Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Category:Mid-engined vehicles[edit]

Category:Mid-engined vehicles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

About new award does it look good?[edit]

Maserati MC12
This user has been awarded with the Big interest in car award.

Doorknob747 20:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talkcontribs)

removable if you want. Doorknob747 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talkcontribs)
how should I change it too look better. We need something to encourage other users to join the project. There are other projects that are big and they give out a lot of rewards. But, I do not see any rewards here :( .Doorknob747 21:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I think you might wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Awards by WikiProject. OSX (talkcontributions) 04:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, ill take a look at that. Doorknob747 (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
No need for help now. Doorknob747 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I tried adding it there but it did not work, although i did find Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga has awards, so I am going to ask if they can help us with this.
We now have the award!!!!!Doorknob747 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
That I, personally, delisted and started a deletion discussion at the Commons about. You can't use the Maserati logo, or any non-free image, for a barnstar. Might I suggest you use the already extant Automotive Barnstar, instead? Achowat (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Pause the deletion for now, lets do a poll who wants to use the existing one and who wants to use mine. If we use mine we must contact Maserati somehow and ask if we can use thier logo on the barn star. If you win delte the pic. If I win remove image listed for deletion. Doorknob747 (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Like, that's not how this works, for a number of reasons. First votes don't matter. Second, we can't use the Maserati logo. Third, there's already a barnstar for that. Achowat (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Supports DoorknobMhe thats just me. Doorknob747 (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Cropping images[edit]

An easy way to crop images is to use the CropTool. It takes just seconds to crop the photo; the programme will then automatically upload the cropped file over the top of the original—very convenient. Further info: Commons:CropTool. OSX (talkcontributions) 13:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I've used this tool a number of times by now, works perfectly. Thanks for the tip. Cloverleaf II (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

1955 Chevrolet Bel Air[edit]

I'm just back from Cuba, where we hired a birding guide who drove a 1955 four-door Chevrolet Bel Air. We took a couple of shots of the exterior and a view of the dashboard from the front seat. The existing article seems quite well illustrated, so I'm not sure there is any value in uploading them. Any views?

It's a bit sad that the locals have to drive cars of that age due to the decades-long US embargo, but it does mean the streets have some wonderful old vehicles on them, alongside the Chinese trucks and buses Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at what people have already uploaded [1] and decide whether any of your pictures could add something useful, either because they're fantastic pictures (sun in the right place, you were standing not too close and not too far from the car, not too many distracting reflections and/or shadows, not from some wacky/extreme angle, not fuzzy because your hand was quaking .... etc) or because they illustrate clearly something important that the other pictures in that category don't adequately illustrate. If you think you've got something worthwhile, make sure you saved your image with a meaningful name (check some others for inspiration) then go back to wikipedia commons and click "upload file" from the list on the left of the page and ... do what it says. After that, if another contributor thinks your image can add something important to the entry in wikipedia, they may use it. (It feels wrong to add your own picture to an entry unless there is no picture at all of the car in question unless you do! - and that does not appear to be a problem with a 1955 Bel Air.)
Cuba sounds a wonderful place for those of us who like photographing old cars. I guess the upside of the trade restrictions is that folks there still know how to repair their cars, rather than simply having to listen to the dealer giving them a quote for some new component involving the computer euphemistically termed as the "engine management system". Also, if it rained all the time, or if there was a lot of salty misty wind off the sea, then those old timers would have rusted away. Seems they're still there.
Success Charles01 (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Uploading them can't hurt, but the '55 Bel Air is probably one of the most photographed cars ever made, mext to the '65 Mustang and various Beetles. @Charles01:: most of them have Nissan diesel engines by now, as there are limits on how long even old yankee stoves can run.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Tesla Model S manufacturing process article[edit]

Hi All

I wrote an article for the Tesla Model S manufacturing process, the manufacturing plant has a high level of automation and uses a lot of robots. As far as I know it's the first Wikipedia article about the manufacturing process of a consumer product. I'd very much appreciate someone who knows about cars looking at it.


