Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Association of Global Automakers, proposed article review request

At present there is no article for the U.S. trade group Association of Global Automakers, although I believe its notability should be readily apparent. Global Automakers' history traces to 1965, and it currently represents 15 international automakers who manufacture and sell vehicles in the U.S. It has been a key player in trade issues for decades, and has itself been the subject of significant coverage by major U.S. newspapers such as The New York Times and trade publications such as Automotive News.

I have written an article of medium length about Global Automakers, which is available in my user space here: User:WWB_Too/Association_of_Global_Automakers. Under different circumstances I would boldly create it, but in fact I have a client relationship with Global Automakers and have written it at their request. I have written it with great care to be neutral, verified and encyclopedic. Because I am mindful of my potential conflict of interest, I would greatly appreciate another editor's review. If you agree this is ready to become a new article, please initiate the move or let me know if you think I should do so. However, if you have any questions or concerns, I am happy to address those, too. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look too bad, except that it is (naturally) lacking in criticism. I am curious as to AGA's role in blocking grey-market imports in the late eighties, and would also appreciate knowing what their stance is on a global alignment of safety and emissions standards before I support the creation of such an article. And do be aware that once there is an article here, there is nothing to stop anyone else from editing it to their liking - something which may or may not be to AGA's advantage.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you've made a nice summary. I added a little bit if only to show that I read it. The unanswered question, now, for me is "Who is Michael Stanton?" You may not have enough for an entry on him, but just an adjective would help give the fellow context. Or how about something like "...the former journalist / corporate lawyer / racing car designer, Michael J Stanton ..."? Or whatever. A name without further elaboration may be enough for his family and friends, but the rest of us are left wondering. But (of course) you are under no obligation to agree with me. Success Charles01 (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate both of your comments, Charles and Mr. Choppers; I'll respond in reverse order. As to Michael J. Stanton, I aim to take nothing away from him when I say I don't think he's notable, and certainly to my knowledge not a racing car designer. Now to Mr. Choppers' note about Global Automakers' role in gray-market imports and safety and emissions; it's not something I've looked at closely, but I'm willing to do a bit more research and see if there's anything relevant to be added. I'll be back soon. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It has taken me a little bit of time to research and add some new info, but I have done so now. Mr. Choppers, you can see in this diff where I've added new material on Global Automakers' up-to-date positions on emissions standards, particularly CAFE, plus text-messaging. (I didn't find anything about gray-market imports.) Charles, as mentioned before, I don't think there's a great deal more to say about Mr. Stanton that would be relevant here. Meanwhile, I'm not opposed to discussion of lobbying in the article (in fact I used the term in Current era) but I do think your addition is partly redundant—those services are described in the previous paragraph. So in this diff I've added a piped wikilink to "advocacy services", which I think makes sense especially as "lobby group" redirects to "advocacy organization". Thoughts on the current draft? WWB Too (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Interesting. To my eye "advocacy group" sounded like a euphemism, and I hate euphemism. However, I cannot tell how far that results from my personal dislike of euphemism and how far it reflects a difference of nuance between (my) mostly British English and (your) presumably mid-west English. I don't feel strongly about it, but having had a reaction I thought I'd share it. The other thing about the term "advocacy groups" is that for some reason it makes me think of lawyers before I remember it could also be a euphemism for lobbyists. Again, it's no big deal, but, at least to my eye, it distracts from clarity of meaning rather than enhancing it. Clearly, for many readers both "lawyers" and "lobbyists" are terms that carry a whole lot of lot of baggage: maybe that's sufficient reason to apply euphemism in discussion of either concept. But from the point of view of a wiki-entry, where baggage attaching to a word cannot be avoided, then I guess one should try and imply appropriate suitcases. I've no idea if you'll see what I mean, but if you did, thanks for struggling with it. I had intended to look again at the entire entry before reacting to your comment, but have not yet taken the time to do so: I still want to and might get round to it, however! Success Charles01 (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, this is certainly better than many existing articles - the only problem being the lack of any genuine criticism and your (stated) links to the organisation. While I won't recommend deleting such an entry, I also won't raise a finger to protect it. This is since you and your organization are apparently unwilling to acknowledge AGA's less than savory role in blocking gray-market/private imports to the US. I choose to wash my hands off of this whole endeavor.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, my concerns regarding emissions/safety had absolutely nothing to with CAFE itself and was only concerned with AGA's apparent opposition to a global alignment of such standards.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Charles, thanks for the reply, and I'm glad you're OK with the change. Mr. Choppers, I'm disappointed that I couldn't answer your questions satisfactorily. I assure you it is not a case of being "unwilling to acknowledge" anything—indeed, I have searched for the organization's name + phrases such as "gray market", but I have found no reliable sources. (In fact, as of now the top Google result for the combined phrases is this discussion page.) Similarly with regard to global alignment of emissions and safety standards, I'm afraid that I've also not been able to turn up any source material. I'm certainly not opposed to other editors adding reliably sourced, encyclopedic language in the future. Nor do I expect you to go out of your way to defend it. At least we can agree that, like any Wikipedia article, it's a work in progress. I'll go ahead and move it into the main space. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ WWB Too, thank you for being candid in stating that the Association hired you to write a Wikipedia article about them. That's important. It can be seen as unseemly, and it must be kept front-and-centre in mind as we look at this article and its issues. Mr. Choppers asked some very apposite and relevant questions about the very plausibly likely involvement of AIAM in activities, events, lobbying, and adopted positions which, wherever they might have come from and whoever-all might have fomented them, have exerted substantial, ongoing, and controversial effects on the US auto market.

