I just wanted to note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation is a page that we can use to track automobile-related articles that are up for deletion. If you see an auto-related AfD, feel free to add it to that page. The page has actually been around for a while, and has only recently seen more use. But if it starts to get enough automobile articles on it, then we could split out the automobile articles at that point. --Interiot03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Can something be done to solve this on a large scale? It gets really tiring to have a huge debate about every damn image. Can we have a page for requested images and maybe something else to denote images that are the best and do not need to be replaced? Take care of this once and for all so we don't have to go through this every time an editor decides to get in a snit? --Sable23221:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
When there are two images, one is better than the other. With few exceptions, something better can always be created, and there's no benefit to Wikipedia in favoring the incumbent image. IFCAR
Merge proposal of TVR Cerbera Speed 12 and TVR Speed 12
I am bringing this merge nomination of these two pages of TVR Cerbera Speed 12 and TVR Speed 12, one is they look like two separate pages that needs joining together and the other, as I am not sure which one of these two is the official name and it is in need of a cleanup. Feel free to make your views known here. Willirennen02:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, TVR Cerbera Speed 12 has very little in it except for information that ought to be in an infobox. Conversely, TVR Speed 12 has the look of something that might one day be a good article - but mostly what it desperately needs is an Infobox. So - I would definitely take the former article - turn it into an official infobox and stick it into the top of the second article. Then make the first article be a simple redirect to the second one. Then all you need (deperately!) is a picture and you're well on the way to making a pretty decent article. Good work! SteveBaker02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have already merged the page together after googling the Speed 12 name, which indicatged the former is the latter name and some small cleanup, all it needs is more cleanup. Willirennen18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Another merge proposal is as I know I am going to sound like a merge happy killjoy for saying this but do you think I should merge the TVR Speed Twelve engine page into that already merged page above, as no other cars has the engine and the category for TVR engines only has the Tuscan engine which appears in several other cars in the range. Otherwise the engine I'm referring to should be known as the AJP-12, considering it consists of two joined up AJP-6 engines. What do you think. Willirennen01:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, go for it. It's out of place to have an article on an engine used in 1 car (one model and there was only 1 produced I think). Is there anything else we can merge into it? ;) James086Talk03:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Already merged the pages, all I know these articles came from two separate issues of the Evo Magazine (presumably January 2003 and May 2005) which I won both copies (obviously for the article for that car), I wish I could fish them out but at the moment, it is too much of a burden at the moment as they are bagged up with my other car magazines. I will be back to finish the rest later. Willirennen16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Infoboxes
For cars that have a wide model range, should we do a wikitable with the engines and bodystyle combinations, similar to the Audi A4 article's??
I think that's a good idea for cars with very complex sets of body/engine combinations. The infobox is intended to be a really quick way to get the basic data together in a form that's homogeneous across car articles - but if things get too complicated then by all means put it into the body of the article. I definitely wouldn't assume that all articles need that though - some cars just have one or two engines and one body style - or a couple of body styles and one engine - and the infobox along with a couple of sentences in the text is plenty. Then there are others (the Mini is once again my example) where the same basic body took about a dozen different engines over a 40 year period with three or four engine options being available at any one time, often depending on where in the world you bought your car. The format of table you have for Audi A4 and Renault 21 don't suite that kind of thing at all! So I don't want to see all of this stuff ending up in the infobox because it destroys it's value as a quick basis for comparisons - and I don't want to see some kind of rigidly imposed additional Wikitable that everyone is supposed to adhere to. Outside of the infobox I believe that each article must organise the information in whatever way is optimal for that specific kind of car. SteveBaker15:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
We need to get rid of that advertising image from Austin Ambassador - we've gotta be able to find a photo of one of those (although the cars are getting fairly rare now) - I wonder if there is an owner's club. SteveBaker17:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The guy at the Leyland Princess owners club (the Ambassador is just a re-styled Princess) was happy to provide me with a couple of Ambassador photos under GFDL (it's usually the case that these club folks will happily give you free-use photos - you just have to ask nicely). SteveBaker12:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You can do it yourself...but may I strongly suggest that you put a sentence into the very first paragraph that explains that the Versa and the Tiida are the same car - and put the words 'Nissan Versa' in boldface. Otherwise, people who search for the Versa find themselves at a page that appears to be about a completely different car. They probably won't read past the first couple of sentences before giving up and assuming that Wikipedia is screwed up somehow. So it's vitally important to mention both names in the very first sentence or so. SteveBaker12:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed about highlighting the names. I think merging articles like this is very sensible, but we need to make sure readers know why they've been redirected. Remember that this is an encyclopedia for general readers. Many of them will not know about market-specific naming conventions. I've been bold. --DeLarge12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Front-wheel drive
Help is needed at Talk:Front-wheel drive. Many different issues are discussed. For instance if advanced driving techniques should be included and what is implied in the statement "A front wheel drive car is always faster over a given section of road for a given vehicle weight, power and tire size.". // Liftarn
I support this idea. I offer to only list advantages and disadvantages in Front-wheel drive and Front-wheel drive related to commercial vehicles and passanger vehicles, and not to motorsport vehicles. Or we should categorize the advantages and disadvantages to the following categories:
The problem with that is duplication (low weight is for instance good both for passenger cars and motorsport cars) or determine what belongs where. // Liftarn
Let me just remind everyone that information needs to be referenced. Please make sure that if you are going to implement such a list, every point on it is referenced. Regards, Signaturebrendel17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes - it would be easy for the front-wheel-drive fanatics (I'm definitely one of them!) to get in and advocate the heck out of this and then get into big bust-ups with the muscle car guys (who think that anything more twisty than a drag strip is unsuitable for driving)...it could get nasty. Since we know in advance that NPOV is going to be a problem, we'd want to take extra-special care to reference every single fact. But so much depends on subtle details like where the weight distribution is, how much weight transfer to the front wheels when braking and how much to the rear when accellerating - whether a limited slip diff is used - how you compromise between wide tyres for traction versus narrower ones to make steering easier...there are way too many variables to generalise. You can make a great front wheel drive car - or you can make one where the torque-steer turns it into a death-trap during heavy accelleration. Personally, such a set of comparisons might be better in a separate article Comparison of automotive drive configurations or something. That way you wouldn't attract just the FWD nuts and wind up with a biassed article. SteveBaker23:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Skewed Angle Images
Like skewed angle images like those taken from the Montreal Auto Show, are they worse for infoboxes? Here's a gallery.
I would say no. It's best to avoid too "arty" shots. // Liftarn
Sorry Bull-Dose, but I also have to say no. That's the thing about being bold, sometimes great things come of it and sometimes the end-result just isn't acceptable. So while I congratualte you for being bold, I must say that pictures above are low quality. Regards, Signaturebrendel16:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should be clear about this. It's not that you can't use them for infoboxes in any case what so ever. If they're the only images of that particular vehicle, definitely use them. If standard images exist with a more proper horizontal alignment, these should be used instead of angled images. Roguegeek (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If all else fails and we don't have any other picture of that particular car, then use them. But the photography is horrible. We are aiming for the clearest, most informative photo we can get - wild angles just make it harder for the poor reader to understand the photo. Try to remember - we aren't trying to advertise the car - we are trying to describe it. SteveBaker23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The thing I understood about photo's was that they are trying to be encyclopedic, in otherwords as informative as possible, not at all distracting. If there are no other pictures available then by all means use them, but often there is a better option. James086Talk07:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Car theft
There are many ways to steal a car. The way that I used to use is popping out the ignition. If anyone would like me to write an article about it, I'm here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.160.23.111 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
You should probably check out our existing article on this topic: Hotwiring. Popping the ignition switch is something that's getting less and less viable though - many newer cars have RFID tags (or similar) in their keys that the cars computer checks on (often in conjunction with the remote keyless entry system). So it's irrelevent what wires are connected to what wires - if the Engine Control Unit computer doesn't cooperate with running the engine - you're going nowhere. You've either got to steal the key first - or it's down to using a tow truck. SteveBaker01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Mini Moke is a WP:FAC
I'm done with writing the Mini Moke article - it's passed WP:GAC so I guess I might as well shoot for WP:FAC. The biggest problem is that it's a little short - but that's all there is to say about this weird little vehicle. The candidacy page is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mini Moke - feel free to shoot it down in flames! SteveBaker
That last oppose you got is of those bloody annoying "I think your article has poor standards of English" complaints where they give you no clue what they don't like and make no effort to help you fix it. I have a deep hatred of that kind of thing! I've decided to call them "Drive-by 'oppose's". I couldn't see anything too horrible in terms of grammar/punctuation - but then the last FAC I did got shot down in the exact same way - I never did find out what they didn't like. SteveBaker17:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
They can oppose for that reason if they like. I got a friend to copyedit (most of) the article last night in my account so at least some good came out of it. Besides, Raul654 will no doubt check before making it featured. It shouldn't be a problem. I will ask for some clarification from the opposer. James086Talk06:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
OK fellow gear-heads, this is a bit off-topic for Wikipedia - but you need to see it. The story on it is a little vague - but it seems that someone either bought or inherited a farm in Portugal - containing a large barn. All of the doors were welded shut(!)...but after they cut through the welds with an angle-grinder, this astounding sight met their eyes:
It's utterly amazing. 180 rare classic cars - most of them nicely restored - then left in a barn to rot - covered in decades of dirt and bird crap. The newest car I've been able to positively identify is about 40 years old (you can just see a white Mk II classic Mini in one of the photos)...but there are a lot of very weird and wonderful machines in there. You can easily spend an hour trying to figure out what they all are.
