toys on these articles. I'm still waiting for an explanation from Apolloboy as to how removing a decent primary picture could possibly improve the quality of the article, since editing an article knowing that it will degrade the quality is not consistent with WP rules, and could be part of an attack on the content of one editor. I've got plenty of other models I can provide good pictures of, but I don't know if I will if I continued to be pummeled for doing so. It is very difficult to get good pictures of old cars to put into the public domain, it is often much easier to purchase models, and get pictures of those. I don't think I'm the first person to attempt to put pictures and descriptions of models on articles, and I don't think I'll be the last,

I think there is a much more rational approach than simply the current, undocumented (until to try to do it) ban all mentions and all pictures of all models and reproductions on all articles patrolled by the Automobile Project, including ads. If there is a list of all instantly revertable categories of material that will cause bar room brawl, it should be put into a document accesible from the project page, and noted on every page that it will be enforced on, otherwise it's my consensus vs. yours and any similar hapless editor will be similarly be reverted until senseless or forced to yield.

Apolloboy maintains you can remove any picture of a model if you think no picture is better than a model picture. Karmann, whom I do not dispute his claim is more knowledgeable as a 14 year old and more mature than myself, a 48 yr old MIT Master degree graduate in computer science who has not yet has had his edits marked as (Personal attack removed), believes in replacing a good quality model picture with one of unknown source, and posting a stack of Hot Wheels caravans on his living room on automobile pages. I do believe this issue deserves further qualification. Another user says you cannot post a picture of a model you made yourself, though such a picture has generated no such controversy on the cub scout Derby page where I have provided the ONLY pictures of completed models. I intend to provide pictures of the famous Chaparral sports cars in the form of promotional pictures of models, since it is nearly impossible to personally get pictures of these cars, or get permission of the professional photographers who took most of the photos used in books or magazines. Any objections, please raise them now before we ignite another Israeli/Hezbollah skirmish here.--matador300 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Taurus POV

Aren't these excellent (or terrible) examples of edits that take a non-neutral point of view, and examples of what NOT to do? I would say that the young (hint) editor here is taking a hysterically pro-Taurus point of view. None of the other articles in successful automobiles takes a clear position for or against any car, although this is evidently the primary basis for the near unanimous opinion to delete the article on a basis not supported by the guidelines for deletion (or am I mistaken in assuming WP people follow the rules and act with kindness, love and civility to one another?) . Does anybody else agree? I won't fix these right away, I'll let you guys handle it. --matador300 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

From Hot Wheels ==1980s== + + What happened in the 1980s For Hot Wheels sent them in the path of what they are today, just like what the revolutionary Ford Taurus did for the auto industry. in 1981, (note spelling error, and what the heck this has to do with Hot Wheels besides the 1980s is beyond me. 1973 entry is wierd and unsourced too.)

I tried to fix this, and was reverted, it still stands:

The Taurus leaped over almost every bar set for sedans at the time, and formed a design revolution that ended the boxy looking cars coming from the big three. [1] The Taurus brought around some design features that can be found in modern cars, such as the lock and window buttons having a raised and lowered pump in them so they can be operated without the driver taking his eyes off the road. The Taurus also had a CD ratio of just .18, making it the most aerodynamic American mass produced car, until Ford broke their own record with the Probe. [1] The Taurus was a pioneer in build quality for domestic built cars. It was built to high standards of quality, and Ford spent millions of dollars on upgrading their plants to make this happen. [1] It is still in production today after 21 years and more then 7,000,000 units produced. The Taurus is the 4th best selling Ford model of all time, behind only the F-150, Model T and the Mustangref name="det"cite news|url=http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0504/19/C01-154989.htm%7Clast=Mayne%7Cfirst=Eric%7Cdate=2005-04-19|work=Detroit News|title=End of Ford Taurus closes era|accessdate=2006-05-16 ref (note that the citations don't actually support the facts claimed as well)

I'll let you folks figure out which editor made both of these. Last time I checked he hasn't withdrawn the nominated of the deletion of not only the Taurus entry, but the entire article from which it's from, which I can't understand a rational person doing. --matador300 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wairthu, I will not yell, scream, or get in your face. I am no better than you when I yell too. I will follow the rules, and if you see something you want to change, change it. But if I feel that it won't help get the Taurus to FA status, I may revert it, as I really want the Taurus article to get featured. But I want to give you advice. acting like this WILL GET YOU BLOCKED, so I really want to warn you before someone takes you before the abritration comittee. So please try to behave yourself. If a 14 year old can, you can too. Karrmann 01:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

To Anyone Else Plotting My Doom

I've sent this to Karmann. I've got an entire shed full of !@$#%-ing collectible cars and models if that's what it takes to care of All of You !!!. So watch it!


Offer of Cease Fire

Here's my offer.

  • You apologize for all past uncivil behavior and attacks.
  • You cease further complaints, negative comments and attacks, at least against me. I wouldn't recommend you treat other editors in a similar manner, however.
  • You withdraw the AFD and work with other editors to fix / rename Successful Automobiles to Automobiles with long running nameplates.
  • You cease to revert or remove, or ask others to revert or remove my edits. Whatever and whomoever got there first stays, no matter how much you may dislike it.

In return,

  • I will apologize for all past uncivil behavior and attacks.
  • I will cease further complaints, negative comments and attacks.
  • I will work with you and other editors to fix / rename Successful Automobiles to Automobiles with long running nameplates or start a new article which you can cooperate with.
  • I will cease to revert or remove or criticize, or ask others to revert or remove your edits. Whatever and whomoever got there first stays, no matter how much I may dislike it, whenever I can identify an edit as having been created by you.
  • I will remove all reference to past incidents from my user page.


Optionally,

  • I offer to be a mentor, sensei, and big brother for life, and offer to help you on math or writing homework (4 hour lifetime limit, negotiable). Don't ask me for Chinese lessons.
  • Give me a list of pictures of cars or toys you want, I will try to find up to 3 of them.
  • I will send you 5 random used Hot Wheels cars or Johnny Lighting cars, some retired mint in package, or choice of 5 from 10 random cars I don't want any more.

Otherwise, I will return any courtesies, or lack thereof in kind. --matador300 02:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


If you are going to try to lure me out of this like a blithering idiot to weaken them, then I may not take the offer, as being used really offends me. Karrmann 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Plotting your doom?
How in the hell did you find out we were plotting your doom?!
I'll give you a chocolate chip cookie if you tell me which one of these buggers squealed. --93JC 06:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Once and for all, contribute with good edits and no one will bother you. This is nonsense, making deals, just do good and others will praise you, do bad and they won't. Signaturebrendel 06:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
How's about do good and you will be severely beaten and punished for it??--matador300 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You won't trust me. Lay off the attitude, make good edits and everything will be fine. Signaturebrendel 07:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wairthu, We are not picking on you. It is your severly POV edits that had us concerned, and your assinine behavior that landed you in this position. I tell you, we can't go on with crap like this, acting like Wikipedia is the civil war. If you can't stop, then I may get you face to face with the abrition comittee. Karrmann 13:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I though you said you'd agree to the cease fire. If you continue to say bad things about me in public, I may be forced to return you courtesies, or lack thereof in kind. BTW, no one has ever identified what specifically POV edits they are talking about since my edits are never unfairly biased towards any particular viewpoint, unlike some editors who hysterically favor certain Fords, but have not been beaten to bloody pulp for doing that or putting a stack of Hot Wheels on the living room floor, or attacking editors, or nominating articles for deletion as part of such attacks or .....--matador300 00:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one who iwll end up blocked if I don't change me attitude. YOu really need to drop the attitude if you don't want to get blocked, because this is how it's going to end. Karrmann 00:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
HELP! Bravada, talk - 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How a ceasefire really ought to work

Hey, I hope I can speak here because I've not been involved in these fights before (so far as I can see, anyway!)