Your response is that you "searched", presumably on Google or similar, and came up empty-handed. That looks to me a lot like 2 + 2 = 3 (for extremely small values of 2) and gives the appearance of questionable convenience. You, having been hired by the Association to write "their" Wikipedia article, can reasonably be assumed to have much more direct and complete access to information germane and responsive to those questions than can be had by anyone with a web browser pointed at Google. You pick up the phone or you send them an email and you ask them the questions. If they can't or won't answer, you report that. This isn't difficult to understand and it shouldn't really need to be explained to someone who implies full understanding of issues surrounding articles written by editors with a commercial, financial, or other interest in the subject of the article. Naturally the Association hired you with the express or implicit understanding that the article you'd write for them would omit or gloss over whatever which of their machinations, activities, and involvements might tend to cast unfavourable light, but that desire on their part is of less than zero consequence here; this is an encyclopædia, not a mouthpiece for the Association's rosy, golden, selectively favourable perception and promotion of their own history. No, sorry, something doesn't smell right here. "I searched and came up with nothing" is just plain not good enough. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to thank me for being candid. As a matter of principle, I agree with your point that a single editor, especially one with a potential conflict of interest, cannot be expected to write the most neutral possible article. This is why I brought the matter to this discussion page first, and why I sought to incorporate feedback from uninvolved editors.

However, I disagree that I was hired with the "express or implicit understanding that the article ... would omit or gloss over whatever which of their machinations, activities, and involvements might tend to cast unfavourable light", but I can't well prove that, except by working openly with the community to arrive at a reasonable version. I hope you will recognize that I am trying to do so.

Speaking of which, I agree with you that Mr.choppers asked relevant questions, particularly his initial response:

I am curious as to AGA's role in blocking grey-market imports in the late eighties, and would also appreciate knowing what their stance is on a global alignment of safety and emissions standards before I support the creation of such an article.

As previously noted, the problem we have lies in identifying identifying reliable, third-party sources. You are correct that I did a Google search on these topics, including a search of Google News archives; I also searched the Lexis-Nexis newspaper database (Nexis.com). Unfortunately Nexis.com is not, to my knowledge, linkable, but I can at least share the following results:

• "Association of International Automobile Manufacturers" + "gray market"
• "Global Automakers" + "global alignment"
• "Global Automakers" + "safety standards"
• "Global Automakers" + "emissions standards"

The first two searches turn up nothing topical; the latter two bring up a) pages on the Global Automakers website, and b) this discussion page. The results on Nexis.com are much the same; especially regarding the first, "No Documents Found" is the clear result. Perhaps you can see why, at this point, it feels like I'm being asked to prove a negative.

Meanwhile, I'm afraid your advice that I "ask them the questions" and if they "can't or won't answer, you report that" is misguided; Wikipedia forbids original research, is not a vehicle for breaking news, and as noted above, depends on the availability of third party sources.

At this point, I'm not sure what else should be included in the article. In any case, I see another editor has made some changes to the current article, and I'll post up a comment there momentarily. Best, WWB Too (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's remember to assume good faith, please and thank you (see, you're not alone; I, too, can point you, too, to policies with which you're already at least nominally familiar—shall we both cut it out now?). My advice wasn't misguided, it was misinterpreted. The suggestion to report the Association's responses was made with reference to these present discussions taking place outside of article space. As you surely know, the results one gets with a search are highly contingent on the exact words and phrases upon which one searches. While answers directly from the Association themselves aren't suitable for inclusion here, they're very suitable as a basis for you and other participants in this discussion to make more fruitful and productive searches for material in acceptable 3rd-party sources.

You deny that you were hired with an express or implicit understanding that the article you're being paid to write will cast the Association in the most favourable light possible. Okeh, that's challenging for me to imagine, but either way, my point in bringing it up is not to skewer or impugn you. Rather, it's to bring to your attention that your conflict of interest is not "potential", as you carry on phrasing it. It is actual and real and not only will it receive a great deal of scrutiny in its own right, but it is also a lens through which your contributions will be scrutinised. That just goes with the territory of making paid contributions to Wikipedia, no matter how scrupulously you strive to balance your two conflicting interests and write an article highly compliant with Wikipedia policy. Speaking of which, please refute (and link) me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear to me that you reported your conflict of interest at WP:COIN in accord with the guidelines described here. Why is that? And are you aware of Jimbo Wales' statement on the matter of paid editing? Fact is, you will need to be prepared for your bought-and-paid contributions to be viewed with particular skepticism at least, and you will probably want to be careful about how and how often you attempt to seek shelter from it by naming bits and parts of Wikipedia policy; it is almost easier to make things worse (or at least make them look worse, which is functionally equivalent) than to make them better this way. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a cute one - AIAM assisting in blocking California's attempts at state-specific clean air measures. In any case, I do not really want to deal with this obvious conflict of interests, and I don't think that the automobile project page is the place to do it. I would recommend bringing it to a higher instance.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Help identifying this

Damsels

Dashboard, no doors!