I'd dearly like to know more about this - does anyone know anything more about the back story? Who ever collects millions of dollars worth of gorgeous classics - then shoves them into a leaky old barn and welds the doors shut?!?
I found out that the barn doors have been welded shut for fifteen years. We still don't know how long the cars have been there - but we know it's between 15 and 40 years. SteveBaker12:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I saw a caddy, that's insane, as if the previopus owner never knew what was in there or never bothered to open the doors (even if it tooks an angle grinder TotallyTempo00:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Nuffield Guppy
In the course of writing my Mini Moke article, I needed to mention the Nuffield Guppy - sadly there is no Wikipedia article about it - so it's a redlink. Now I'm taking Mini Moke through WP:FAC and one of the reviewers wants at least a stub article written about the Guppy. Well, the only information I have comes from Alec Issigonis's biography - but all it says is what the Mini Moke article says - he designed the vehicle for some kind of military purpose and it wasn't a great success. A Google search brings up only the Mini Moke article's redlink! This must be a pretty obscure vehicle. Does anyone know anything about it? Even enough to write a stub would be good! SteveBaker17:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Four possible options:
Remove the sentence altogether.
Keep it, but remove the wikilink.
Write a very short stub including all you know, just to blueify (sic) the redlink.
Do not mention the Guppy by name, saying merely that the Moke was Issigonis's second attempt to break into the military vehicle market.
Of these options, I prefer the first one best. From what you say, an article on the Guppy wouldn't even meet the standards of a stub, and would risk being prodded or deleted in future (which would of course restore the link to redness). Having no wikilink would probably eventually lead to a well-meaning editor wikilinking it in due course, and again you're back to square one. Mentioning only that the Moke was AI's second try might well lead to the question "so what was the first?" And if there's really such a paucity of information, then what is the likelihood of it being declined FA status for not comprehensively covering its subject ("because it didn't mention the Guppy")? --DeLarge04:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I found a reference that tied the 'Guppy' name to the motorized wheelbarrow thing...so I have enough for a stub. But talking to the Heritage folks sounds like an excellent idea. They have a wonderful research department. I had them track down the serial numbers on all of the parts for my Mini so I could see what stuff was factory-original and what had been replaced over the years - they were most helpful. SteveBaker20:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a see also for the Austin Ant, one of Issigonis's last designs - yet another small military vehicle for the military, this time 4x4, inspired by the twin-engined Moke. It was killed off (allegedly) by Land Rover who had just joined Austin in BL. There's an article about it in this month's Classic & Sports Car magazine so I'll try to put together an article for it soon. In the meantime the see also may inspire somebody else to contribute to it too. – Kieran T(talk)13:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Supercar page protection suggestion
I'm going to have to say though it is harsh to unregistered users who have contributed to these pages, as I have seen recently most of these current supercar pages have been vandalised notably the Ferrari Enzo and Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren, so would page protection be a good thing and if so what can you suggest. Willirennen20:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Ferrari Enzo looks like it gets vandalised once every two or three days on the average. To put this into some context, both Automobile and Computer (which I watch) get hit four or five times per day. Whilst we have been able to obtain semi-protection for those pages for a while, the admins never let the semi-protection be permenant - so after a week or two, some annoying admin will turn the protection off again. But your articles are getting maybe a tenth the amount of vandalism - I don't see them giving you semi-protection for any great length of time. But you can try. SteveBaker20:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Admins will never semi-protect a page unless it is a hot-button topic. For example, Jeep has not had a single constructive IP edit in weeks, but I still can't get it protected when the vandalism gets heavy. Maybe we just need to be a little more annoying about it?
That doesn't surprise me. The admins don't mind using semi-protect when it's a short-term spam problem - it's the indefinite kind of protection they don't like. SteveBaker02:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Admitedly, those articles don't get many contructive anon edits, however, they don't get enough bad edits for an admin to protect them. Halo 3 was getting 5-10 anon vandalisms/silliness edits per day and got turned down twice I think before it was protected. Also speaking of Enzo Ferrari I'm planning to get this featured. I haven't started editing yet but I'm collecting facts and sources in my sandbox at the moment if anyone's interested. James086Talk07:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Car Images From Yahoo! Groups
Hi, I've been uploading a few car pictures from Yahoo! Groups to the Wikimedia Commons. The Yahoo! Groups images mainly came from the Yahoo! user who took the car picture, however. Look at the Pontiac Sunbird page. -- Bull-Doser05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It states that you are the author, which isn't the case. It's not pd-self. And do you have clear permission from the actual authors of the photos to use them? IFCAR12:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Obscured angle images
I am seeing a lot of images from obscured angles popping up, most of them coming from Bull-Doser. I am wondering what our standing on it is, as They are not very informative, and they are of kinda poor quality. Karrmann13:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It was discussed a bit up and the result seems to be "it's better then nothing". So if you find a better picture just replace it. // Liftarn
Actually I am still disputing that resolution a bit. We do need to look professional here in Wikipedia. A really, really bad image (as are some of the obscured angle ones) can actually take away from the article. Please try and replace them with images that feature the car in an up-right position. Signaturebrendel16:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
After a short meander this evening, I discovered myself at the Intercooler page. Which was fine, until I realised a little mess that I think needs tidied up. Currently we have the following situation:
An intercooler page (6.7 kB), which contains a large section on charge coolers.
A charge cooler page (775 bytes), which is a stub containing less info on charge coolers than intercooler does.
I think it's slightly bizarre to have thee pages to describe an intercooler when, especially when each page is so short. So I'm going to put merge tags on the pages with the idea of the following:
Move most of the charge cooler content in intercooler to charge cooler, which will remove a lot of its stubbiness (grow it to 3 kB?).
I'd normally just be bold, but I'm a sociable mood for once, and since all the articles seem to have been in existence for a while and been contributed to by editors of note, I thought I'd informally discuss the proposed changes here before I formally tag everything. It'd also be easier to have a centralised discussion, rather than risk having the conversations spread across four talk pages. --DeLarge19:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Support -- Those articles aren't going to get much bigger than they are now. Merge 'em and we'll have a decent article instead of four more or less stubby things. I wouldn't mess around with shifting content around to keep charge cooler though - just shove all four articles into intercooler and make redirects of the other three. SteveBaker19:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Merge The location of an intercooler is just an aspect of the same device. There is no functional difference between top, side, and front mount intercoolers. In the end, water-to-air and air-to-air are still the same functional components as well. Given the amount of information I think one encompassing article is plenty. "Charge cooler" seems to be nothing but a lesser known synonym to "intercooler" and I've never actually seen reference to this naming convention. I don't think it deserves any more than passing mention as a synonym in the main Intercooler article. I'm more than willing to help merge and clean up one single Intercooler article --Freonr222:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, two weeks are up with no dissenting voices, so content has been merged and redirects created. Article is now a bit of a mess as a result (duplication, bullet points, etc), but I'll try and give it a brief proof. I'll also tag it for cleanup. --DeLarge12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
MPG figures
Do we have a policy for quoting MPG figures in articles? I just got some serious criticism (justifiably, perhaps) because someone had stuck the text: "Fuel economy of 48.7 mpg on the combined cycle" into the MINI (BMW) article when talking about the new 2007 MINI. Careful checking reveals the following data:
European Union Test Cycle
Model
MINI Cooper
MINI CooperS (Turbo)
Urban
Imp.mpg
36.2
31.7
Extra-urban
Imp. mpg
61.4
49.6
Combined
Imp. mpg
48.7
40.9
US EPA Test Cycle
Model
MINI Cooper
MINI CooperS (Turbo)
city
MPG (US gallons)
32
29
hwy
MPG (US gallons)
40
36
combined
MPG (US gallons)
35
32
Hmmm - so we could quote any number from 29 to 61 "mpg" and still claim some kind of validity! Clearly, the first problem is that we have Imperial gallons in the EU tests and US gallons in the EPA numbers - so 'correcting' the EPA figures to Imperial gallons and putting both sets of figures into one handy table, we get:
US EPA and EU Test Cycles (converted to Imp gallons)
Model
MINI Cooper (EPA)
MINI Cooper (EU)
MINI CooperS (Turbo) (EPA)
MINI CooperS (Turbo) (EU)
City/Urban
38.4
36.2
34.8
31.7
Hwy/Extra-Urban
48.0
61.4
43.2
49.6
Combined
42.0
48.7
38.4
40.9
Firstly, it's obvious that we should never, ever say "MPG" without qualifying which kinds of gallon we are talking about. (There are 1.2 US gallons in an Imperial gallon) - secondly that even when you allow for that, there is still almost 10% difference between EU and EPA numbers for the urban cycle, a 20% difference in the 'Highway' cycle and something similar in the 'combined' cycle. So if our poor readers are trying to compare two cars - one of which is using the EPA figures and the other the EU figures, they are making a TOTALLY false comparison. If we also mix in that we might be talking different kinds of gallons - different fuel types and that one might be talking about the automatic and the other the manual tranmission...we could be all over the map!