What I'd suggest would be good to do now is this:

  1. Everybody stops this whole conversation about a battle, because we can all see there's disagreement and it's really not important to have the last word.
  2. We all reset our "good faith" counters.
  3. We all think carefully about where our facts come from before making an edit.
  4. Having thought about the above, we contribute clear, verifiable, good-faith edits, about the facts only.
  5. Upon seeing new edits, we modify them if (and only if) we have a good reason to do so.
  6. If seeing our edits modified, we are pleased that somebody else is taking an interest.
  7. In the event of a conflict, we use the article's discussion page to reach a consensus in a polite way.

It's not so hard, and heck, it might even be fun.

By the way, I'm now running off to hide in a bunker. ;-) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What you don't perhaps understand is that we've all done this - more than once in fact. Worse still, it is evident that several disparate groups within Wikipedia (eg the aircraft guys and the car nuts) have quite independently gone through the same cycle with this guy. It's not working - so now we have to try the other thing. SteveBaker 15:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The appropriate "other thing" involves mediation and then arbitration committees. And perhaps blocks and article protection. Instead, what's happening seems to be "feeding the trolls". (Not calling anybody specific a troll! Just describing the process.) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 15:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Not at all:
"I was really going to say more after the lastest exchange, but I am so over it. This issue is going to continue moving from step to step until, probably Wiarthurhu, ends up either blocked or before ArbCom. Don't say I didn't warn anyone."
  • Wiarthurhu recieved an 8 hour block following a WP:3RR violation on AMC Matador - and (so far) has not attempted another reversion.
So - yeah "the other thing" is moving right along.
"Don't feed the trolls" is excellent advice - but in addition to solving this problem, we really do need to keep an encyclopedia running in the meantime. We can't just ignore someone who is still actively fritzing around with articles. SteveBaker 16:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the examples Steve. I take the point that hopefully a block (or a lesson learnt) would have a "global" effect. However, in the meantime, we are all guilty of still doing this "feeding" (as well as getting on with the articles), and it's making this talk page almost unreadable. Anyway, thanks again for pointing those out. I hope it's clear that all I was doing was trying to diplomatically encourage a bit of a remission on all that stuff here, and not start an argument with you! In that spirit, I'll shut up now. ;) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 17:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a WikiProject Wiarthurhu?

Dear all,

Despite the fact that this WikiProject talk page and activities of some of its members have successfully been monopolized by User:Wiarthurhu, his antics, and resulting discussions (despite the fact that they are either pointless or would much better fit in user and article talk pages), there still is some actual activity within the project I would like to draw your attention to:

  1. A group of members decided to create and further improve an article on the Polski Fiat 125p with the goal of it reaching the FA status. This effort also encompasses work on related articles, such as Fiat 125 and Fiat 1300/1500. Sources are fairly ample, but help is needed with extracting the essential information and further enhancing the articles with it.
  2. Another effort concentrates on the small group of articles pertaining to the Autobianchi brand - there was only a handful of Autobianchi models and sources are even more ample, so it should be easy to quickly upgrade the current status of those articles. There is also a good chance of creating another FA or two, which we need so much.
  3. List of automobile model and marque oddities has been renominated for deletion with a more focused reason for deletion.

You are coridally invited to participate in those efforts and respond to the AfD request.

Regards, Bravada, talk - 17:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost a new GA

Passenger vehicles in the United States just passed GA! Another one for this project! Signaturebrendel 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And it lost the GA status. Bravada has delisted the article for the reasons provided on the talk page of the article. Oh, well. Signaturebrendel 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ford Taurus

I put the Taurus up for GA status. Karrmann 17:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz W221

The Mercedes-Benz W221 article used to make references to the failure of the "Distronic Plus" feature in bringing the vehicle to a stop in a metal-walled room, and one reviewer's finding that the "Night Vision" feature was ineffective. These were removed in a rewrite. Should such details be noted to make the article seem less like an advertisement? Shawnc 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not a W221 expert but usually minor tehcnical problems are not worth mentioning unless they cause some sort of mass-recall. As far as I now the distonic plus featured didn't work because of the metal walled room. Also, one reviewer is just one person-you should only really mention a problem once the manufacturer releases a statement-there are just too many car "journalists" out there. The problem w/ the W221 article was that is sounded like it was written by a MB fan. (I can kind of relate as I am a Lincoln fan and its hard not to get carried away). Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Autobianchi - help needed!

Over the last few days I have been trying to expand a bunch of articles on the Italian brand Autobianchi and its (few) models. I guess I now need help with that - see the talk page for the brand if you can spare a moment. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 16:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo! A car is featured on the front page again, for the first time since the unfortunate featuring of the Polski Fiat 125p, and its the tiny Autobianchi Stellina! Now there is no good reason not to pay a visit to the Autobianchi pages! Moreover, it seems that multiple DYK nominations on similar topics are not forbidden, so I would like to ask you for propositions on a possible DYK from the main Autobianchi article. Bravada, talk - 23:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
While battling against this becoming WikiProject Wiarthurhu, I would like to invite you all again to participate in this innocent and uncontroversial pastime! See you there, Bravada, talk - 00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Toyota articles

Can someone help me with the Toyota articles, particularly Toyota Corolla and Toyota Corona - these need a lot of cleanup and help would be appreciated. --TheM62Manchester 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, the Corolla has so many versions, platforms and years, it needs to be split up into an all-corolla starting page, and then a detail page for at minum, early RWD and later FWD generations, AE6 appears to be a candidate to put all sport coupe / wagon variants. That car is do damned successful for one page. --matador300 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Reviews, Consumer Reports and others

From my talk page.

I'm also starting to add EPA gas mileage and volume information, somebody should make a databox for that. As much as we all the EPA numbers are only slightly more than useless for real world use, they are widely quoted and compared, something that you would typically use an encyclopedia for if the numbers were there. WP typically has numbers like weight and height that are much less important to buyers looking for information on a car, a typical use for WP. Reviews also provide real-world MPG numbers, such as CR.

Consumer Reports reviews

I know you don't particularly like me, and frankly at this point I seriously doubt whether you will read very much of what I have to say about anything. But I really feel we need to talk about the Consumer Reports reviews you have been beginning to include in certain automobile articles. While adding them is in no way "wrong" insofar as breaking any Wikipedia rules and such (they are referenced, someone actually did say such and such thing about such and such car), I think including this sort of think sets a very, very dangerous example. As much as CR tries to paint their reviews as objective, they're not. They never have been, never will be. No review is, no matter how hard the reviewer trumpets "we don't accept advertising" and the like. It's a fact that some schmuck working for Consumer's Union might have said something along the lines of "Toyota Camry is the greatest car there is, was and ever will be", but it doesn't make it true. Wikipedia, in my opinion, is not on a mission to tell people which car is better than which according to Consumer Reports magazine. You're old enough to have seen Dragnet: I think our goal is "Just the facts, ma'am". I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. --93JC 16:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Historically, CU is one of my favorites as reviews go. It's not the only one, for example I used Car and Driver for the fusion. Some calls are odd, for example hating the Gremlin at first, and then giving it first place later, rating the Caravan over the too-small 1st Odyssey. But most school and public libraries carry it, it's made the news for condemning some cars, and they have among the best surveys for reliability. On reading them now, I actually have more of appreciation for when they considered the Taurus to be the equal of Camry and Accord, and how superior the premier-based Intrepid was when it was judged the equal or better than any of those three, but the previous LeBaron fell short of all three.