Front view

My mother took two pictures of this peculiar little truck in Vietnam. I cannot seem to find anything online (searching for "Damsel" and "Vietnam" doesn't give me anything useful at all) but imagine it's based on a Chinese copy of a Japanese kei truck of some sort. Can anyone shed some light upon this little mystery vehicle?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? ... Bueller?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Intriguing! It clearly owes a lot to the Suzuki Carry but that may just be in the styling. The dashboard and single wiper aren't right, but who knows how much economising has gone into the copy... Also — two gear levers! Presumably this little thing is four-wheel-drive? The Carry was available in such a version. The Chinese Chery Automobile brand goes in for copies of small vans a lot, but I can't quickly find a list of historic models (and this isn't in their current range). Sorry. This is mostly a reply so you don't feel ignored! ;) – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

'Save Ferris!'

It reminds me of vans I have seen in China. Jin Bei is the brand that comes to mind but my memory is very fuzzy and unreliable on this.  Stepho  talk  22:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Innocenti Mini merger proposal

There is a separate article for the Innocenti De Tomaso which is basically an updated Innocenti Mini. I was planning to improve the latter article but I think they should be merged first.--Pineapple Fez 07:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Only at first. Halfway through its lifecycle, it switched to a Daihatsu platform with the same body. --Pc13 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

They should definitely be merged - although perhaps a separate Innocenti Minitre page should be created and the DeTomaso content divided accordingly. The "Innocenti DeTomaso" was never more than the sporting version of the Bertone-designed Mini/Minitre and as it stands, the IM article confuses matters. While all Innocentis with Daihatsu engines were built under the aegis of Alessandro deTomaso, his name only appeared on the sporting ones. The Daihatsu-engined models were introduced as the "Minitre" (for obvious reasons), so this would make a suitable name for an article on the facelift version, if such a division is indeed necessary.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - confusing spread over two articles. Many models share one page over different generations, and only split off where detail gets too cumbersome, which is certainly not the case here. Warren (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Done; and also expanded massively. I think the Italians might want to visit to find out a thing or two...  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

55 Chevy & 57 Chevy

I am confused as to the existence of the 55 Chevy and 57 Chevy pages. Surely they are superfluous as the cars they refer to in specific years are already present and that these pages just confuse, and I am not aware of a Chevrolet that had this name on its trunk! Or is it that the model specific pages are not clear enough? And to make it even more confusing the 57 Chevy page includes much detail on the 55 Chevy. Warren (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, fer crumb's sake. No, there should definitely not be 1957 Chevrolet and there should even more definitely not be 55 Chevy, which in addition to being unsupportably narrow (a single make-model-year) flunks WP:NAME. An appropriate article would be 1955–1957 Chevrolet, and would cover all three subsumed model years. Looks like the content at '55 and '57 is in need of a great deal of cleanup to move the coverage up from gradeschool-fanboy level towards encylopædia level, too. Where else, specifically, are you finding coverage of the 1955, 1956, and 1957 Chevrolets? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Other articles which duplicate or conflict are: Chevrolet Bel Air, Chevrolet 150, Chevrolet 210, Chevrolet Delray, Chevrolet Nomad, Chevrolet Beauville... There may be some merit in one article that deals with the core mid 1950s Chevrolet and its variants, but currently there is a lot of editing required! I suspect there is perhaps a problem in that there is one common model with common mechanics, but there is a bit of badge engineering going on within the one range. The timeline (Template:Chevrolet cars timeline 1950–1979) is perhaps clearer. In retrospect it is hard to believe that Chevrolet was, in essence, a one car company until the Corvette came along (not including trucks of course).

Initial observation would suggest only one article as suggested above, or max three of each derivative deserves a full article, instead of the six or seven currently found to exist: Chevrolet Bel Air, Chevrolet 150, Chevrolet 210 with the removal of the 55, and 1957 pages deleted and any pertinent information moved to the relevant page. As the Bel Air, 210 and 150 are well known names, then I would suspect three articles would be a good compromise. Warren (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with three articles. One article is appropriate. The differences among the models were trivial (trim, equipment, and price). One article for all '55-'57 Chevrolets with redirects from all the other individual year and model search terms. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a crazy situation, mainly due to Chevrolet's confusing model range. I could actually see having an article for each model year only, since the badging only denoted equipment levels. But I would also support a single article for the 55-57 Chevys, as most would consider all of these simply variants on one car. Articles for badging could remain, but only as a bare-bones history and mainly to provide links to the relevant articles.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sales Figures

Can i get agreement on only adding sales figures with pointing out what they apply to? It's pretty useless to have sales figures if the person reading has to assume what they apply to (the total sold worldwide/ produced/ in certain markets) and it's not very encyclopedic either. Thanks Jenova20 09:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree on the proviso that the figures are also 100% referenced to reliable sources. Also, there is also a distinction that needs to be made between sales and production figures. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out the ones troubling you?  Stepho  talk  13:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming that was to me Stepho?

I'm talking in general because tonnes of car articles feature sales figures that are just lists of useless numbers and dates. The point im making is that these sales figures aren't encyclopedic without stating what they're for.