The cleanest way to fix the 'MPG' thing is to never, ever refer simply to MPG without qualifying which kind of gallon we're talking about - and preferably quoting the liters/100km figure also (in an ideal world, everyone would use liters and kilometers...but we aren't going to rehash that old argument!). But even so - the vast differences between the EU and EPA test cycles mean that we need to qualify that too.
Then we see (taking the EPA/US gallons figures):
US EPA Test Cycle (US gallons)
Model
MINI Cooper (Manual)
MINI CooperS (Turbo) (Manual)
MINI Cooper (Automatic)
MINI CooperS (Turbo) (Automatic)
City
32
29
30
27
Hwy
40
36
37
34
Combined
35
32
33
30
OMG - so now we see almost 10% difference between manual and automatic gearbox.
What we should probably do is to find someone with some serious PERL scripting skills to dredge the data from EPA and EU websites - convert everything to one set of units and stuff the results into the info-box of every car article we have. A major undertaking - but in a gas-consumption-conscious world, I think the results would be most worthwhile.
SUMMARY: The following sources of error exist - US vs Imp. Gallons: 20% error, EPA vs EU test cycle: 10% to 25% error, Manual vs Automatic: 10% error. Turbo vs non-Turbo: 15% error. Therefore worst-case error in comparing MPG numbers (for this car at least) is of the order of 89%!!
I still don't like the idea of including fuel economy, especially in the infobox. For one, when there are a number of engine and transmission options for a vehicle, there is a different fuel economy figure for each. Take an older Ford truck. 3- and 4-speed automatics, 4- and 5-speed manuals, with five different engine options. That's a lot to include.
Second, I don't know about the EU figures, but the EPA figures are USELESS and don't reflect most people's results. The EPA figures for all American-market cars are in Consumer Guide. I believe they should remain there. Anyone looking to purchase a car will be looking there anyway. I assume there is a similar place for European cars. We don't need the clutter here. --Sable23202:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Or how about converting to L/100 km. Theres no confusion there, ah the metric system when will people learn? ;) I usually use combined stats but make sure it's clear that I did so. So basically list the car it applies to and a few (so as not to overwhelm) of the statistics. James086Talk07:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Acutally converting to the metric system is a great idea- it is the international standard measurement system after all. For cars such as the Cadillac Deville or Lincoln Town Car which are exclusively sold in the US, we can add US measurements as well. The only problem that remains is what to do with cars that have many different engines (and of course which source to trust ;-)) Signaturebrendel08:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I had a conversation with User:BrendelSignature about this recently at Template talk:Infobox Automobile#Fuel economy, although that discussion was limited to the infobox. We came to the same conclusion as User:Sable232. Basically, with the variety of economy measurements (miles per US gals, miles per imperial gals, litres per 100 km, etc etc) and the range of powertrain and bodystyles available, the infobox is going to become unmanageably huge very, very quickly if fuel economy is included. We already get a lot of "region-centric" editing, and I think rather than the encyclopedic panacea being proposed here, we're going to have typical contributions looking more like this. The fact that it's so "regional", and that it's much easier to write in a tabular or bulleted format than in prose style, makes me think that articles won't be worse off if we omit it.
Yeah - but is that any worse than quoting the other data for every version of the car? Each new model year comes with a different set of spoilers and bumper shapes so the dimensions of some cars change every year or two. Same with engine horsepower, same with top speed, 0-60 times and a whole lot of other data. Even without the fuel-efficiency data, the Camry article has a bunch of data in the info box for engine capacities and transmission types that changes every three or four years and comes in 4 varients within each of six different infoboxes. The criteria should be relevence - and I'm pretty sure our readers will find fuel efficiency numbers relevent. Granted there are other sites where they could find this data - but then there are other sites for nearly every scrap of information in Wikipedia - we aren't supposed to become a mere link repository - the information is supposed to be right here. SteveBaker15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with most of you. Not including fuel economy figures in infoboxes, due to complexity. And when quoting, primarily using the official figures unconverted and with specification of gearbox, engine etc. I suppose that would be in l/100 km for EU cycle figures, and in miles/US gallons for US cycle figures. --Boivie11:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Extracting data from reference sites like the EPA automatically instead of by painfully reading each one and converting to standard units using a calculator does not constitute OR. We'd be using really solid referenced material (from the EPA website for chrissakes!) - so the only problem is getting someone fired up to do it. SteveBaker15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding units of measure, I'd suggested presenting US EPA figures in their original units -- MPG , US MPG, or US Miles/Gallon -- and European Test Cycle figures in their original units too. Are the EU figures published in units of (L/100 km)? If so, I do not think there is a need to convert the EU figures to "gallons", since some readers might prefer US Gallons, some Imperial. hadley02:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 03:22, 2007-03-29
I think they are included. Have a look at Category:Automotive television series and Category:Automobile magazines. However, I think we could do without Category:Road accidents which mainly seems to add a list of so called celebrities. Malcolma16:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
As recently, as I have a lot of these modern Japanese, sports and supercars pages on my watchlist which has been on videogames, I have noticed that they all have become a list for videogame appearances rather than being squeezed into one paragraph or incorporated into an article, what do you think would be the best thing for them, though I know somebody once suggested deletig the list what do you think. Willirennen23:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, if a certain car appears in a couple of racing games, that information should go in one paragraph or bullet in a "trivia" or "xxx in popular culture" section. Nothing more, nothing less. -- NaBUru3802:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Uploaded a new batch
I uploaded a batch, if you put some into articles, if you want to, you can insert more into their respective articles., or give feedback.