So far there are too few reviews for a pleathora of reviews to be a problem. I'd recommend adding a review section with short comments from a range of reviews. MT and CD are available and searchable on line, as are reviews from Edmunds /Inside line, CU are available by subscription, and of course, public libraries, as are magazines like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics which used to have highly regarded reviews of cars like the Torino and Matador. CU is probably the most objective of any magazine publishing reviews, at least they don't do photo spreads of an admiral fighting it out with a Boy Scout like C/D or drive a car off a cliff or race against a dog or drive behind a running 747 like Top Gear. Currently many articles refer to poor reviews or remarsk about poor engineering on cars like Shadow and Cavalier without referring to any specific review, and that's a shame. --matador300 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The principle is easy. If your article needs to say "X believes Y about Z" and X is a car reviewer, Y is an opinion and Z is a car - then referencing CU as evidence that X believes Y about Z is reasonable. However, if you want to say "Y is true of Z" - then you can't quote some reviewer in CU because you just promoted someones mere opinion into a fact and that's very, very, VERY naughty. But why would we care about the opinion of a car reviewer? Maybe if the subject of the article was the reviewer - but not if the subject was the actual car. I think you'd be on stronger grounds if you wanted to back up some nice hard fact with a reference ("The 0-60 time of Z is 6.5 seconds (Consumer Reports: July 2007 page 23)") - then maybe CU would be a reasonable reference - in the unlikely event that nothing more trustworth was available. However, Wikipedia is not a car review site - it's an encyclopedia. We don't want reviews or opinions here. That's clearly stated in the WP guidelines...frankly I'm too exhausted to look it up...but it's there - trust me. SteveBaker 23:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

TV shows and Movies

Both AMC Matador and Ford Taurus seem to be victims of unequal editing. Apolloboy, alwayws vigilant has again excised the Matador not only of a Cox Adam-12 car, but all mentions of Adam-12. Turns out the Adam-12 page mentions not only Matador, but 2 other Plymouths, and both car pages mention Adam-12. Dodge Monaco also mentions the Blues Brothers car, even though it is likely that only a few web pages and the WP mention this fact. Can we in the spirit of inclusion, permit the inclusion of TV and movie appearances, especially for more obscure cars like the Matador, and not set the bar so high that not even Adam-12 makes the cut? Clearly, we can't mention every TV show and movie that has A car in it. Ford Crown victoria it should be mentioned that every show after the 1990s with a police car is likely to have one without mentioning every episode of every show. A block of mentions by an editor whose name I will chose not to defame in Taurus appears to be entirely consistent with entries found elsewhere. And we we figure out guidelines, can you put them on the project page? --matador300 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The current spirit is not inclusion, the current spirit is cleansing articles of accrued POV and trivial stuff lurking here and there. Please note that the issue of "media appearances" was mentioned only recently, and it does take time to go through all the articles and fix that. The infobox, for example, has been around for some time now, and there are still articles that do not have one but rather the ugly old-school table. Be sure that in the end all articles will be fixed, and you can help too!
As concerns a policy, I have a proposition that should be easy to implement - only appearances that got five stars on www.imcdb.com (or could possibly get them if the film/show was not featured on imcdb yet) should be mentioned. Any objections? Bravada, talk - 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed there are, such as the Jaguar XJS. I remember when the new standard infobox was developed Sfoskett, other editors and myself went around replacing so many of those old ugly tables. (ah the good ol' days back in early 2006 ;-)) BTW: Your policy suggestion sounds good but I still view "media" mention suspicously-but at least this way there's a guideline. Signaturebrendel 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
We have to be a little careful with rules. In the article about the Mini, we talk about the movie "The Italian Job" - this is justified (IMHO) because the car is as much a star of the movie as the actors and the movie quite literally could not have been made with any other car. I doubt that any of us would claim that a car page should mention that the car appeared in the bottom left corner of the screen for 3.4 seconds an hour and 20 minutes into an obscure film made in outer mongolia by a director nobody has ever heard of.
Somewhere between those two extremes is the right place. In the case of the Crown Vic - it is an absolutely ICONIC police car - and I suppose that mentioning that it's been in a bazillion movies as a cop car is somewhat noteworthy - although the fact that it's actually been a cop car in real life is vastly more relevent. The Matador, on the other hand, hardly mattered in any of the movies it's listed in - it was just scene dressing. We absolutely should mention the iconic role of the 1969 Dodge Charger in the Dukes of Hazzard - but not that there was a Dark Silver BMW MINI in Hitch. It's a matter of judgement.
So 'be bold' - make a judgement - if you think this kind of thing belongs in an article - go ahead and stick it in - but please don't be upset or offended or get into an edit war if someone takes it back out again. If you feel passionately that it belongs then engage in a conversation on the appropriate talk page and give it up if you are not part of the consensus view. This is the Wikipedia way. SteveBaker 00:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on consensus, ADAM-12 is currently cross-linked for every car EXCEPT the AMC Matador. Based on that, the link should go back in. That is certainly a more useful outcome that destroys less information than deleting every other reference from eery other car to be consistent. Who is harmed and why is it so darned important to remove such links? Is it causing nightmares or loss of sleep, or depriving people in Hungary of disk space?? --matador300 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)



Commercial failure list up for deletion

The List of automobiles that were commercial failures is currently undergoing the deletion process. I thought there should be a notice here as well. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the corresponding article was deleted by unanimous decision, so before you express your horror with a valuable piece of automotive peripheralia being up for deletion please thoroughly read both discussions and consider the points raised there. Bravada, talk - 18:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Also consider the opinion cited on the deletion page-even I a contributor to the article had to vote for deletion-see the reasons in the disucssion if your interested. Signaturebrendel 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, I've had three articles, two mostly content by people other than me deleted, primarily as a personal attack based on alleged content problems. I take a very dim view of this form of kicking down sandcastles. It's very bad form on the beach, and I don't like it any better here. --matador300 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Wiarthurhu, you are projecting your personal view of WP on others. Only one AfD was launched as a personal attack on you, and it was very bad abuse of the AfD process, and I guess the user who abused it was reprimanded appropriately. IIRC, the article was deleted in the end as a result of another AfD nomination, because there were valid reasons - i.e. it inherently violated WP policies and guidelines. Neither that AfD nomination nor any other of the last automotive-related article nominations have anything to do with you personally.
If you feel that many articles you have started or contributed to are submitted for deletion, then perhaps you are relatively frequently adding content that is violating WP policies and guidelines. Or perhaps you are just being overtly sensitive about that. Bravada, talk - 00:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's back to that consensus thing again. If you find that an unusually large fraction of the articles you create are considered so inappropriate by the community that they have to be deleted (and notice that this last deletion vote was UNANIMOUS!) - then perhaps you should engage in some discussion (politely and in a friendly way) with other people before you dive in and create stuff. If you had asked here: "Hey guys - do you think a List of successful automobiles would be a good thing?" - then actually listened to what people had to say about it - you'd never have started in on it in the first place and you wouldn't be this upset now. How about you ask what things need to be worked on? I'm sure we could all come up with productive things that need to be done and which wouldn't be deemed inappropriate if handled properly. Become a part of the community. This isn't going to be easy for you personally because your continued unacceptable behavior has made so many people so hostile that it'll be a long time before they can talk coherently with you again (which is why I continue to recommend that you take a Wikibreak for a few months).
But this is the kind of thing that makes the community work...not repeatedly coming up with wild ideas that nobody else is going to swallow and then getting all upset when they don't swallow them. Now you are probably going to fling back something like "Oh - so I have to beg permission to write an article now!!" - and that's probably close to the truth - but only because you upset so many people in the first place. Normally, I'd say "Be Bold" and just go make that article and see what happens...but that would absolutely require you not to get bent out of shape when it gets deleted...that kind of failure is sometimes the price of boldness. If you are going to get really upset when something is deleted - then try to build some consensus before you get started. At the very least, the people who agreed that the article should have been created in the first place ought to vote to keep the article if it gets an AfD vote stuck on it later. So - the message to you is the same - join the community - play nice. SteveBaker 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Or just try to not take it personally if consensus doesn't go your way... it happens to every single one of us. If you disagree with the consensus of others, especially when so many people weigh in, then your only rational options are to more or less accept the outcome, or to find another community that may agree with your viewpoints more. --Interiot 04:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Idea

Which one of these would you like as a featured article:

Vote now! --TheM62Manchester 21:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Any, or better yet, all of them, if you could make them FAs! Bravada, talk - 21:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. Dear readers of this message, do also have a look at the Autobianchi section above.
Obviously these car articles could all benefit from the FA treatment. Personally, I wish we'd spend more effort getting a large number of the really poor articles up to the GA level than push all our efforts into getting a few up to FA. In the end, our customers are the general public who come here to seek answers to life's questions (or who need to win a bet in a pub about whether the Renault Laguna came with a keyless entry system or not). For them, having 100 articles at GA status is far more use than 99 stubs and one FA. So whilst it's fun to push to get to FA status (and I've done it once too - it's quite a struggle) - I'm increasingly of the opinion that we would make better use of our time as editors by fixing up all of the stubs instead. It's much more worth-while to benefit humanity in general. Also, I get bored beyond belief by all of these identical-looking (usually silver) luxury sedans - they are a big YAWN. My vote for a fixer-upper article is the Bond_Minicar - about which I'd love to know more. This car didn't have a reverse gear - to go backwards, you actually had to stop the engine - and restart it running backwards! Now that is an interesting car. SteveBaker 03:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Automobile is #1 priority for getting to be near-FA quality. As far as I know, it's the only article of ours that will be put in books and CD's. After that, more GA's sounds good. --Interiot 05:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point there. There is a good case for the 'headline' article to be FA quality. Those are hard to get right though. I've been working with Computer and we've had to start a completely parallel effort to try to get it up to scratch because small scale tinkering was never going to do it. When the parallel project is good enough we'll simply replace the existing article - but while work is in progress, the parallel article is not useful enough to put up as the article people refer to every day. SteveBaker 12:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that's for sure! Even if it wouldn't be as fun as doing the Bond Minicar :D , it has to be done. I believe we should institutionalize it as the ongoing WikiProject Collaboration until it reaches the FA level. I believe we might use some of the experience from the failed Computer nomination, and have some other ideas on the topic - I will put them on the Automobile talk page shortly. In general, I think it is time to look around and try to learn a thing or two from our sister WikiProjects, who seem to be doing considerably better than us in many respects... (longer edit coming) Bravada, talk - 12:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The Bond 875 desperately deserves an article too. An Imp engine between the rear wheels in a fibreglass van? Whoooosh. Until the brakes failed, which they did if you made the most of the performance.
I agree that getting some more articles up to GA status, and filling in the remaining redlink/stub gaps are surely the things which will be most useful to the general public. Perhaps we should have ourselves a little incentive scheme, working on one FA for every 10 new articles or articles taken beyond stubs! ;)
The DAF cars before the DAF 66 are needed, and there are two very good online resources to help. I've begun working on these in a sandbox, and probably ought to open them up for criticism – but perhaps I'll wait until I get back from holiday. The new Rover 800 (and its Recaro leather seats, mmmm) are about to get a 2000-mile workout. Wish me luck. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I looked through the Automobile article - and three things leap out at me.
  1. It has far too few references - that's a "Must Fix" thing for a GA - let alone an FA.
  2. The section on the economics of running a car seems very specific to particular places where one might live. That parking costs are so high would not be at all likely in (for example) rural Texas where I live. I don't think I've ever paid a single penny to park my car in the last four years! The relative costs of depreciation and gas depend drastically on where you live. In the USA (even at $3 per gallon), our gasoline is half to a third of the price it is in the UK. Depreciation depends on the kind of car you have. Some cars lose half their value in the time it takes to reverse out of the parking space at the dealership where you bought it. Others (like my last MINI Cooper) depreciate at about 1% per year for the first couple of years. I think I'd move this entire section out into a separate article.
  3. The list of links to car parts needs to be tabulated and organised a LOT better. The most vital function of a 'headline' article such as Automobile, History, Mathematics or Computer is to provide navigation to other articles on the subject by breaking the subject down into major fields of study and pointing you to things like category listings and templates that exhaustively list articles on the subject. The historical and introduction sections are really good though. With some decent references, this could be kicked into shape fairly quickly. SteveBaker 13:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Basically the biggest problem with the article that needs to be addressed in the first place is structure (meaning what sections on what topics should go where). Currently the structure is equivalent to the name of Austrian entrants in the 1982 Eurovision Song Contest. I believe we need a thorough discussion on that (on the article's talk page) before we start any major edits, to avoid wasting our efforts. Bravada, talk - 13:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

GA problem / Assessment Scheme proposition

Steve suggested above that we should try to upgrade as many articles as possible to GA status.

The problem with the Good Article status is that, due to the inherent "leakiness" of the process, the {{GA}} tag got severly depreciated. Basically any two users can nominate and promote anything they want, and this is quite often the case. Therefore, I believe that striving for GA status might not be a good goal.

Moreover, there are also some specific standards and conventions that we have established here concerning automotive articles, and an article can basically attain GA status not complying with them.

My suggestion would be to take a leaf out of the sister WikiProject Trains' book (btw, this project is doing quite well compared to ours, while being similar in membership size, scope and "difficulty" of the topics covered) and create our own Article Assessment Scheme. An example of the WP Trains' assessment scheme is here (I suggest you open that page in a separate window/tag and keep reading, so that you can look there for reference).

We can then set specific standards that an article has to comply with (apart from the general WP 1.0 standards) to be given this or that status within the WikiProject Automotive - for example, one might require a proper infobox with a number of boxes filled, or a complete list of engines employed by a model, for some status level (please note that these are abstract examples). Additionally, the appraisal might be complement by an "importance" grading, which can serve to indicate priorities - e.g. an article with high importance and low "quality" status would be an obvious candidate for immediate intervention.

Finally, this allows for more detailed grading of articles - e.g. since "FA" is a general WP status and an article cannot get it without going through the full WP:FA procedure, it might be good to strive for an "A" status with the hope that A-class articles will become FAs in due course. Same applies to expanding stubs to e.g. B-class, when there is not enough time or sources to go further at a given moment. Keeping track of the numbers and breaking articles down by category, we can monitor progress and spot problem areas.

I hope I made my idea more or less clear, but I will gladly explain the possible benefits and modus operandi. So, what is your opinion on that? Bravada, talk - 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I also have other ideas more or less connected with that, I'll post them in due course.

Having a more diverse status system is a good idea. Classifing articles as A-class and B-class and setting clear standards what each article needs to achive to move up the "quality latter" makes sense. Until now the only two distinguished stages for articles have been GA or FA. The only exeption was for the WP CD in which articles were also classified as A and B class-an idea I very much liked then as there are surely more than two three different stages for articles (none, GA, FA). The idea sounds good to me. Signaturebrendel 16:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bravada's Brilliant Ideas

Lately I have been browsing through our sister projects, and especially the WikiProject Trains, which seems to be remarkably successful compared to our WikiProject, despite, as I mentioned, being in many ways similar. They have 19 Featured Articles now, and their three categories of GA within "Transport" with 85 articles (!) in total dwarf our puny 12! To add to that, they also have a featured portal! So, it got me wondering what is the difference that makes them so successful compared to us.

I would guess the answer is "organisation". Although this might not seem that important and the thought of more formalization in the free world of Wikipedia might be terrifying, I believe it is beneficial. So, why not take a leaf out of the book of this (and a few other) fellow WikiProject? Below is a list of my propositions based on what I saw, and some of my original ideas too :D

Ideas and propositions

Task forces

As you may see, the WikiProject Trains actually has four Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains#Task forces within itself. I find this a very inventive and effective solution, not corrupting the integrity of the project while allowing more involved groups of members to focus on specific topics within the scope of the Project. In a Project of a scope as wide as ours and membership as high, the bonds between members become weaker and interests more diverse. Many times, something is posted in our talk page and does not get much response, and it also often gets lost in the amount of issues discussed concurrently. Collaborations are more ad hoc than planned, though if they happen, they can be very productive - I've had the pleasure to participate in a few informal ones by smaller groups of members and they were very effective and rewarding.