How can someone show yearly sales figures of 20,000 as good when they can't also state where they apply to? That 20,000 could just be America, it could be the world, china etc. That's my point

Thanks, have a nice day Jenova20 15:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point 100%. I was just hoping that it was a few isolated examples instead of endemic. I've tried to keep the Toyota pages honest (marked as sales worldwide, US, Australia, etc) but I don't look much at the other manufacturers. If it really is endemic then perhaps I can create a small template that puts a {{clarify}} tag on the page and also adds it to a new category (say, 'Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification of sales totals'). That way we can simply browse the category to know which articles still need work.  Stepho  talk  21:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You could do.

My current problem is i have no laptop to see for myself what the references say about it and the Android OS is not ideal to edit Wikipedia, so i can only point them out for now.

Thanks Jenova20 09:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rover 100

This redirects to a disambiguation page between two cars: Rover P4 + Rover 100.

Surely i can get this changed?

There's gonna be far more 100s than P4 100s (since the P4 is from the 60s).

Howmanyleft:

• Rover P4 - No info (so probably none on the road, but some off road)
• Rover 100 - 7,158 left on the UK road as of now.

There's also the fact that if people want the P4 they will type P4, if they want the P4 100, they will type that, but the vast majority of Rover 100 searches will want just that.

Any arguments against this or am i ok to:

• Delete the disambig page and move the main 100 article there.
• Create a new redirect for Rover P4 100 linking to Rover P4.

Thanks Jenova20 13:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. It isn't about how many are left, both were called the Rover 100 - although the newer model was only called the 100 for a time having previously been called the Metro. I really don't see what the issue is, what exists is perfectly adequate. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree, this seems a sensible disambiguation page to have. I've changed the wikilinks on the redirect page to take you more directly to the relevant sections in each article. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also strongly disagree. The present set up seems to be reasonably straight forward to navigate. The "how many left" website is not always easy to interpret especially since the recent "improvement". It seems to mix up all the Rover models called 100. I think it indicates that there are around 550 P4s still on the UK roads. I suspect that in a few years time there could be more P4s than the later 100s surviving, but as Biker Biker states above, the number survivng is not really relevant anyhow.Malcolma (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, add thumbnail images to the disambiguation page as per Toyota Yaris. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge of rebadged vans

• Renault Trafic
• Nissan Primastar
• Vauxhall Vivaro

Three stub(like) articles of pretty much the same van (through a badge engineered joint venture). Anyone support a merge of these? Thanks Jenova20 09:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: as they are very minor rebadges. Would Renault Trafic be the most appropriate title as it includes prior generations as well? OSX (talk • contributions) 10:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: and Opel Vivaro too. I was under the impression it was predominantly a Vauxhall/Opel project (certainly the factory in the UK is), but if someone found out the better selling one? Same issue for the Renault Master/Opel Movano/Vauxhall Movano/Nissan Interstar. Warren (talk)

We could merge them into the Renault Trafic article.

I don't have sales figures but i have Google hits to show Trafic as the most common name:

• "Opel Vivaro" - 622,000
• "Vauxhall Vivaro" - 1,060,000
• "Renault Trafic" - 1,800,000
• "Nissan Primastar" - 820,000 (done with "English-only" exact wording searches)

So what do you think of combining it all in the Trafic article?

Thanks Jenova20 15:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

According to a Renault press release, the Trafic was "designed by Renault's Corporate Design Department based within the company's Technocentre outside Paris, [and] developed by the engineering team of Renault's LCV unit at Villiers St Frédéric near Paris. Manufactured at the IBC plant in Luton - beside the GM version, Vivaro - it is the first Renault vehicle to be built in the UK for over 30 years." This to me suggests Renault designed the van and "Renault Trafic" should be the title used.

I am unable to find information on the entity responsible for the design and engineering of the Renault Master and its Movano twins. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made a start on the merge - Nissan Primastar now included with Opel Vivaro. I'll someone else merge the Renault Trafic with Vivaro page - not so easy as the original Trafic was not the same joint venture! Warren (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bentley Motors Limited

Would it be a good idea to start a new article called Bentley Motors Limited (VW) to cover that business after VW's acquisition? Is it a good idea to replace the discursive information under Modern Bentleys into a table like below? References would be provided for the sources.

Year	Profit	Staff	Total sales	USA sales	China sales	Europe exc UK	UK sales	Other sales
1998		1500	414
1999			1001
2000			1469
2001			1429
2002			1157		36
2003			1017
2004			7411
2005			8627	3654	500
2006	137		9387
2007	155		10014
2008	10		7605
2009	(194)	3500	4616	1433	489		897
2010	(245)		5117	1525	910	776	982	924
2011		4000	7003	2021	1839	1187	1031	925

Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a shame to split the article. Companies often change ownership, but remain in one article so you can understand the history. Also I would prefer that significant issues are dealt with in prose and a table as above not really required. Warren (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Lately it seems like automobile companies change ownership more often than some people change their underwear. Splitting the article every time this happens just makes the information disjointed. Much better to keep it together. Look at articles like Jaguar Cars#History.