hereKarrmann22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeffreyherman had done several edits to the minivan article... well, he almost rewrote it completely. I took the versions before and after his modifications, merged them and added some relevant and missing sections (Characteristics and Segments). Some sections still need a big ovherhaul, so I suggest to discuss it before making any other revamp. Please go to the article's talk page to do this. -- NaBUru3805:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Mini Moke got promoted to Featured Article today. That brings this project to an all-time high of five car articles and two related articles that have made it to FA so far. I'll put it up for the front page ASAP. SteveBaker22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - I saw that Maserati MC12 made it - excellent news! But on our project page it's listed in boldface which is supposed to mean that it's been on the WP main page already - I don't recall seeing it there - and there is no note on the Talk: page to indicate that it ever was there. If I'm right and it never was on the main page then I'd suggest adding it to the list of front page FA requests (you know that your FA won't be on the front page unless someone requests it - right?)...except that I just nominated Mini Moke to go there and if we try to get two car articles on the front page too close together, the organisers will say "I think we're seeing too many car articles here" and bounce one of them...which would be **VERY BAD**...so if you do need to nominate it - you might want to wait a month. Good luck with Ford Taurus - it's a great article - it deserves to make it. Now that the 2007 MINI is out, I should probably start adding all of that new stuff into MINI (BMW) and try to get that one through FAC too. Once that is done, all possible articles about cars that are any good will have been on the Wikipedia front page and the universe will be complete - cue the horsemen of the apocalypse, etc. :-) SteveBaker23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't thinking of renominating it until this fall, when the new Taurus will be out, and the whole "speculative" thing will be over, because it will never make it with the fifth generation being all specualtion as it is. So, there will be a reasonable sized gap between them. Karrmann23:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed Mini Moke is also selected content for portal:cars. If that portal is run by this wikiproject, have you considered making the portal selected content an option in the general wikiproject template? Gimmetrow00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just realised I had bolded Maserati MC12 when I added it to the featured content section. It hasn't been on the main page so it's no longer bold. I will put in a request for main page, but will note that it should be separated from other car articles. James086Talk01:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a total of 12 articles currently tagged with this template. Is the portal part of this wikiproject, and if so, is there any reason the portal selection shouldn't be an option within this wikiproject template, rather than having a template on its own? There could be an optional parameter such as portal=yes that would generate a bit of text in the main WikiProject Automobiles template. Gimmetrow03:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It's tempting to automate this stuff further - but frankly, if we are sticking with the policy that only FA's and GA's are allowed into the portal featured article section, then it's hardly worth the effort. As you say - a grand total of 12 articles qualify - it's hardly worth the effort. The number is inching up very slowly - but articles are being de-listed about as fast as we create new ones. New FA's are appearing at a rate of about one every four months...and disappearing at about one every six months. Frankly, I doubt many people even look at our portal - it changes very rarely - and the featured articles recycle every 12 days or so - so you'd be watching it for less than two weeks before you noticed it cycling back again. The bottom line is the same as always - we have VAST number of car articles - but most of them are very poor quality. SteveBaker04:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think it was that much effort so I have changed the template to include the feature [2] (it doesn't show up unless activated with portal=yes). This is what it would look like on a talk page: User:James086/sandbox. Of course the image and text can be changed because it doesn't show up unless the variable is activated. Any comments? James086Talk12:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a movement to reduce talk page template multiplication, and putting "portal selected article" templates inside the wikiproject template is one thing being proposed. Sandbox form looks nice to me, though the check-ok image looks a little odd in this context. Gimmetrow16:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought but I just grabbed a neutral image. Are there any images associated with the portal? Perhaps this would be suitable? James086Talk22:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok I have changed it to the red car image. I put it on Talk:Maserati MC12 (it doesn't get much traffic). I would prefer there to be an image even if it's tiny like the current one, but if others want text only it can easily be changed. If there are no objections we can start replacing the {{Portal:Cars selected article}} with this small box. I have included the category (Category:Cars Portal selected articles) in the wikiproject template and it's only activated if portal=yes. James086Talk09:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Featured Image
I am thinking of putting the image Image:Ford Mondeo ST220 Blue.jpg up as a featured picture canidate. What do you say? Karrmann05:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - it's nice. Shame he felt the need to block out the license plate though - it makes a blank hole in the picture that just screams at me. But yes - I think it stands a chance. Put it up for nomination. SteveBaker05:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Auto Survey: Chinese Car in U.S. Market
Hi,
I am a student from Thunderbird School of Global Management. I am doing a survey for International Marketing Research Class. I need your opinions about Chinese Car in U.S. Market. If you are american permanent resident, please take only 5 minutes to do the survey. This survey is anonymous. Thank you so much for your kindly help.
I think you are missing some very important options - for example - performance (speed, acceleration, road-handling) is a very important criteria for deciding which car I might buy - and it's nowhere on your list. Your list of features I absolutely must have before I would buy a particular car is hopelessly short...there are many other features that I can't live without. SteveBaker23:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to beat the Automobile article into shape - it's really a horrible disgrace.
We should at least get it to GA status.
The biggest problem by far is an almost total lack of references. I'm sure that everyone here has some books about cars. We really need for everyone to look at facts in the article and hunt down some references for that information. It's a HUGE job - but if everyone chipped in a little bit, we could get it done quickly.
It seems to me that we can either look at books - or look into the daughter articles each section references and 'lift' references from there. The trouble is that those daughter articles are frequently poorly referenced too.
Fair enough. I think a lot of the auto articles which are widely referenced and wikilinked, especially in the infoboxes and opening sentences -- car classifications, powertrain layouts, etc etc -- are very bad, lacking any kind of encyclopedic content (proper definition of terminology, history/background, and of course having no references. I always thought WP Autos should be working on them before fussing over individual vehicle pages. However, following that logic to its conclusion, we should be working on automobile first, as it's the patriarchal page of the entire project. --DeLarge00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree - but it's inevitable that people are going to work on the things they know most about - which means that they are going to pick the cars they are interested in and work those. I'm definitely guilty of that. But it really would help if everyone would try to take a moment to stick a couple of references into Automobile. SteveBaker19:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm definitely guilty of that. I have edited a group of cars closely related and almost nothing else (as far as article writing). I'll see what I can do with Automobile. I think with some effort we could get it to featured status. Theres definitely enough information out there, and with a group of people working on it, we could get it there quite quickly. James086Talk03:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It would certainly be great to get it up to FA - but right now, I'll settle for GA. I'm a big believer in taking it one step at a time. It's MUCH harder to get an article through FAC if it's been a rejected FAC in the past (as automobile has). Let's take it one step at a time:
Get it so we think it's good.
Make very sure that every stoopid little fact is referenced - preferably from a book, not a web site or anything.
Put it through WP:PR - generally this does little good - but it looks better when we go through the next phases.
Put it through WP:GAC - This used to be an easy hurdle to pass - but I'm happy to say that people are giving GAC a bit more attention these days.
Go through every 'advice on how to write an FAC' paper we can find - and take seriously the advice they give about stuff like 'number of links per hundred words' and 'number of paragraphs in the introduction'...people who patrol WP:FAC actually check those things!
Get the reviewers for our own Wikiproject to accept it as "A-class".
Going through all of these painful steps gives you lots of ammunition for the tough job of getting through WP:FAC. SteveBaker17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Mitsubishi i
If anyone's interested, the Mitsubishi i page is now a good article candidate. I think it has a reasonable chance, if for no other reason than the automated peer review it received didn't seem to find much fault with it. But we'll see how it fares. My first time trying for GA, so maybe I've overlooked something and someone's about to kick over my sandcastles. --DeLarge00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
How do I become a member?
Hello, I am HB4026. I have quite an intrest in cars and I think I have alot to offer in vechile information. For example check out the Ford AU Falcon (an Australian car) article that I have greatly modified. How do I become a member? It would be greatly appreciated if anybody can tell me.
Thanks. HB402603:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Never mind Ive found it. DOH!!!HB4026 BTW does anybody know anything on Ford Falcons? If you do can you help me write some stuff about the models pre-dating the AU Falcon? Thanks 03:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
HB4026, it would be great if you could share some info from Australia on why the generations of vehicles Down Under are so consistently referred to by their code names? It seems that everybody in knows what an AU Falcon, BA Falcon, VB Commodore, etc. Here in the USA, it seems that far fewer people use vehicle code names (the Chrysler K-Car is the only example I can think of that the general public consistently knows.) Is there an article on the Australian automotive market (similar to Passenger vehicles in the United States) where you can share this information? --hadley02:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The Mini Moke article is scheduled to be on the Wikipedia front-page on March 12th...although sometimes they make last-minute changes in the line-up and due to whatever timezone the guy who maintains the front page is in, sometimes the article appears the preceding day and vanishes later in the day - sometimes it shows up late and hangs around until the following day. It will be only the seventh car article ever to make it onto the front page. SteveBaker17:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The big discussion
In automobile-related articles we have a huge problem, we can hardly link two groups of things: ideas and words. People can imagine or see things, and then choose a word to describe them. We imagine a vehicle with four wheels that can carry a few people and/or objects, and then we call it "automobile" and not a truck or a motorbike.
Besides relatively low automobiles that carry around five passengers, there are other automobile types: those that are good for driving in rough and uneven terrains; those that are built to be driven fast; those that are taller and in which people seat more upright; those with many rows of seats; those with a large empty cargo area and a roof, or without roof... Then people invent words to name them: sport utility vehicle, sports car, multi-purpose vehicle, van, pickup truck.
Automobiles like a Jeep Wrangler or a Land Rover Defender are built to be driven off-road; some of their mechanical features (body-on-frame chassis, live axle) are used on a Cadillac Escalade and a Hummer H2, but aren't that good in those terrains. Some automobiles like the Suzuki Vitara or the Range Rover don't have some of those features, but are better for off-road use than the second group (due to pneumatic suspension or good ground clerance or better tracion system). And some automobiles like the Audi A4 Quattro or the Lamborghini Murciélago are designed only for even asphalt and gravel roads, but also feature four-wheel drive.
English language has some words that are used for different things by different people. A 4WD may not mean the same as an AWD in some regions, although both acromymns mean four-wheel drive. In the United Kingdom, almost noone would call a Land Rover Defender or a Suzuki Vitara a "sport utility vehicle"; "off-road vehicle" includes quads, dirt bikes and other vehicles, and "4x4" includes automobiles not suited for muddy surfaces. People-carrier, minivan and multi-purpose vehicle may or may not mean the same automobile type.