I believe we might organize ourselves in a few voluntary Task Forces grouped around specific groups of articles, with individual discussion pages for issues pertaining only to them, so that not everybody would be bored with numerous issues concerning Autobianchi, but only the people at least slightly interested :D The benefits of working in Task Forces are numerous, to name a few:

  1. It is hard to keep track of ALL automotive articles at once and not everybody is interested in all of them. For example, I might see an article on an automotive subject that I am not interested in which would need brushing up, but I will not edit it and forget about it. Many people will pass it and unless some really enthusiastic user will find it, it will remain there in its underdeveloped form.
  2. Within a Task Force, one could keep a more manageable list of articles, along with grading (see loosely relevant example here) and see more easily which articles need help and how much work is left. USers enthusiastic about a particular topic would also spot missing articles more easily. The vast area of automotive articles would simply get more manageable
  3. As I said, collaborations are very effective, and finding partners for collaboration or simply getting help in solving a given problem would be easier among members of similar interest.
  4. Working with people of more similar interests is simply more rewarding and I believe would result in more involvement of at least some members - I know it would work for me, at least.
  5. It is easier to decide on something within a smaller group of people, and in some cases the decision that needs to be made pertains only to a specific group of articles.
  6. Competition between Task Forces (e.g. who gets more articles to A-class) could also be beneficial, as I see no way how could it be anything but constructive given the character of this WikiProject.
  7. Only issues of really high importance and of interest to all members would be discussed in the general talk page, so that they wouldn't be easily lost in the racket.
  8. ...and many more - add yours!

Below follows an attempt at a table presenting the types of articles which are within the scope of our WikiProject along with Task Forces that could be formed around them. Then I will briefly discuss how those Task Forces could work.

  1. Articles on individual car models - "Geographic" Task Forces
  2. Articles on car brands/manufacturers - "Geographic" Task Forces, (poss. collaboration with WikiProject Business and Economics)
  3. Articles on automotive technology (vital parts/components, like automotive lighting and technologies, like ABS) - Automotive Technology Task Force
  4. Articles on component manufacturers/technology providers - Automotive Technology Task Force, "Geographic" Task Forces, (poss. collaboration with WikiProject Business and Economics)
  5. Articles on specific platforms, engines and transmissions - Platforms, Engines and Transmissions Task Force, perhaps in collaboration with "Geographic" Task Forces
  6. Automotive-related biographies - Automotive Biography Task Force, perhaps in collaboration with other task forces
  7. Articles on motorsports - Motorsports Task Force

As you might see, some articles would fall within the areas of interest of multiple Task Forces, which does not have to be a bad thing - members of those TFs (let me introduce the abbreviation) could chip in their expertise to help improve different aspects/sections of an article. OK, time to describe how those Task Forces could work:

"Geographic" Task Forces

I guess you might be slightly baffled, but I believe it could be fairly easy and effective to divide the articles on cars and brands/manufacturers, which I believe are the most numerous among automotive articles and the main interest of most members here, along the lines of "countries of origin". So, examples of such Task Forces would be:

  • Italian cars Task Force'
    ...which would take care of all cars made by companies based in Italy both in Italy and in other countries, all cars made in Italy by non-Italian companies and all companies based in Italy.
OR
  • Eastern European cars Task Force'
    ...which would take care of all "indigenous" Eastern European manufacturers and their models.
The scopes of some of those Task Forces could overlap, but, as I said, it could only be to the benefit - e.g. the Italian Task Force discovers that a section on the whereabouts of a given Fiat model in Latin America is missing, so it turns to the Latin American Task Force for help and the article gets completed faster.
Obviously, the geographic division is not the only one possible - I could also imagine Task Forces concentrating on cars from a given period, or a given class, or from a manufacturer (like GM Task Force), but my observation is that it could be effective to group articles (and members) that way as a lot of information and sources can be shared, and also such "geographic TFs" could attract members speaking languages important for their scope of interest - i.e. Portuguese and Spanish-speaking members would be indispensable for the Latin American TF.
Automotive Technology Task Force

Some people are more interested and well-versed in car technology, and the articles on car components and technologies are quite udnerdeveloped as of now (except perhaps for those on automotive lighting ;) ) - this task force could take care of them, and also assist other task forces in areas requiring specialist knowledge. Perhaps it could also attract Wikipedians well-versed in technology who are not members of the WikiProject yet.

Platforms, Engines and Transmissions Task Force

Another group of articles discusses those vital building blocks of cars - I mean the articles dealing with specific engine models or platforms, not with the technologies in general. Those articles could help better fill the infoboxes, like e.g. User:Sfoskett's articles on PSA engines, which enhanced the description of many PSA models.

Motorsports Task Force

I am not really into motorsports, but it is a huge area of knowledge too. A few Task Forces might actually be needed, or even descendant WikiProjects - AFAIK, there are already ones or Formula One and NASCAR, though I don't know how are they doing.


Those are just some suggestions, the existence of any task force would hinge on whether there would be any members wishing to work in it, so perhaps we might end up with many TFs formed along different lines of division. Some articles might get left out, but then it would be a good indicator that another Task Force is needed.

I can also think of some Task Forces that would deal with other issues, not pertaining to any specific groups of articles. Examples:

Photo Task Force

Trying to procure the needed free pics in this way or another (either taking them personally, or contacting possible sources).

Portal Task Force

Taking another example from our fellow WikiProject Trains, a group of members might devote their time to developing our painfully neglected Portal.


Assessment Scheme - review system

I have proposed the Assessment Scheme above, but there are some technical problems that would arise. First of all, it might be hard to find people to review articles on a given topic, and without systematic and timely reviews, the whole system won't work. Secondly, the persons involved in developing the article should not be involved in reviewing it for obvious reasons, and this might actually keep all the people potentially interested in reviewing it off limits and again stall the system. Last but not least, it would be good for a reviewer to have some knowledge of the specific topic, so that he or she could easily spot omissions, factual inaccuracies and such - which makes the previous issue even more acute.

So, my proposition would be for each of the above "Task Forces" to consist of "active members" and "reviewers". By keeping separate groups of "editors" and "reviewers" we would have it guaranteed that there will always be someone to review any given article created or modified within a TF and the process wouldn't be stalled.

For example, if I am really into Italian cars, but also interested into Japanese cars, I could be actively involved in the Italian TF and serve as a reviewer on the Japanese TF. Moreover, I can see people wanting to move from one TF to another as time goes by, not to get bored - so, let's say I move from Italian to Japanese TF, but retain a "reviewer" status in the Italian TF. Then I can review the Italian articles that were created/improved after I stopped actively editing them.

Just to make sure - I don't mean that TF membership should be mutually exclusive, but I guess it could be hard to maintain active memberships in more than two TFs, so one could maintain a "reviewer" status in other TFs of his or her interest.

Guaranteed Award Scheme :D

Kieran mentioned an incentive scheme before he drove off :D - I believe this is actually an important thing. At present, awards are dispensed pretty randomly, some users are quite liberal in giving them out, while others don't see it fit to do that at all, I can also see myself not being too systematic or balanced on that. It might get frustrating if you work for weeks and nobody seems to notice or recognize it, so here goes a wacky idea for a Guaranteed Award Scheme :D

The whole thing would work so that there are predetermined conditions that need to be fulfilled to get a certain "award", and getting the award is guaranteed when the conditions are fulfilled. E.g. for participating in advancing ten articles from stub to A-Class status one would get a nice Golden Steering Wheel or something :D Of course, no award is worth much if you can award it to yourself, so I envision it to work like that - if you want to pursue an award, you start collecting links to your edits which you believe qualify under the conditions of the awards, and if you have enough, you go to another member to make sure they are OK, and if they are, you get the award :D

This would probably require some merciful members to form Award TF (or TFs), so that there would always be somebody you can count on to review your "award motion". We can call them Award Committees so that people doing the dirty work would feel better :D And think of all the fun we can have devising the awards :D

Alternatively, or perhaps in paralel, we might have a "point collection" scheme similar to Air Miles - each "award" is worth a given number of "points" that you can them exchange for some goodies - like the right to select a Portal:Cars featured article for a given date (among our FA, A-Class and GA articles, which we would have in abundance) or something :D


I can't believe I wrote all that. I am insane! What do you guys think? Bravada, talk - 22:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)



I disagree with above suggestions, how about this classification scheme, taken from automobile trim levels:

  • L - Stub article, needs rewrite. (L basic trim level)
  • LX - Article needing expansion. (LX - mid-range trim, e.g. Ford Mondeo LX)

e.g. Audi A6 Executive.