Prose is good for mentioning when certain markets started (eg first exports, or when a new market like China started). But a huge string of numbers is very hard to read as prose, so sale figures are much better as a table. with a bit a prose to mention special events (eg starting/closing of certain markets). Many existing articles have sales tables (eg Toyota Corolla#Sales numbers).  Stepho  talk  22:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a split is helpful to anyone, as per Stepho and Warren. The table could be useful, although it could really use some more content first. Also a suggestion: use different background colours for the "profit" and "staff" columns, to make it clear that these are not sales numbers.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

While there are certainly advantages to splitting an article up with ownership, I think the cumbersome navigation that results is something that we don't want. Just take a look at how "Daewoo" is split up:

• Shinjin Motors (1954–1976)
• Saehan Motors (1976–1983)
• Daewoo Motors (1983–2001)
• GM Daewoo (2001–2011) — no article, combined with "GM Korea" below
• GM Korea (2011–present)

Not easy to follow. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughts folks. I do support your thinking but would like to note WP is one of the first places I'd go to check detail when shopping for a replacement car so I have mixed feelings about the 'history first' layout. I don't know how to give background colour to columns (rows OK) so anyone please fix if they can. Another difficulty with the table is that it is as full of info as I can make it. The gaps themselves (2004, 2006, 2010) are very much part of the story. Except for annual profit (loss) and total sales the 2010 numbers supplied are there by calculation from 2011 numbers. I'll put the table into the article but does anyone have access to VW annual reports that might supply other missing info? I'll wait a day for further suggestions before making any amendment to the article. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Merger of Mercedes-Benz CLC-Class to Mercedes-Benz C-Class

C-Class SportCoupé

CLC-Class (a facelift of the above)

Yesterday, I merged Mercedes-Benz CLC-Class with Mercedes-Benz C-Class. The CLC-Class article detailed the 2001 to 2008 Mercedes-Benz C-Class SportCoupé and the 2008 to 2011 facelifted version that was sold as the Mercedes-Benz CLC-Class.

However, this has been reverted by Hektor based on the fact that a new, unrelated CLC-Class is said to be launched later in 2012. Since the SportCoupé/CLC-Class is merely a three-door version of the C-Class sedan (W203), I believe this information should be kept together. If the new CLC-Class model does come to fruition, an easy solution would be to recreate the CLC page with a very brief paragraph on the 2008 to 2011 model that directs readers to the relevant section at Mercedes-Benz C-Class for full details. See Chevrolet Cruze for an example of how this would work, where the 2001 to 2008 Cruze is only briefly mentioned with full details at Suzuki Ignis. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support merger as per my above reasoning. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Reject merger. The CLC class was never a C class except in name in some countries. The substantial differences from C class in engineering, engines, trim, and markets, along with the complication of Benz’s apparent impending plans, leaves me solidly against. WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR are irrelevant because the page was not named on rumors or original research in the first place; it was named because of the CLC designation extant at its creation. Strebe (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The CLC was a facelift of the SportCoupé, and the SportCoupé was little more than a three-door C-Class. The front-end was the same, except for the different grille insert, the interiors were mostly the same; only the rear-end was changed, so engineering-wise this was no different to the C-Class wagon which also had unique rear-end sheet metal. For the CLC, Mercedes-Benz updated the front with W204 reminiscent styling, and updated the rear without changing much besides the boot lid. Engines mostly align those of the W203 C-Class for the SportCoupé and the W204 for the CLC. I don't believe a separate article is required to detail trim or different markets (which is mostly down to where the CLC was not sold, as the C-Class sedan is sold just about everywhere).

WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR are completely relevant because the new CLC-Class has yet to be announced officially. Spy shots are definitely not reliable sources. The "new" CLC-Class is said to be quite a different model—a front-wheel drive coupe-esque sedan based on the B-Class platform. The previous model was simply a three-door C-Class with different front-end styling, even sharing the 203 series model code with its sedan donor model. Because these cars would be related only in name, I have suggested we separate the two articles if and when the new CLC is revealed, utilising an article layout similar to how Chevrolet Cruze deals with the 2001 to 2008 model at Suzuki Ignis. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It is puzzling what you are not grasping here. The current article title was not named on original research or rumors of some new model. It was named on the model designation. Therefore you cannot reasonably argue that KEEPING the name has some relevance to WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR. Plus, you go on to refute keeping the CLC name on the grounds that the new one will be completely different—a reason which at this stage is WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR based on what you yourself already called unreliable sources. How does that make any sense? It is you who are engaging in WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR. IF such a model arrives on the scene THEN we can discuss how to deal with it. This article has been functioning for years as-is just fine.

My comment about “market” is not limited to geographical regions; it means the people who bought it and the reasons they bought it. Also, having owned both a C SportCoupé and a C class, it is quite clear that the differences you want to make sound trivial really are not. Yes, many platform components are the same, but again, many are not, and the differences go deeper than sheetmetal. The literature supports this: Benz themselves went to great lengths on the debut of the SportCoupé to describe how much of it was independently engineered. Observations from the press corroborate that. Given the differences in engineering, market, componentry, history, styling… it just makes no sense to try to merge it all into another article to make some giant überarticle whose readership is going to want information about one or the other submodel but rarely both. Strebe (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What am I not grasping? I said we should not mention the new car until "if and when the new CLC is revealed", therefore the current speculation should remain deleted as I have done. When I said that the new CLC is supposed to be a completely different concept than the original, I was simply quoting the speculation and that also should not be included. When the existence of a car is based on pure speculation, it is a bit hard to debate it using anything but speculation.