The same happens in other languages. Spanish has a word that means "a sedan, hatchback or station wagon" and is translated as "touring car" (that's why touring car racing is called like that). Most people would never use it in everyday talk, but it's the right word for the Spanish-language version of Wikipedia. But Spanish also has a very populaar umbrella word that includes pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, vans and minivans: "camioneta". This word is used a lot in informal conversations and is imprecise enough not to be useful to describe an automobile.
There is some debate in some automobile model and classification articles on how to relate these ideas and words. How should we call an automobile suited for off-road driving? What is a crossover utility vehicle? How to call an Escalade, which isn't that good off-road as a Range Rover but is "stronger"? What's the difference between a 12-seater full-size van and an 8-seater large MPV? Is a pickup truck, van or sport utility vehicle an automobile the same way as a convertible, a station wagon or a hatchback? Are sport utility vehicle and minivan body styles, or are they station wagons and hatchbacks depending on the rear end's size?
The Chevrolet Beauville article could use seome help. Now it's almost entierly about the 1985 model and it read like an advertisment rather than an encyclopedia article ("a superior product with bullet proof reliability" for instance). I have tried a bit, but I know too little about the subject. // Liftarn
Simple fix. The POV paragraph in the opening (present since the article's creation) has been excised -- absolutely no way that could stay on WP, as it violates WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:NOTE. Now you just need to create an infobox, tidy or tabulate the bulleted technical info, and find some references. --DeLarge13:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. But the problem is still that the article is almost entierly only about the 1995 model and that's a bit odd sine it was made between 1970 and 1995. // Liftarn
And now the changes were reverted by a non-logged in user. Sigh... // Liftarn
I gave that user a very stern deletion warning for removing the infobox (although it was pretty crappy. Transmission=yes? Ha ha.).
IMHO, most of that article's content should be deleted and we should start from scratch, if not get rid of the article altogether. There is already a Chevrolet Van article. Beauville, AFAIK, was just a trim package. --Sable23216:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't bite the newcommers. Anyway, I've added a merge tag on the page too. // Liftarn
This has been listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves as an "uncontroversial move" to be redirected to Mazda3. On the grounds that this Project recommends the home market name, I moved it to the "controversial moves" section and created a discussion section. Please feel free to contribute your views on the talk page. --DeLarge23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that the Autobianchi Primula article is listed as a 'Good Article' - but it has no photo of the car. Surely someone has a photo of one of these that we can use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
I have made some stylistic changes to the article which is good, but not perfect. Information regarding the development of the vehicle would be nice, as would a cleanup of the inline citations. For example many footnotes are placed straight after a word in the article. The citations should be placed after the next available full-stop or comma. I have applied this process to some of the footnotes but there are other cases left that require attention. I would also consider relocating one of the images from the section Models to Reception as the article’s image placement is unbalanced. I also ran a Javascript programme over the article which suggested the following changes:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 9 additive terms, a bit too much.
This new user is persistently adding imagniary factoids (in other words, utter rubbish) to car articles, usually referring to their alleged marketing in Asian countries. See articles on Saturn vehicles and the Saturn brand for examples. I do not want to engage in pointless edit wars with him, and I am not sure what procedure should be started in that case. I would be obliged if anybody in the know (perhaps an admin) took appropriate action. Thanks, PrinceGloria14:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't need a footnote for every sentence. Your spelling is less than acceptable, as usual. Type slower, and please try to get work done in as few edits as possible. I'll make a few changes myself. --Sable23201:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Having seen how reviewing the Saturn Aura article brought about little action, I am quite reluctant to invest my time in another one - I think I should rather start improving the Aura article myself... That said, having skimmed through the Sable article, I am not quite convinced it should exist as a separate one. A rather significant part (I wouldn't dare to say more than a half because I wasn't counting, but it feels like that) of the article is simply repeating the Ford Taurus one, including several pararaphs lifted outright from the former with minor cosmetic changes. I believe that since both cars have always been essentially the same vehicle in different guises, it might make more sense to merge the articles.
I would also like to point out that not waiting for a review by the WikiProject community, Karrmann has nominated the article for GA. I believe this is quite a bad practice for a number of reasons. I can't expand on that now, will come back to it later if need be. Regards, PrinceGloria11:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This seems to be happening more and more recently - and it's a bad idea. There should at least be a peer review (with a note here so fellow car nuts can check it out) before attempting either GAC or FAC. Putting an article in for candidacy before it's ready does a disservice to everyone who might want to contribute to an article; because an article that fails once has a vastly harder time the second time around. Secondly, the GAC and FAC processes are pretty choked with long backlogs and insufficient reviewers looking at each article. That's a bad thing for the quality of Wikipedia and it behooves us to only submit articles that are already as good as they can be. SteveBaker12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just as a sidenote, as I believe the Mercury Sable discussion should rather (and hopefully will) continue on the article's talk page - Lexus has recently sneaked through the GA process relatively unnoticed. While there has been singificant work put into the article, I don't think it is worthy of the GA status yet - to start with, it contains a trivia section (!) and a lenghty spamlink list! I guess this is a good indication that the GA process became quite ineffective in appropriately appraising, at least some, articles - therefore I believe an internal review (and a set of basic standards) before submitting to the GAN might be very advisable to maintain appropriate quality of automotive GAs. PrinceGloria13:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention an unreasonable number of totally unnecessary 'fair use' images and the rather nasty 'Notable owners of...' section - which we've discussed here before and noted as undesirable. SteveBaker15:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
We MUST do something about this. There have been anons playing with this for quite some time, changing "Entry-level" to "Mainstream" and other similar things. On top of that, new manufacturers are constantly being added, but who knows if they belong there or not? General Motors is shown in several countries. So we list a company in every nation it has manufacturing in or just where it's based? This list needs some MAJOR work. As it stands now, I consider it unmaintainable. If it weren't for the graphs and tables of the world's largest manufacturers, I think this thing would have been sent to AfD long ago.
I propose that only car manufacturers with articles be listed. A pile of redlinks doesn't do much good, since there is absolutely no easy way to verify if it belongs in the list or not. I also think that a company should be listed only once, in the country where it is based.
The top section is fine. For the "by country" mess below, just replace the individual countries with category links from the various Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers by country. Or even a single link to there if you like. Wikipedia is not a [list], after all. If it's already automatically categorised and alphabetised and not redlinked at all, why duplicate that with a manually maintained list on this page (which has managed to omit Austrian manufacturers entirely for starters)?
And to be honest, once you've pruned down that massive list to a single category link, I don't see any point in maintaining the page on its own. I'd merge it with automaker and keep all the info in one place. --DeLarge19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I made a quick edit and revert to demonstrate what I meant. My proposed version is here. Obviously it could be pruned further, i.e. just add the cat link to the "See also" section, but you get the basic idea. --DeLarge19:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe this list is entirely redundant. As a lost of automobile manufacturers, it is better covered by categories. DeLarge's proposition is much more nifty and all, but do we really need a ranking of biggest manufacturers, which is hard to keep up-to-date and will inevitably cause many conflicts over ideology, not to mention the highly disputably and redundant categorization of brands as this or that. I think we might simply do without this list which is a typical example of what is served better by a category. PrinceGloria22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't beleive that the list is redundant. It is quite interesting to see what corporation is behind what product. I strongly support DeLarge's proposal- it would provide our readers with the info they are looking for in easy and covenient format. Signaturebrendel23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Why I am against this proposal:
Just like the list of bestselling nameplates, or actually even more so, it is not what the title says but something rather different.
The information as to what corporation has what brands can be obtained from e.g. articles on a given brand or corporation, or even actually (properly completed) infoboxes in automobile articles.
In general, this kind of info is good for a magazine feature not an encyclopedia. It would be fun if we had 101 dishes with cucumbers here too, and I assure you many people would love to read about it, but that's what the WikiCookbook is what for and not WP.
OK, in light of the apparent consensus I've made the edit permanent, replacing the big list with a link in the "See also" section. I also removed the (empty) "References" section while I was there, and as a result of these edits the article is now 73k smaller. The categories themselves also needed sorting slightly to ensure they were correctly alphabetised, but I did that myself prior to the big edit.
I'd also say List of cars, wikilinked to in the opening section of this page, could be given similar treatment. Both Category:Automobiles by country (geographical) and Category:Automobile history eras (chronological) provide alternative possibilities, although I'd rather not tackle that from within this discussion.
I think merging into automaker is just the perfect idea! I am all for you being bold and doing so! We do not need "lists of everything" anyway now that there are categories. As to the table, I am afraid it is factually disputable and incomplete in many places, so with all due respect to the efforts that went into creating it, I really believe we might do without it... PrinceGloria12:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
PS. List of cars is obviously pointless. AfD, IMHO!