See Holden Commodore Executive :p Bravada, talk - 23:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How does this sound - it's a far simpler proposal than the above one mentioned. It also fits in with the project's aims too. --TheM62Manchester 23:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposed assessment scheme has not been taken out of nowhere, it is actually a Wikipedia V. 1.0 Assessment scheme adopted by many other projects. Bravada, talk - 23:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
On the Town Car, "Executive" was actually the lowest trim level ;-) The commonly used system has classes (A, B, GA, FA, etc...) Signaturebrendel 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the same is true of the Honda Prelude Mk. III. (P.S. I know, I know! I'm a nutter for checking Wikipedia an hour before I'm supposed to be off on holiday...)
Oh, and Brav's asked me to comment on the proposals... well, I've not had time to study them fully, but in case it goes to any kind of consensus decision-making process while I'm away; my overall feeling is that this kind of co-ordination is exactly what this project could do well, and I'd be willing to be involved. We must remember that "Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule-making", but nevertheless, if a system of working looks like it stands a chance of helping the articles, we should try it. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 09:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I really like this idea, and I'd be willing to help form some task forces! --ApolloBoy 00:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it really is a nice idea. I am however still thinking about whether or not some taks forces should be by market degment (i.e. Luxury car task force). Well, we'll see... otherwise there good ideas. Signaturebrendel 01:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to mimic WikiProject Computer and video games's Essential Articles instead. Task forces may split up our eyeballs so that an article gets fewer eyeballs, but a single list of essential articles lets more people scan over articles in case they might be interested in them. For instance, I'm interested in auto-tech/motorsports, but I'll work on sports cars too, or I'll work on cars I or my family has owned, or random other subjects that aren't grouped by task force. --Interiot 03:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well under any cisumstance the task forces shouldn't be mandatory. Signaturebrendel 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm very willing to work within a more formal 'structure', provided it doesn't become in any way 'obligatory'. Time is available unpredictably & sporadically. As for awards - I'm not sure I like the 'automatic' notion. Anyone overseeing the project or part of the project should be in the habit of dishing out awards, as deemed sensible - some folk may do really sterling work just tidying articles, as we go along, perhaps never qualifying for an automatic award but really improving WP. Even regular and helpful contribution to discussions may be deemd award-worthy, at times. It is up to the community at large to make sure that 'overseers' and co-ordinators are not overlooked for awards. I think the great thing about WP awards is their spontaneity. - Ballista 05:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies! I'll try answer the concerns raised:

  1. By no means should participating in anything be viewed as mandatory. I just thought of it as a practical way of organizing and coordinating activities, and also of bringing together members of similar interests so that they could be working more effectively. So, for example, rather than have all kinds of everything, including Laguna, Galant and Sebring all at once at the main page and generating even more chaos, you can discuss the issues regarding them with people by definition interested in them.
    Naturally, even if you sign in as a member of a task force you do not have to participate in editing the article people currently find important or do anything else and nobody says you cannot edit random articles of your choice anytime you wish. I guess the only "compulsory" thing is being polite enough to review articles which the given TF submit for review, if you sign up as reviewer for the TF. Does this sound OK? Oh, and it's not compulsory to sign to any of the TFs of course - but I guess most of us will find out that we have some leanings towards this or that... Bravada, talk - 10:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Of course, a general list of articles identified as "top priority" would be very helpful. I guess what we need is a template like Template:TrainsWikiProject, which would automatically add articles to categories according to their rating and importance, as well as include info on TFs who identified them as laying within their fields of interest and a host of other data. That way, we could easily see (perhaps also aided by script-generated lists):
  • Important articles no TF is interested in editing
  • Important articles with low ratings
  • Articles not rated yet within a scope of TFs interest
  • etc. - see how WikiProject Trains uses this data, I think it is great!
  1. That said, I think somebody more proficient in the magic of WikiCode and scripts could help me - perhaps I could modify the template, but certainly not write the scripts. I was thinking about our indispensable User:Interiot, but he does not seem enthusiastic, and I think is busy with something else now :(
  2. Awards - the idea was just answering Kieran's call for more recognition for users. Of course it is not meant to subsitute the good old spontaneous awards, it is meant to complement them. I guess this could be an important motivator for people to e.g. do some minor cleanups that normally go unnoticed, or for example to convince some native speaker to help a non-native (like myself) to clean up the article before it gets submitted for appraisal. We can call them "Brownie Points" or something if we don't want to compromise the status pf Awards.
    We'll see whether anybody would really be interested.
  3. Gerd - regarding "luxury cars" - of course there can be multiple TFs with varying and partially cross-overlapping scopes of interest. I only thought that the "geographic coverage division" would be the easiest way to have all articles under somebody's roof. As concerns luxury cars, I see a problem though - it could unfortunately attract people very propensive to writing paeans on their beloved models and curbing POV could be a nightmare. Moreover, it could also start with a nasty row over what is the definition of "luxury car". See if your interests wouldn't perhaps mostly lie within the scopes of North American and German TFs - nobody will force you to edit an article on Corsa or Pinto, obviously!
  4. Anyway - there are no rules (though it just occured to me we need to put down all RULES we have set concerning car articles in one convenient place, but that'sa nother thing) and nothing's obligatory or mandatory - it's just meant for us to have more fun and work in a little more organized way :D Now, it will only work if there will be people willing to participate. I will put up a section where you can sign in if you feel like participating in some task forces and such - this will make it obvious whether there is any sense in pursuing that :D Bravada, talk - 10:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Before we start with the TF work, we need to have article standards determined - the first task for all task forces would be to review all articles in their scope, as they were all created pre-TF, all members could be doing that. PS2. I have started working, or at least thinking about a multi-functional template based on what WikiProject Trains uses. Please see User:Bravada/template if you are interested, and especially if you have some experience with advanced WikiCode and JavaScript.

You're right there is always a dispute over luxury cars and I am wel aquainted the problem of afficianado POV on luxo car pages-most of my edits are within this field, on cars from the US, Germany as well as Japan. I think one of my main tasks is and would be to keep most luxo articles POV free. I'm sure it will work out. My field is mostly fulls-ize American and some German cars. Signaturebrendel 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What Now My Love

(This statement was put there without much consideration on author's side and, as it caused some unnecessary controversies, has been promptly removed) Nevertheless, some TFs look likely to be formed, even if the ensemble is quite peculiar in some cases :D Surprisingly, the first "complete" one is the Japanese Cars Task Force! Well, the North American is simply missing a reviewer, everybody wants to contribute... I guess we need to keep the lists open like that for some time yet (let's wait until the weekend comes so that editors that don't edit on weekdays would have a chance too), but I think we might consider combining some TFs for the time being, like all Asian with the Japanese unless enough users would declare their interest.

On the other hand, some TFs are only missing a person or two, so why not scour the related articles for Wikipedians involved in editing them, even though they aren't members of this WikiProject (yet) and invite them in? Perhaps enthusiasts might also post notices in "regional notice boards" that exist for many regions, countries and languages. It would be good to gather as many people as possible, as the tasks are pretty massive. Besides, it is also good to have as many users as possible speaking a particular language, especially if it is Japanese or even Spanish or Portuguese.