Having a CLC-Class article dealing with the 2008 to 2011 model is not speculation in itself, but it is when the unannounced model 2012 model is appended at the end. In your original reply, you opposed the merger because of "the complication of Benz’s apparent impending plans", which is speculative. Until the new CLC is announced we should not be reporting on it.

According to Drive, "the CLC is essentially a reworked version of the C-Class Sports Coupe that went on sale in 2001." Moreover, "Mercedes says the transition from Sports Coupe to CLC involved 1100 “newly developed or enhanced” components, though the new model carries over much of its predecessor’s sheetmetal and cabin design."

Mercedes-Benz hype and spin have no weighting no matter how much of it you believe. Broadly-speaking, 1,100 new parts is nothing remarkable. Mercedes-Benz quoted 2,000 new parts for their 2006 update the W211 E-Class, and according to Drive the company characterised the E-Class midlife update as a "new generation", which is also spin as the sheet metal is unchanged [1]. Likewise, the recent update to the W204 C-Class also involved more than 2,000 parts being changed [2]. Despite this, both the C-Class and E-Class updates are dealt with in the same articles as their pre-updated predecessors. To use another brand as an example, we have a BMW 3 Series article that deals with the sedan and coupe, and the the last two generations of 3 Series coupe (E46 and E92) have shared no sheet metal with one another, yet they are covered in the same article. The C-Class SportCoupé is much closer to the C-Class sedan than the E90 and E92 3 Series. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

“Mercedes-Benz hype and spin have no weighting no matter how much of it you believe.” I don’t believe any of it. I don’t care about it. It is irrelevant. That is why it makes no sense whatever for you to propose merging the article on the basis of the rumored new CLC class being so different from the old.

“Having a CLC-Class article dealing with the 2008 to 2011 model is not speculation in itself, but it is when the unannounced model 2012 model is appended at the end.” Then delete the speculation. I don’t care. I don’t know who put it there and I have no interest in it. It is irrelevant to the proposal to merge the articles, which is what this discussion is supposed to be about.

“In your original reply, you opposed the merger because of "the complication of Benz’s apparent impending plans"”. No, I opposed for many reasons, of which that was merely a supporting one and not even primary.

“What am I not grasping?” This: The current article title was not named on original research or rumors of some new model. It was named on the model designation. Therefore you cannot reasonably argue that KEEPING the name has some relevance to WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR. Plus, you go on to refute keeping the CLC name on the grounds that the new one will be completely different—a reason which at this stage is WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR based on what you yourself already called unreliable sources.

The article has stood on its own for years. The article is long. The information in it is distinct from the information in the main C-class article. Merging the two articles would make a much longer article. All the similarities you state concerning the C class and C SportCoupé are irrelevant given that articles are supposed to get separated when the amount of material exceeds the recommended length of an article. 05:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the history of the edits, I think I see where the misunderstanding arises. In Hektor’s reversion of your original merge, the only rationale he stated was that of the upcoming CLC class. But that is not the only reason by any means. It’s not the reason I reverted your merge and it’s not a reason I care much about. But then when you reverted Hektor’s reversion, the only rationale you gave was that the new CLC is speculative, leading me to assume that that was your reason for the article merge. I think I understand now that your original reason for the merge was not related to the upcoming CLC.

The reason I reverted your merge is because you have no business merging articles before a proper discussion between concerned editors has been conducted. Strebe (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

“That is why it makes no sense whatever for you to propose merging the article on the basis of the rumored new CLC class being so different from the old.” No, I my argument has been that the existing CLC is merely a three-door C-Class and should be merged for that reason alone. What I did say was that if the much speculated front-wheel drive model does eventuate, then we could create a new article for this model and briefly mention the old CLC in a paragraph, linking back to the C-Class article for full details.

“What am I not grasping?” This: The current article title was not named on original research or rumors of some new model. It was named on the model designation. Therefore you cannot reasonably argue that KEEPING the name has some relevance to WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR." It is you who is not grasping it. I said it is speculative to have reference to the alleged next generation CLC. That's it, nothing more! There is nothing speculative about a CLC article on the 2008 to 2011 model—nothing. I never mentioned, implied, or stated outright that having a CLC page was speculative. Please stop throwing words down my throat that never came out. I'll repeat it once more to make it 100 percent clear:

CLC article on the 2008 to 2011 model — ok because it can be reliably sourced. Despite this, I believe this page should be merged with Mercedes-Benz C-Class

CLC article on the speculated future model — not ok because it cannot be reliably sourced

Too much lashing out and not enough reading. No sir, you put the words in your mouth, as I explained above as the origin of the misunderstanding. Kindly read your own rationale for restoring the merge here. I understand now that you did not mean that as your explanation, but as a matter of record, that is your original explanation and the origin of the misunderstanding.