OK, I'll get round to putting a merge tag on the article after lunch if no-one beats me to it. As for the table, do you mean the "Top 15 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Companies by Volume 2005" template at the top, or the larger "World's largest motor vehicle manufacturers" table in the second section? --DeLarge12:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I kind of agree. Aside from the fact that whoever compiled the table incorrectly claimed it to be referenced from the OICA .pdf, it also goes into detail about marques/subsidiaries/divisions, while the page(s) are supposed to be about the manufacturers as a whole. I think such info is more suited to the individual automakers' pages. There may also be a degree of original research, and I think it's a bit "U.S.-centric" too (specifically the Type of vehicle column). However, that may not be the consensus view.
I like the idea of the merge per se, but automaker is an unforunate title to move to, since it's pretty alien to British English, Scottish English, and I suspect Australian English too. It's acceptable under WP:NAME to name articles with the word which will be familiar to the greatest number of English speakers (i.e. the USA I expect), but it'd be nice if we could come up with something more neutral for the title of the unified article — perhaps something involving "motor vehicle manufacturer". Bear in mind that this isn't a dictionary, so it shouldn't matter that it's a longer-winded title. – Kieran T(talk)22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kieron here as concerns the word "automaker" - I also think it might be a bit too colloquial for non-American English speakers. I am also quite apalled by the shape of the article - it consists of a bunch of cliches accompanied by the table DeLarge merge into it. Given the sheer number of articles linking to it, as well as the relative importance to the topics this WP deals with, I think it needs to be improved ASAP. That said, I am not sure whether an article on the topic as is would be a good idea. I think it might be better to create an article dealing with automobile manufacturing as an industry rather than trying to define what and "automaker" (or "motor vehicle manufacturer") is... PrinceGloria22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The automaker article was created by User:TakuyaMurata, a Japanese editor, which mitigates against criticisms of U.S.-centricity. Also, any renaming would need plenty of consensus given the style guide ruling from 2005. However, I think we could probably get it, especially given that this WikiProject refers to automobiles, and this article would hopefully be a branch off of the main Automobile article which was being shepherded back to a decent standard the last time I checked.
I'd be tempted to go for automobile manufacturer myself, my rationale being that many articles have a lead section which opens "The Canyonero 5000 is a hybrid SUV supercar made by Arkansaw automaker Powell Motors."Automobile manufacturer is the best straight swap in that context. Also, the presence of the chart showing the "big 15" makes me feel that the article's focus is slightly more on auto manufacturers than automanufacturing. Automobile industry is therefore my slightly less favoured alternative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeLarge (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 March 2007.
I believe we should totally ignore the state of the article now, as it is just a, rather low-quality, placeholder. I think there is far more to be said on the topic of automotive industry than automobile manufacturer, and most that can be said on the latter would also be said when describing the former. An article on the latter, however, could become a popular target and victim of people trying to push POV, cliches etc. BTW, I actually believe the chart shifts focus to the industry rather than the phenomenon of "automobile manufacturer" (again, why go wrist-twisting trying to define that properly), but maybe it's just me... PrinceGloria04:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Oldsmobile GA
I have had concerns over the quality of the Oldsmobile article for some time now, and it is definitely no longer worthy of GA status. Rather than going straight to WP:GA/R I have decided to come here first and see what other members of the project have got to say about the matter. The article reads in general as a timeline, with most of the contents being either displayed in bullet points or in one sentence paragraphs. I also have issues with the article's image placement scheme and the Oldsmobile in popular culture section. Using this heading is just a way of hiding the fact that it is a trivia section. Finally there is not one inline citation within the article, but instead three measly general references that only reference the article’s contents up until 1975. OSX07:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This very revision is perhaps even less worthy of the GA status, but I agree there is a lot going for revoking it. The article lacks both in breadth and depth, as well as almost all other GA criteria. How about a group effort to improve it over the following week to create a model article on a brand? While 100+ years of history is not easy to cover, OTOH we have the benefit of a closed story, with quite a bit written over everything there is to be said. Perhaps we won't be able to create a great article in a week, but perhaps we could at least discuss the desired outcome on the article's talk page (and later act upon it as time will permit), so that we'd have some conclusions concerning articles on automotive brands/companies. PrinceGloria20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm - 43Kbyte article - three references - ouch! Excessive 'Oldsmobile in popular culture' section - lists everywhere - too many fair use photos - including the one at the very top of the article...not good. The older version of it isn't a whole lot better to be honest. This article has a long way to go to get up to modern GA quality. Like so many others, it's a victim of slowly changing expectations and increasing quality standards. There is a lot of good information there - but without adequate referencing, you've either got to strip the article down to a stub that CAN be referenced - or it's not going to be a GA much longer. Does anybody here own or have access to books about the Oldsmobile marque? SteveBaker22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
(indent reset) I have a slightly greater concern. The {{GA}} template was added to the talk page by User:Karrmann at 12:16, March 28, 2006. But if you look at the WP:GAC page for the previous day there's no mention of it, and the Oldsmobile talk page had no nominee template prior to being passed. I can't find any evidence that this article was ever formally nominated, reviewed or approved. --DeLarge00:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well if it is not a genuine GA, it ought to be demoted immediately. If Karrmann wants the article to be classified as GA he should do it the honest way through WP:GAC, not just because he feels it is worthy of the status. OSX07:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess sometime ago the GA worked somewhat different, i.e. users were actually allowed to slap the badge on an article they saw and thought was "good", and add it to the list. Quite obviously, abuse and self-gratification was rampant, so the current system was introduced, but still articles added under the laissez-faire rules linger on the list. So, Oldsmobile might not have been unrightfully promoted, yet still, there is every reason to delist it, and that's what I am going to do just now.
That said, the only remaining GA or FA on a brand or company would be Lexus, which is quite controversial itself (please see for yourselves, the article reads like Lexus promo stuff), and I guess it would not survive a GAR, so perhaps somebody can point out to a well-referenced article which could easily be improved to GA standards? PrinceGloria08:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's ever been OK for the nominator of an article to also pass it. There was a time a couple of years ago when if the article sat in the GAC queue for more than (IIRC) three weeks without anyone objecting, it would automatically get a pass - but that was before 2006 and I think that's about as lax as the process ever was. The GAC process nowadays is actually pretty good. SteveBaker03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I cannot help you with re-write as I know little about the Corrolla but I would support it. When you re-write the article, try and get rid of those ugly engine spec listings-use the engine spec listing table instead. Happy editing! Signaturebrendel14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I support. While you are rewriting, I encourage you to look at Ford Taurus as an example of how to write an article, as it is considered to be one of the finest articles we have. Karrmann20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
How modest of you, Karrmann :D I actually think FAs are even better examples than GAs, though all vehicles that have FAs on them are quite unlike the Corolla. It is going to be quite a chore, but I believe it's well worth it. I'll try to chip in later today or tomorrow. PrinceGloria20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
PS. I actually believe that unless somebody devises a nicer table (it should be possible to do so using the current wiki language), the bullet-point listings are much neater...
You can't claim Ford Taurus "is considered to be one of the finest articles we have" - to the contrary - it's failed to get to featured status - not once but twice (and looking at it - I'm not at all surprised - it's got a long way to go to get to that level of quality). If you are looking for examples of our best car articles, check out the FA's - there are currently just five of them:
What these five articles have in common is that they are interesting to read - they aren't just long lists of cold facts (although they contain those facts). It's important to tell the story of the car - why it was good, why it was bad, why it changed. Being perfectly formatted, following all of the layout rules, having the right length of introduction, having all of your numbers with correctly linked and translated units...all of those things matter - but if the article isn't "compelling reading" it won't make it to FA. SteveBaker00:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
But, I have something undeniable that makes the Taurus article the perfect model for the project - All the featured articles we have are of cars that only sold one generation. So, they are not formatted to multiple generations like the Taurus article is. Karrmann00:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The merits of "somebody's" articles aside (I would like to remind you that article "ownership" is strongly discouraged by WP policies), I guess one needs to be cautious when making a statement like that, Steve. While an FA should obviously be at least a bit interesting and involving, it is important to remember that it is still an encyclopedic article, and not a review, essay or editorial. I guess the problem with most lower-quality articles on cars is the overabundance of "why it was good, why it was bad", or, in other words, POV and other unencyclopedic content, either in the form of direct statements or excessive quoting of reviews, which is a rather lousy practice to masquerade more or less conscious POV-pushing (not to mention a single review is in almost all cases not notable enough to be quoted, and yes, it does include whatever Jeremy Clarkson said).