OK, I guess some of you might be wondering what happens next. I think each TF should start with compiling a list of existing articles within their field of interest, using existing categories and searching for leftovers. I think that the template I am trying to develop might come in handy (it would automatically categorize the articles when placed with appropriate parameters), but I guess I still need some help with that - any volunteers?

Then, after every TF would have their list, all hands battle stations, we start reviewing them for compliance with WikiProject standards and importancy. Everybody, not only reviewers, should be involved in the effort, as we need to pre-review each and every article before starting any work - regardless of who actually wrote it, though I think that if somebody finds that he/she is the "majority contributor" to an article, it would be good to pass on that particular one for the integrity of the process. I also think we need to review some "general" automobile articles that would not fall into the scope of any of the TFs, like the flagship automobile, history of the automobile, car classes and such.

That said, you might be wondering what standards are we going to review those articles against, and that's a very good question :D First of all, we need to review our article standards and conventions as they are (see main WikiProject page) and make sure everything is clearly expressed there. I also think we might use some comprehensive guide to formatting car (and later also engine, platform, brand etc.) articles, something like "Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/How to Write a Great Article on a Car?". Any volunteers?

Moreover, we need to start the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Assessment page, just like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment one, where we would discuss (in the talk page) how to adapt the WP 1.0 assessment standards to car articles and later put it down so that we could start reviewing. We also need to put down some guidelines for assessing importancy, so that we don't end up with thousands of "top importancy" articles.

Quite a lot to do, ain't it? (I guess I could've put it in more concise bullets or something but I hope you somehow digested it - thanks to everybody who got that far). Bravada, talk - 15:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that this exercise reveals how few people participate. It only reveals how few of them read this project page - or how few want to be bothered with all that formality. I didn't sign up because I prefer to dive in and tweak things that take my fancy when they take my fancy. You are assuming that a potential editor would be interested in (say) "British cars" - but their interests might lie in "Small cars" or "1960's cars" or "Rally cars" or "Cars I have owned" or "Cars I aspire to own" or "Cars with manual gearboxes" or...something else entirely. So your taskforce organisations are quite worthless to a large fraction of the people who might want to get involved. So - I didn't sign up for a taskforce - even though I'm pretty active in maintaining automotive articles. SteveBaker 17:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
True, the participation in the TFs doesn't reflect the acitivity of an editor-but they are not mandatory anyways and neither is the extend to which a person needs to participate. Signaturebrendel 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess I didn;t explain myself properly - using the new Interiot's tool, I can more or less see how many people are regularly active in editing automotive-related articles. Some of them signed in, some didn't - perhpas I should have said I realized not it revealed. I looked at the list and then checked the list of people I could think of that could sign in (as they edit the related articles on a more or less regular basis) and I thought that not many people are left. What-EVER.
By no means did I mean to create any boundaries for editors participating in this project, I guess we ALL have diverging interests that cannot be easily identified with boundaries referring to country of origin, vehicle size, period etc. I just meant to create a solution that would make it easier to organize and improve the apalling average quality of automotive articles on WP and make all efforts related to that more effective, as well as perhaps activate some editors that perhaps might contribute more to this area. If you believe it was a waste of time, please excuse me for bothering you. Regards, Bravada, talk - 18:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No, no it wasn't a waste of time as a more organized effort usually brings better result-that's why we have Wiki projects in the first place-this was just about the "...said I realized not it revealed" thing. Signaturebrendel 19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess I've failed at the first fence - I couldn't see anywhere to sign up! Yes, I'd be willing to participate in a TF or two. Where do I sign up? What about another TF heading, while we're at it? - 'Body styles'. - Ballista 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi - look at the top of the page for the listing of TFs! In case you have some problems signing up, please just notify me what TFs would you like to join and I will add your username there. As concerns "Body styles", do you mean a TF that would deal with articles on body styles? There are like a handful of them, I don't think that there would be much sense in creating a separate TF for that. I think those belong to the "general interest" category - we should ALL make sure they are up to highest standards, as almost articles on specific models link to at least on of them.
And if you mean a TF whose activity would revolve around issues regarding body styles (like naming, number of doors etc.), this is quite general stuff, it is one of those things we need to establish standards for and put them down (I think there already was a consensus regarding numbers of doors, it just wasn't put down in any of the main standards/conventions pages). Regards, Bravada, talk - 20:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I happened to find the TFs at the top of the page, when I opened up this morning! I had simply read from the bottom of the page, before (Chinese or something!). I see what you mean about 'body styles' - yes, leave that suggestion well alone. - Ballista 03:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Galant

Can someone check this article?? It's a total mess, and needs a total rewrite! --TheM62Manchester 21:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of trying to rewrite it just now. I'll maybe try to do something about the infoboxes in the meantime, since someone's gotten a bit carried away with the "also known as" sections.
The trouble is, there's probably not enough actual content left to justify splitting it any more. The Mitsubishi Galant GTO, Mitsubishi Galant Lambda and Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 already have their own dedicated pages, so all that's left to cover is the basic sedan/hatch/wagons. --DeLarge 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I've repaired the "also known as" sections, but I think it's painfully clear that this article needs more than some minor fixes. --ApolloBoy 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Split it into separate articles, like Consumer Guide's website does? --TheM62Manchester 22:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I did a quick tidy, but I think I had an edit conflict with User:ApolloBoy,so I'm going to have to go back and look through what's changed. However, it's too late for me to make a lot of further edits.
As I said, though, I'm in the middle of rewriting this - I have a fairly large document stored offline, and I'll move it to my userspace tomorrow so people can see what progress is being made. --DeLarge 23:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Galant owner myself, so let me know if there's anything I can do. Jagvar 01:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Chrysler Sebring

the Chrysler Sebring article is flooded with infoboxes. I think we should simple have a "first" "second" and "third" generation infobox. Karrmann 22:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I personally think the infoboxes are fine. If we were to put together all the infoboxes into three, it would cause some confusion and would be hard to maintain. However, this article could use more info to fill up the huge blank spot. --ApolloBoy 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. Now that I think about it, the cloud car articles might use some interesting solution - how about keeping the "nameplate" articles short "disambig" articles (i.e. briefly explaining the story of a nameplate, without excessive infoboxes) and describe the development history on platform pages?
No, that would become confusing too, just look at the Mercedes-Benz pages. I can barely read those... --ApolloBoy 22:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Karrmann that the page as it is looks a bit overwhelmed with infoboxes. A reader trying to navigate from one generation of a bodystyle to another isn't being done any favours by the current layout. I'd say this is a far better candidate for splitting than the Mitsubishi Galant. --DeLarge 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In think, especially in the case of the Galant, that not every redeign marks a new generation. Revising the grille slightly and adding chrome door handles hardly adds up to a new generation. The fact is that many automobile generations include a redesign wihtin their "life-span." Signaturebrendel 18:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I split them up. I personally think that now it will be a lot more reader friendly. Take a look for yourself! Karrmann 01:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Renault Laguna article

Please see the notice I placed at the top of the article. --TheM62Manchester 22:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move from "keicar" to "K-car"

I've put my reasons in the talk page. --Zilog Jones 13:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Toyota Stuff

Upon searching for info about the "Lean Burn" 1.6 engine in the Carina E (still don't know much about it), bizarrely this was 4th on the list that Google gave me: http://homepages.iol.ie/~omara/omm/toyota.html It seems to be a website stuck in 1996, but has detailed specs and prices for most Toyotas sold in Ireland back then, which may be useful to us.

The bizarre part is the site appears to be made by the son (or some relative) of Tony O'Mara, who is my local Toyota dealer - there's a picture of the dealers on the site here - judging by the "new" cars it must have been taken between 1987-1990, which is quite amusing.