"Merging the two articles would make a much longer article." Well, then let's create a separate page for the W203 series C-Class (including coupe and wagon) to make the main article shorter. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I will consider what that means. Strebe (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Studying the articles in question, I still oppose the merger. I don’t think moving it all into the W203 article is a terrible idea, but neither do I think it is a good idea. I don’t see what problem we are solving. The CLC article’s content does not duplicate C-class content with the exception of two sentences. There is enough distinct content for the article to stand alone, which is why it has been separate for over four years now. The SportCoupé’s history diverges quite a bit from the mainstream C-class. Benz themselves split the car off from the C class by their own designation with the advent of the CLC, and from that time, while sharing a lot of W203 componentry, the automobile ended up being a W203/W204 hybrid. Meanwhile WP:SIZERULE does not like the length of the merged W203 article (71kb = Probably should be divided). So I repeat: What problem are we solving by merging these articles? Strebe (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I did not revert because of the new model, I reverted because there had been no prior discussion which would give the opportunity to agree or disagree with the merge. And btw, I maintain that a new CLC-Class, completely different from the C-Class, since it will be based on the platform of the B-Class, is expected to be presented within the next three months, maybe in Geneva 2012. This car is well documented [3]. The article would then have to be unmerged. Hektor (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My above proposal accounts for the new CLC. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I just couldn't be asked to read all of this. Now I have, and it is clear that the 203-series "CLC" belongs either in the C-class article or in a separate W203 article (preferred). A future CLC article should briefly mention the CLC/203 with a hatnote redirecting to the W203 article. Easy as pie.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of foreign language references

I reverted an edit on Brilliance Auto due to the use of a foreign language reference with no english translation on the website, but the editor has reverted back. To avoid an edit war, I thought it might be useful to get some guidance on the use of foreign references on the English language Wikipedia. Warren (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If nothing else is available (unlikely for Chinese sales numbers, at least for a month or so), then foreign-language will have to do. Usually Google translate can tell you enough to figure out whether the reference is bunk or not. Fleetham does have a habit of edit warring as well as misreading things, but when it is as basic as sales numbers I don't see a problem. I also often use foreign references but will be happy to provide translations should anyone feel the need for it.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The WP policy is at WP:LINKS#Non-English-language sites. Basically it says English is preferred but foreign languages are okay if required. The {{cite web}} template has a trans_title parameter that should be used to display an English translated title so that English only readers can know whether it is something worth passing through a machine translator or just skipping over.  Stepho  talk  17:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What constitutes a new generation?

One of our favorite edit warriors is at it again. See here for an example, Ford LTD (Americas) is also being hit, and no doubt more I haven't seen.

While the criteria have always been loose, the general rule is a sufficient redesign of a car's bodywork. This user thinks that chassis measurements are the one and only factor. Using that logic, the Ford Taurus from 1986-2007 would be a single generation, which is preposterous. For the case in question, the 1973 fullsize Ford and Mercury had completely new bodies on the same or similar chassis. From a real-world standpoint, that is the primary differentiating factor. The average person, the one that Wikipedia is ideally supposed to cater to, doesn't care how much underneath is the same, it's the exterior design that gets noticed. --Sable232 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, mostly. It is also obviously often a judgement question as to what makes a new generation - the various versions of the European Ford Escort are for instance open to interpretation, with different front and rear panels as well as a profusion of engines.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Intuitively, if you can transform a vehicle of one year into a clone of another year by swapping bolt-on parts then they are the same generation. But I think this will be a losing battle to define a set of physical criteria for generation changes. To give examples of the two extremes: the Camry gets a new grill and tail lights nearly every year but that doesn't change its generation. But any 1970's Ford Falcon (Australia) XA/XB/XC could be transformed from one generation to another by swapping bolt-on bits (similar for Holden HQ/HX/HZ Kingswoods). Seems like the only way to go is by whether the manufacturer declares it as a new generation or not - usually by changing a code (eg Falcon XA/XB/XC, BMW E34, etc).  Stepho  talk  04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the door test. If the doors are the same then they are of the same generation. I can't think of any cases where this would not apply, but maybe one or two examples exists. Therefore, using the Ford Taurus example above, the 1986 and 1992 updates are the first generation and the 1996 and 2000 updates are the second generation, and so on. Currently, the Taurus article treats facelifts as a new generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sady, the Ford Falcon XR/XT/XW/XY fail that test. The XA/XB/XC also fail - at least for the front doors, memory says the XC rear doors were slightly longer. And the XD/XE/XF/XG/XH fail too. Likewise for the Holdens of the same eras. A good effect of this was to allow a race car to start as say an XA, then magically change into an XB and then XC over the next few years (eg Moffat's Bathurst winning 1977 XC was first raced as an XB). Ford got PR value from the "current" model being in front of audiences while the racer didn't have to change the complete car every year. Australian manufacturers up to the 1990s treated facelifts as a generation. But at least we didn't do facelifts every year like the American do :)  Stepho  talk  09:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

First we need to define the difference between facelift and generation as that isn't perhaps totally clear. Perhaps the definition is of sorts already in Facelift (automotive) and this could form the basis of generation if the idea of an extensive facelift was clearly defined over a minor facelift (the Camry grille example above versus the Mercedes SL shown on the facelift article)?