As a sidenote, I must say I am quite surprised the Maserati MC12 became an FA, as IMHO it is not of the same quality as the other car FAs, and also not of the quality I would expect from an FA. I am especially worried by the existence of the "reception" section. While I don't feel like starting a FAR right now, I would just like to point out taking example of that article might not be that good an idea.
The Corolla article is actually in relatively good shape, and I don't think it really needs a "rewrite", but rather a brush-up of individual sections, filling up with missing facts and trimming unencyclopedic content, as well as rearranging some bits of material dumped there randomly. Of course, it also needs sources, inline citations and the like. But overall, it is a fairly good starting point. PrinceGloria04:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth: There is an inherent problem with a lot of car articles. Most cars do not have a book written about them (although that is not a requirement!). The Taurus has at least two, so referencing is not a problem, and there should be no shortage of information on what sets the Taurus apart from everything else. (Comparing it to Mini Moke, Ford Taurus seems quite similar. However, I don't believe it is going to reach FA status.)
This is also a big problem on Jeep. Considering it's huge impact and the vast amout of information, it's a shame that it's not even a GA yet. (Of course, compounding that is the fact that Jeep articles are vandal-magnets.) It's on my to-do list. </rant> --Sable23204:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
But 'compelling reading' is one of the standards that an FAC has to meet in order to pass. Even if your article contains every fact about the car, is referenced out the wazoo and is otherwise technically perfect - if it doesn't pass the "compelling reading" hurdle - it will never be an FA. That's why my MINI (BMW) article failed FAC. It's a tough hurdle to pass - and it's noticable that (with the possible exception of Talbot Tagora), all of the car FA's - (even the ex-FA's: Volkswagen Type 2, Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 and Ford Mustang are about cars which are charismatic in some way. It's going to be much harder to write compelling prose that makes you want to read more of the article for a car like the Ford Taurus. It's possible that Toyota Corolla will never make it to FA for that reason - but looking at Talbot Tagora will give you a better sense of what to aim for than Ford Taurus - which demonstrably can't make it to FA despite two attempts.
As for books - yes - that can be a problem. Mini Moke only has one book written about it (unless you count "Monty the Moke" (a kiddies book) - and some scattered footnotes...but that seemed to be OK by the FAC folks. So long as everything you say is referenced - you're OK. It's just better to have more. I think the Mitsubishi i article can make FA - and there are no books at all written about it. But it's a compelling read. SteveBaker05:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
What I was more trying to get at was the fact that the Taurus is decidedly the most influential American car of the past 30 years, so there is PLENTY to write about. I've never read Taub's book (I can't find it), but I think Karrmann had it read to him as a bedtime story (:D), so I'm sure he's got something more. --Sable23205:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh - sure - I agree the Taurus has been tremendously important. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the present article about it is the one to hold up as the guiding principle of how to write a Wikipedia car article. There are lots of things that make it a poor FAC:
The introduction is too long
The prose is very, very turgid - mostly just a long list of facts
If you have a low res monitor or a narrow browser window you get text squeezed into narrow columns between the pictures
There are lots of photos that don't "earn their keep" (why two almost identical photos of the rear end of the Taurus wagon? The title on one of them even tells us that they are almost indistinguishable!)
Gratuitous use of tables, one having just one line of text in it!
At 56kbytes long, it's WAY too long.
It's full of irrelevent or meaningless babble: "The premiere for the Taurus was a resounding one."...urgh...then in the next breath: "For its aerodynamic shape, the premiere was held in MGM Studios Soundstage 85, where Gone with the Wind was filmed."...who the heck cares what movie was filmed at the sound stage where the premier was held and what on earth has that got to do with aerodynamics!?!
Every sentence needs to be carefully examined and stripped of tautology and redundancy. That's what you have to do to get an article through FAC - you have to read every single sentence - one at a time and ask yourself: "Are there any unnecessary words here? Does this sentence pass on important information? Could it be split up - or does it need to be merged with another nearby sentence?"...and so on. You have to do this carefully for every single sentence in the article.
But even if those things were fixed - the FAC standards demand more. The requirement is that the article be interesting and compel you to read more. The problem with both the Taurus and the Corolla cars is that their very popularity has made them into the iconic 'boring car' - people buy them because they get you from A to B reliably, in comfort and in reasonable safety. The car articles that make it to FA are about interesting, exciting and dangerous cars with weird twists in their history. Cars that have fanatical owners clubs. Cars people lovingly restore and collect. Having said that - the Talbot Tagora comes into the 'getting you from A to B' category - and that's a pretty interesting article - so it can be done.
Why exactly is the MINI under MINI (BMW)? There is no article on anything else under the MINI name, which is a redirect to the article. Is there any sensible reason to keep the rather more confusing and less straightforward title?
From what I can infer from the FAC, the article was not promoted mainly because of the style issues and the like, and not because it is not an interesting read. I believe there are also some other issues with it, but overall I don't think it CAN'T make an FA with a bit of effort.
Just as a sidenote and not meaning to be personal, but I don't think that claiming ownership of articles, even if somehow substantiated by the share of a given editors in edits to it or content contributed, will help us make discussions here more focused on objective issues.
I also believe that with an attitude like "Taurus is decidedly the most influential American car of the past 30 years" one might not find it easy to write an NPOV and balanced article. I am saying this only to point out that if you're writing about a vehicle you feel strongly about, it is good to always seek external opinion (and be ready to accept it) after you're done in order to make sure you didn't get carried away too far. PrinceGloria05:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Because it considered 'A Bad Thing' to have two articles distinguished only by upper/lower case. At (if memory serves me right) the GAC stage, someone was complaining bitterly that I had capitalised MINI (since it's not an initialism or an acronym) - so there was pressure to call the article 'Mini (BMW)'.
There are many counterexamples of articles differing in title by case (excuse me for being lazy and not digging one out ATM), so I don't think it should be an issue. If that would ever come up again in GAN or FAC, I will be happy to defend it. PrinceGloria07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
From what I can infer from the FAC, the article was not promoted mainly because of the style issues and the like, and not because it is not an interesting read.
Perhaps. It died under a whelter of "English style not good enough" complaints. I couldn't get anyone to say anything more specific than that - so I couldn't fix whatever was broken. I'd like to give it another go (if only because then all three of "my" car articles would be FA's!) but the arrival of the radically reengineered 2007 MINI means that the article needs to be totally reworked to talk about the 'Mk I' and 'Mk II' MINI's separately - they are almost 100% different cars under the hood (although they look almost identical). Worse still, there are almost zero references about the 2007 car - and quite a few of the 'facts' about the car are greatly in dispute still. It's a very bad time to try to make an FAC out of it. I plan to wait at least 6 months to a year before trying again.
That's quite reasonable, obviously, and I hope once the new MINI establishes itself in the market, you will get back to the article! In the meantime I believe some more minor maintenance work can be done, e.g. the "criticism" section can be revisited (you know what I mean ;D ).
Just as a sidenote and not meaning to be personal, but I don't think that claiming ownership of articles, even if somehow substantiated by the share of a given editors in edits to it or content contributed, will help us make discussions here more focused on objective issues.
I agree that one shouldn't - but it's very hard not to. When one puts in 90% of the effort on a particular article and personally shepherds it through all of the wickets to get it onto the front page, the sense of 'ownership' is strong. Mini, Mini Moke and MINI (BMW)are "my" articles - even though an enormous number of people provided edits and material. It was me who went out and spent over $200 buying almost every book in print on those three cars and reading them cover-to-cover - I was the one who wrote to car owners to get permission to use their photos - I was the one who went through the articles sentence by sentence peeling off the layers of encrusted tautology and rhetoric - I was the one who answered all the questions in peer review, GAC, FAC and the front-page FA stages. How could I possibly not feel "ownership" at the gut level? - I'm human dammit! I'd rather be honest about that than adhere to Wikipedia's "political correctness". If people don't feel a pride in their work - they won'd do good work.
I wasn't actually expecting anybody to reply, I just wanted to serve as the self-appointed conscience of this discussion. I surely do understand you (I have been an editor for a bit longer that it might seem). I also said "CLAIM ownership", not feel it. You are fully entitled to be proud of the Mini articles and the effects of your efforts, there is no denying of that and I guess we all here do admire your work. I just said that stimulating the climate of touting "one's own" articles might lead to rather unwanted side effects...
I also believe that with an attitude like "Taurus is decidedly the most influential American car of the past 30 years" one might not find it easy to write an NPOV and balanced article.