P.S. In case you're wondering, the dealer does have a current website: http://www.omaramotors.com/ (The old dealer showroom/courtyard in that picture is still there but is only being used for storage) --Zilog Jones 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Opel cars

Many Opel brand cars are incorrectly titled General Motors (car_name_here) :-). I propose not a task force, but a tour-de-force to move those articles to the proper place. This is a small list of cars never branded by General Motors that should be titled Opel (car_name_here). Please expand this list as necessary. It would also be interesting to have a Task Force for renaming incorrect titled articles since its common fot the correct title being already taken by a redirect, administrator rights are necessary to execute the move. I would like to propose Bravada as an administrator nominee which would facilitate our work on the automobile articles in general (if he accepts that responsability, of course).

In need of attention

Already corrected/Never wrong

Regards Loudenvier 14:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like my formalistic inclinations prompted some nasty developments... No need for a special Task Force here, such renaming is just a part of our day-to-day activites - though "interest" Task forces could perhaps spot such articles more easily and devise ways to deal with them. As concerns the two remaining "General Motors Sumfink" pages, there is no need for a committee, we just need to be very nice and smile at Interiot or Sfoskett, who are admins and could execute such move :D (or perhaps there are more admins around here?)
The Zafira shouldn't be a problem, it is fairly obvious and in accordance with our naming policy. There is some problem with the Corsa though, which is worth broader attention as a user points out that the policy has not been formally put down - it is a good reason to go through our conventions and make sure everything is up-to-date and easily accessible to anybody interested! Regards, Bravada, talk - 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Group-wide watchlist

A small anouncement... This is a link that lists all recent changes to any automobile article. Maybe it's bad news for OCD editors, but that's okay. Anyway, the recentchanges are built in a slightly non-obvious way, so I wanted to explain how some of your actions can affect it.

  1. Whenever a new category is created, its talk page should be tagged with {{AutomobileWatch}}. To start with, I'm putting these down on all automobile categories I know about (~500 of them), but if you see a category being created or renamed, please tag the new category.
  2. User:WatchlistBot is run by Ingrid every couple days or weeks, and finds every article directly under those categories (it doesn't look in subcategories of that category, because that can sometimes lead to non-project pages [1]) (many thanks to Ingrid, without whose help this wouldn't be possible)
  3. The bot updates Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Articles, so that it contains a link to all articles it just found
  4. You can then go to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Articles and see all the recent changes
  5. Optionally, you can use the link provided to filter out all but the most recent change from Special:Recentchangeslinked (eg. make it work like a watchlist)

Anyway, hopefully this is something that will be generally useful to the project. (for what it's worth, it won't cover all articles until next week, I'm still in the process of putting the template down) --Interiot 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an abdolutely wonderful tool! Thanks an inexplicable lot, Interiot! I've just been thinking that something like that could be very useful and suddenly here it is! I thought it would be good to have more car-related stuff appear on the main page, so I started looking for recently created/expanded articles to create DYK factoids from and this is a great tool to facilitate this! So beware, whatever you put down might appear on the main page :D
An advice for fame-seekers - a good way to ensure your factoid gets DYKed (?) is to include a nice free pic, as every DYK set has to contain one and ones with pics are thus in a way favored :D Bravada, talk - 17:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Vector Supercars

I would like some input/attention to the Vector Supercars article, as I believe that with some work it can become featured. Karrmann 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Honda Accord

I've been trying to edit this article, but it needs a rewrite. If anyone knows what can be done can they let me know- thanks?? --TheM62Manchester 09:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess the biggest problem is its focus on the American market nameplate, especially after the sixth generation, when the JDM Accord and USDM Accord were split into different models. That "worldwide" section needs to go, and each generation needs to be rewritten with the Japanese model's details first, followed by a paragraph with specific changes for other markets. Pc13 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Also add in info on Canada, Australia and New Zealand-specification models, these are quite different to Japanese or American versions. --TheM62Manchester 10:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

TF Japanese

Okay, I have started reviewing Lexus articles and just removed a whole chunk of POV from the LS article-I somehow think that this could get somewhat unpleasant (somebody just added a $200k Bentley as competitors-sigh) but I am continuing to remove POV from the TFs where I signed up as reviewer. Anyways, perhaps we should discuss some vague guidelines for reviewers of TFs-this might be quite helpful. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear that, Gerd, but I think this is just a part of everybody's everyday routine - removing POV and some weird stuff (like "Kevin's mother had one"). You are absolutely right, the whole thing consists in setting standards beforehand and reviewing articles against them, and then gradually improving, perhaps starting with the ones considered most "important". What we need is no "vague" guidelines, we have vague guidelines now, we need to review all the standards found here to see whether they are relevant and make sure they are unambigious and complete. As I said, perhaps bringing them together in one place in a concise and easy to read'n'apply way might make sense.
And as I intended to use the WP 1.0 assessment system, we would need to decide how to apply its guidelines to specific car articles (e.g. does a B-class article need to list all engines or does it need a free photo and stuff).
Now that I think about it, I might have quite stupidly divert all the attention the wrong way, which might be counterproductive. It's those STANDARDS that are important, and the reviewing, the TFs and stuff are secondary or even tertiary. I will post some thoughts on missing standards I have in a moment, I just need to collect them together in a concise form. Bravada, talk - 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"bringing them together in one place in a concise and easy to read'n'apply way might make sense"-that's what I meant. Proivde a quick handy summary type thing-What to look for, what should be removed, etc... a quick and easy to use guideline tool. I know that the TFs are secondary to the standards I just thought a helpful outline of the standards might help editors. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, some things I would like propose as new standards/conventions:
  • The latest proliferation of better or worse free photos in articles, which I am at least partially responsible for, made me think that we need more strict and specific guidelines on inclusion of photos in articles.
  1. First and foremost, main photos absolutely HAVE to comply with guidelines set here.
  2. Obviously, there should be one pic for every generation mentioned in the text, i.e. one for every infobox (every generation should in general have an infobox), COMPLYING with the above standards (blurry photos of a car's rump, or a car just salvaged from flood do NOT comply).
  3. If a given model/generation had more body styles, a photo for each body style is recommended - again, CONFORMING with the basic standards (front 3/4s etc.)
  4. A very notable version which significantly differs in outside appearance can also attract a photo - guess what, CONFORMING with the basic standards
  5. If some very significant detail is discussed in text, whose graphic presentation can aid
  6. All additional photos of the car should be placed in the Commons and an appropriate link should be added to the article.
  7. In case the number of photos in text becomes overbearing compared to the amount of text, they should be put in a gallery, placed so that it does not overlap with infoboxes and other graphic elements.
  8. Conversely, if the photos are relatively sparse among big chunks of text, additional high-quality photographs may be added to enhance the appearance of the article.
  9. The standard size for photographs in infoboxes is 250px. Other photographs should not exceed this size, and should be downsized to 200px or 175px whenever it would be beneficial for the appearance of the article.
  10. For all "subjective" qualities listed above ("significance", "quality", "appearance"), the general rule is that less photos and smaller size takes precedence - i.e. ANY user can remove a photograph if he/she believes it is of inacceptable quality, or the version is not significant enough. Those edits should not be reverted, but can be disputed on the talk page.
  11. Users should not replace other users' photographs with their own. If a user believes his photograph is of higher quality, he/she should suggest the change on the talk page, and if a user not involved with any of the photographs agrees, he/she then replaces the photograph(s).
Man is this poorly written - if somebody could put it down in better English, I would be most obliged. Until then, what are our comments? Bravada, talk - 23:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that's what I'm talking about. Signaturebrendel 01:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Apolloboy

it seems that Wairthu pushed Apolloboy over the edge, as it looks like he going to be off Wikipedia for a while.

I'm back, things seem to have cooled down fast, so I decided to come back now that the "all clear" was given. --ApolloBoy 00:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Wairthurhu decieded to make himself a Wikicop, and started handing out ciatations left and right to everybody he disliked, and in the Bully article, he added three long paragraphs bashing us and Wikipedia, and that got him blocked for a week. Hallaulla! Karrmann 00:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Taub, Eric (1991). Taurus: The Making of the Car That Saved Ford. E. P. Dutton. ISBN 0-525-93372-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_5&oldid=1136417384"