The obvious change is when a car is physically different with the launch of new model (Jaguar XK (X100) vs Jaguar XK (X150)) or it could be a significant change of an existing model which could be a combination of revised or new engines, new front and rear treatments, might even be a new name which signifies such a set of changes (such as Austin Metro to Rover 100). There is no single answer; the definition will be a driven very much by the manufacturer's marketing when a car has a significant number of alterations, such as described be Stepho, and a judgement by the author (as suggested by Mr Choppers) using relevant references. The European model of model generations is perhaps a little clearer as we do not really have the annual minor tweaks still quite prevalent in North America where there is still the concept of model years which can blur generation change (which is not a good article at all). Warren (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Stepho, the model code is an excellent method where it's available, but it usually isn't in North America. Obviously the manufacturer or another reliable source is ideal, but there often isn't one and when there is, it won't necessarily align with what one thinks. OSX brings up the Taurus, which, it could be argued is in its fourth generation; however, both Edmunds and J.D. Power (I didn't bother looking very long but there's sure to be more) say the current model is the sixth. The way things seem to work out there is no consistency in the definition between model lines, and perhaps that's just the nature of it. Personally, I would rather err on the side of more separation rather than less. --Sable232 (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as the manufacturer provides a new model code (X1, X2, X3 etc) then those can provide section headers, thereby making it unnecessary to determine whether a particular change was a facelift or a new generation. When things aren't so clear cut, or when a local distributor has its own model codes (I'm thinking here of Aussie market Mitsubishis and similar situations) then things become more thorny - but I must say that usually the delineations become quite clear after a tiny conversation, and once established they are harder to move around at will. And as Warren says, the older US cars are very hard for this, especially as model names would be used indiscriminately across the board (see Chevy Bel Air/150/Impala and so on...). Sometimes, editors will have to actually make a clear decision - and then to stick to such a decision until it is no longer useful.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Blue Car

This is to invite any interested editors in the merge discussion of the Pininfarina B0 article as a section of the Bolloré Blue Car. See the structure of the French Wikipedia article here.--Mariordo (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Countess Mouldings

Hi all - I'm working on this New Zealand based replica car maker of a high quality Lamborghini Countach, but have run out of sources and information. This leaves the article in state that can't be added. The cars are mentioned on various global talk sites and were, I believe, sold primarily to Japanese buyers. Can anyone assist, edit or add any useful referenced material. NealeFamily (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have sources but I have a tip. Create a page in your user area (say, User:NealeFamily/Countess) and edit it to the best of ability. Once there is some data then hopefully someone else can add some more to it. Once it is good enough, then you can copy it to its proper place as a normal article. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  09:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.car-cat.com/firm-841.html here is one more source -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions - I did put in an entry, slightly prematurely as it turned out. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Countess Mouldings. On Friday I saw a new book on the local (New Zealand) kit car industry which in Countess Mouldings, which I will add to the references. What I really need is more information in the article. If anyone has access to information from Japan, that could be useful. NealeFamily (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Crankshaft position sensor

Can we rename Crankshaft position sensor to engine position sensor, and then include both the crankshaft and camshaft position sensors. Dave2208 (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Automotive Packages

Wow; do all these warrant individual articles, all unreferenced: Convenience package, Handling package, Navigation package, Performance package, Safety package, Sports package, Trim package. I couldn't find a reference to use to even warrant the main article Automotive package. I would propose all these could warrant deletion, and add relevant information to the existing general overall view on Car model though that too could do with some editing and references. Warren (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves: Audi RS models

Please note there is a requested move discussion taking place here. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

bugatti veyron 8.0L 16 cylinders and 4 turbochargers and ... equal bore and stroke Shott92 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

hi there hopefully somebody can help me comprehend why VW have used a "square engine" in such a high performance car it was my under standing that for a high revving high powered engine a under-square engine is most practical with a short stroke... any help in an explanation to this would be greatly appreciated. thanks Shott92 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC) shott

The Veyron's 16 cylinder engine is not high revving, producing maximum power at 6000 rpm. I imagine that space is part of the concern. Oversquare cylinders take up more horizontal space, like wise undersquare configurations use more vertical space. When you are trying to make 16 cylinders as compact as possible, a square or nearly square arrangement is probably best. --Daniel 17:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

German study of fatal traffic accidents

Hi! I found out about German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS), a study about fatal traffic accidents http://www.gidas.org/en/home

It might have useful information that could help improve articles about automobile safety WhisperToMe (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

BMW M20

Could someone look at the BMW M20 article , what do you think about it? is Wikipedia tuning guide? also those forum references are not suitable references in my opinion -->Typ932 ^T·C 08:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTMANUAL says WP is not a manual or how-to guide. WP:SELFPUBLISH says forums are not reliable sources.  Stepho  talk  22:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC

I agree - the tuning section in the article is a "how to guide" and outside the range of Wiki. A tighter rewrite about the possible modifications might be a work around, but the sources would need to be more mainstream. NealeFamily (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Hiriko

This is to invite any interested editors in the merge discussion of the Hiriko article as a section of the CityCar article.--Mariordo (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion of shock absorber to dashpot

Discussion about replacing shock absorber with dashpot. See Talk:Dashpot#Discussion_for_merging_shock_absorber_to_here

Not one of the best merge ideas I've ever seen. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Split Chevrolet Volt

This is to invite any interested editors to participate in the ongoing discussion to split the Opel Ampera into a stand alone article branching from the Chevrolet Volt (which is too long). The experience of editors from this project in past discussions of this type of split is welcome.--Mariordo (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)