I disagree - the Taurus most definitely is one of the most influential US cars - that's a fact that can be referenced from solid sources. It's not a 'point of view' - and so it needs to be stated in the article. It's very hard to write well about something you don't care about - particularly if you are doing it for no pay! It's virtually impossible to become an expert in a subject that you don't care a lot about - and if you aren't an expert you're going to find it very hard to write a high quality article. Keeping NPOV is certainly important - but we can be adult about it. I've been very careful to keep criticisms of the cars I write about firmly in view. Read what I wrote about the Mini Moke - you'll see that it's FULL of cricitism. The thing is a piece of junk as a practical vehicle - but I'm still passionate about them. SteveBaker06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Taurus was an influential car, but how do you define "the most influential American car of the past 30 years"? One has to be very careful with the use of superlatives and judgemental clauses. The line is very thin and one has to watch out... Now, I hope you do realize that BOTH praise AND criticism are POV, and what is important are not them, but the actual facts. So, whether somebody would think the MINI is too big, too small or just the perfect size would be rather irrelevant, the article should rather say HOW big the car really is. The criticism sections were borne out of the, nomen omen, criticism of some articles that came accross as overly laudatory of the subject, so some editors tried to derail such objections by including "criticism" sections to be able to say "see, it's fair and balanced because there is also some criticism". In fact, it usually lead to including even more POV and unencyclopedic content in the article. PrinceGloria07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
PS. I have nothing against any particular article of yours, but as this whole discussion came about when an editor asked for guidance, I guess some points would better be made clear to avoid misconceptions and disappointment.
Suggestion: Automobile Statistics Comparison
I've been looking for this myself, and haven't found it so I presume it doesn't exist yet. This can be done very simple or complex, but the idea is the same:
Creating a list with statistics about cars that can be compared. This should make the reader be able to sort on all sorts of different statistics. You can make it very simple by making 1 huge list where readers can sort on various statistics. Over time it can evolve into something more complex where you can, for instance, select only a certain car brand, or date. A database of car info... it surely makes me excited. Obviously there will be problems like the accuracy of some figures, but I just want to know if this is something that is possible without: to much technical difficulty, and not to much work (iaw, can some of the current data be used).
Some Statistics that could be listed: Name, Brand, Year, Size, Weight, BHP, Torque, How many Turbo's, How many Supercharges, Braking Distance, power/weight ratio, engine, chassis, fuel consumption, wheelbase, top speed, acceleration, etc etc. MarijnSwenne03:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid Wikipedia is not the best place to store such automotive trump cards. There are many sites online that can provide that kind of data, though. PrinceGloria04:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You could certainly compile this information here - and probably (if you are able to write Wiki 'bots) it could be automated and re-run frequently to keep it up to date. Most of our car articles use standard info-boxes - and the data should be very easy to extract from them into a single page - and looking at the "What links here" entry for Template:Infobox_Automobile would find all of the pages that have infoboxes. I am a little concerned about whether such pages belong in Wikipedia - although there are precedents - List of Pokémon for example. For me, personally, I'd say "YES!!!" - but then I'm an 'inclusionist' - lots of people will say no. SteveBaker05:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Images on marque articles
User:Lglswe has been insterting huge numbers of images into the articles on various marques. Most of these are his own useful yet very poorly digitized pictures. I've been removing the massive galleries, but I'd like an idea on exactly what and how many images should be on these articles before I start trying to clean up the rest. Looking at DeSoto (automobile), it's got a stack of images on the right, then a stack on the left, then a stack on the right again. It looks awful, IMHO (I run a 1024x768 screen). How much is too much? I'd say that a small number of the marque's earlier vehicles and its more "influetial" (in terms of introducing styling features or technology, being a showcase for the marque, etc.) would be enough. Other thoughts, please. --Sable23217:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess a good rule of a thumb is that there should always be an image per screen, i.e. whichever part of the article you're viewing, there is an image which breaks up the paragraphs of text. Even with 1024x768 (and many users are using lower resolutions for viewing WP), more than one image per page might provide for a rather busy look, and also make reading less convenient. So, the ideal balance is having the images spaced by more or less exactly one screen. PrinceGloria17:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
PS. I really don't like images alternating from left to right and back, especially images at the left at the beginning of a section. I'd say they should be kept on the right wherever possible.
Buick is a pretty good example. There are images of the trademark ventiports and sweepspear, along with one of the GN. However, the LeSabre front end image is too large and not very effective. Mercury (automobile) is a good example of how I think the images should look. They are smaller (I think no wider than 200px should be good) and the grille image shows only the grille. I think this article could actually use a couple more pictures. Small images of a marque's emblem during various eras would be very helpful.
I prefer all the images on the right as well, however, they can be on the left IF done correctly.
FWIW, the DeSoto article is completely unreadable at 640x480, and just barely at 800x600 as it stands now. --Sable23218:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't usually sweat about 640px wide, as it's pretty much impossible to get a page to look good at that resolution if it has a single table, chart, or infobox, never mind multiple images; 800 to 1600px is my usual copyedit range. At 800px I'd agree there's too many images on DeSoto, definitely. However, a lot are copyrighted/promo shots which could be removed; it's hard to claim legitimate fair use when other editors are saying they're excessive. Also, remove the 250px image size from the thumbnail wikicode; specifying a size for thumbs is deprecated at the MoS, and the images will shrink to 180px unless you set a different default in your preferences. Finally, while other WP-Auto editors grouch about them, I find that occasionally a gallery can serve a purpose. Try one image per chronological section, and put the rest in a gallery at the end of the prose to see how that looks. --DeLarge20:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Images have to serve one of two purposes - they have to be purely decorative - in order to break up long runs of boring text and make the article look attractive and to let the reader know that they've arrived at the correct article. (If you search on "Mustang" and you see a photo of a horse - you know you are in the wrong place to read about "Ford Mustang" - so there had better be a photo of a Ford Mustang in the top-right corner of the article! ...Or the photos have to actually add information value to the article. One or the other. I agree with the guideline for the former - one image per "screenful" at some reasonable resolution seems about right to me. For the latter however - as many as are needed to convey the necessary information - no more, no less. Large galleries of photos are usually a clear sign of unnecessary image clutter and they should be regarded with great suspicion. In an article about a car marque - I don't think you need many 'informational' photos because there are sure to be links to articles about the individual cars that convey detailed information. One photo from each major era of production - a photo of some very important car for the marque - if it's mentioned at some length in the text of the article...that's enough. But a huge gallery stuck in there somewhere is just inviting clutter...yeah - get rid of them. SteveBaker22:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
How can it be a return? His original account was never blocked. He created a new account for nothing. But yes, lets end the hoaxes and just block him. Lets just home that he doesn't touch any of the Saturn articles, or I aill be extremely mad. Karrmann10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Careful of WP:BEANS. I doubt they are reading this page, but you never know. It's not that easy to block them. If I block the username and the underlying IP, the IP block only lasts for 24 hours which isn't long enough to deter this one. Also it might be a dynamic IP that constantly changes (like mine). They have been warned about creating hoaxes so if they continue I'll block (if I'm offline leave a note on WP:AN). James086Talk | Email11:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm amazed at the poor state of this article. It used to be an FA (but has since been demoted) - right now, I wouldn't rate it GA even (although it has an 'A-class' label on it right now). What it mostly needs is references - lots of references. I find it hard to believe that nobody here is a 'muscle car' fan - and there must be a bazillion books written on the Mustang that are sitting on people's shelves just waiting to be cited. Someone needs to spruce up this article - the Mustang is a really important car and it's shameful that it's not an FA again. I'd offer to do it - but I just don't know anything much about American cars. SteveBaker05:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As I have said in the assessment departement's talk page, I demoted the Mustang article to B-Class. An A-class article will commonly have passed the GA process and needs in-line refs. Signaturebrendel06:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
However, there has been ongoing issues on the talk page; the title doesn't accurately represent the content for starters -- the Honda Super Cub is the bestselling vehicle of all. Also, marque-fans have been adding figures for cars which are not bestselling anythings (specifically Austin Motor Company and Rover (car)), most of which aren't cited. I deliberately avoided overpopulating the page while I was tidying, but I'm fighting a losing battle here.
Of greater concern to me is the original research. The list was numbered manually when I got there, and I used "#" to auto-number it for future editors' benefit. However, the resulting rankings on the page are entirely arbitrary; the Lada Riva may only be in the top 10 because of omissions or inaccuracies.
To overcome this, I'm proposing to alphabetize/tabulate it and move it to List of automobiles by sales, which I'm doing in one of my userspace sandbox pages. To compensate for the fact that we're losing the "bestsellers", I've also created List of bestselling automobiles, which will be a list of genuine bestsellers who've been cited as such. The two pages can cross-reference each other. However, I wouldn't mind some feedback to make sure I'm not overlooking anything. --DeLarge18:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Mitsubishi Outlander
Mazda CX-9
Suzuki SX4 WRC
Kia Optima/Magentis