Mrjohncummings (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Nicely written, but it strikes me as being of perhaps questionable encyclopaedic merit as a separate subject. It presents little real evidence that the manufacturing process for this specific model of car is in any way unique. Almost all cars are manufactured using a high level of automation, so the fact that Wired chose this one to illustrate the fact accordingly really doesn't prove much, and the lack of other sources suggesting particular notability of this specific instance leads me to wonder whether it would survive an AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a notable topic for manufacturing in general. It has perhaps less automation than some plants (it doesn't need it, it's not handling as much volume) but how it really differs is in the lack of human workers too. The proportion of robot/human work is greater than (AFAIK) any other plant.
There's also the notable aspect that Tesla's line can run almost on-demand and work effectively at very low volumes, right down to making a single car on demand. Conventional car plants just can't do that - which makes them economically inflexible according to varying demand. We've all seen the carparks full of over-produced and unsaleable cars, because for most plants it's a stark binary choice between doing that, or stopping the entire plant and laying off the staff.
Mind, it's not a terribly well-written article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It's an important subject. It's also difficult because (apart from superficial stuff penned by marketing folks who've usually only got a very superficial idea of what goes on in their own factories) there's a shortage of the sort of sources wikipedia prefers, and the automakers are fiercely secretive because each likes to think (sometimes correctly) that competitive advantage lies in better managing the conversion process - from raw materials and structured brain waves all the way through to finished cars in the showrooms. But none of that is a reason to shy away from starting a wiki entry where an automaker - Tesla - has permitted sufficient insights to seep out into the public realm. Very many thanks for applying time and energy to this one. If Andy Dingley knows more about how they manage to run the plant (profitably) with a range of volumes (rather than simply switching the second and third shifts on or off) ... well, I'd be interested. It sounds as though they don't have to worry about shareholders and bank loans to fund their fixed costs - the land, the plant, all those heavy presses and fancy robots and fiddly tools .... But maybe there are answers out there. And yes, I expect the other automakers would be interested in those too. Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The trade press like Automotive Design & Production is a start.
There are two sorts of job in a car plant: fixed & floating. Imagine a line assembling widgets: two people load widgets in and out at the ends of the line, three work at stations down the line, putting the bits of widget into place before they're pressed into place by machines, tested by machines etc. Humans are doing the random pallet loading and the pick-n-place operations. The jobs that are not much better if automated, and hard to automate. Some of these jobs though are fixed: you have to do it in one place, someone has to be doing it or the line stops. Others float: from time to time, someone has to bring a new pallet load of widget parts. Doesn't matter who, doesn't matter what else they do inbetween. It needs five people to run the line, maybe four if it's not busy.
AIUI, what Tesla have done is to automate more of the fixed roles. So the line pretty much runs autonomously. It takes a couple of people to run it at full rate, but (and this is the difference) it can still run if they aren't there. So long as one of them shows up from time to time, it keeps running too. So if production is down, one stacker driver or loader might be able to service a couple of cells, even though each cell might keep two busy at full rate. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, AD. To me it all sounds perilously close to witchcraft, but I shouldn't share the thought because if I do people might think I was out of touch with ... whatever it is we're meant to be in touch with. My rather simplistic understanding had been that whether at the level of individual work stations or at the less standardised tasks that service them, he humans are there, increasingly, to sort out problems when the robots mess up - eg if a robotically transferred parts bin contains only 248 parts instead of the anticipated 250 (no doubt because another robot in another country tipped out a couple of widgets by cornering too fast on the way from the warehouse). Anyhow, it does sound as though you have a source (or more) and the understandings necessary to build up the entry a bit which, if you find the time, would be great for the rest of us. (I'm still worried about how you pay back your borrowings for buying all that fantastically costly capital equipment, but I guess that's the bean counter in me struggling to escape again.) Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I think there should be an article on how the car can catch fire. *sirens of fire engines in the distance.*

Please review my last two edit[edit]

Can some one review my last two edits on


Please. Thank you.Doorknob747 (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits reverted to last proper versions. - Areaseven (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Could you explain what was wrong with the edits? Boivie (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe I can answer on Areaseven's part. The sources were speculations from 2013. Would have been WP:CRYSTALBALL two years ago, now it's more like science fiction (on top of that a product plan has been made public). This said, that's a quite ill-mannered way of undoing good faith edits from a Wikipedia editor. –Cloverleaf II (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
And since it was ill manered i am reverting it back! What do you want 100 sources! And those edit summaries of him reverting my edits, should be sweeped , they are very unproductive edit summaries.Doorknob747 (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Ditto with yours. Quite frankly, your edits over the past week hold no merit, and you've made other editors very unhappy with your approach on automotive and anime articles. Almost all of your edits are based solely on speculation or simply false information, not to mention the countless grammatical errors and improper placement of references you've committed. That last edit summary you posted even borderlines on personal attack, which is a complete no-no here on Wikipedia. So Doorknob747, do us all a favor and lighten up. - Areaseven (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

FIAT v Fiat[edit]

Hi all, recently Cloverleaf II and I had an amicable and constructive debate about this topic thanks to edits to the Turin Auto Show contents, which are now better than ever before. It arose because of my changes from "Fiat" to "FIAT". Just like other brands, FIAT is, of course, an acronym (Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino). My changes were not made out of any personal preference or first-hand experience (through Italian being my first language or having lived there, owned such a car and having acquaintances directly employed by the company in Turin) but because of the following:

  • FIAT is an acronym as mentioned above
  • Fiat is instead a quasi-legal term
  • though the body corporate/s may be "Fiat", the actual product is sold with a FIAT® registered trademark (e.g. see [[2]])
  • the product is also sold bearing a FIAT logo using capitalized letters, never Fiat (see [[3]]).

All of this is no different, to say, BMW (Bayerische Motoren Werke), which is never referred to or sold as a Bmw. It is no Audi or Ford (referring to other 4-letter brands). For completeness, some may refer to the following - Alfa, which is or was also an acronym (Anonima Lombarda Fabbrica Automobili) but if one traces its brand history, the loss of ALFA can be ultimately traced to FIAT's take-over in the 1980s and romanticized approach to a word, and another is SAAB (Svenska Aeroplan AB) that however never sold a vehicle branded or badged "Saab". If this/my position stands, then all relevant articles should be revised to state FIAT... the easy fix, like in the Turin Auto Show (which lead to the above amicable debate), is to use the format open double suare brackets Fiat Whatever|FIAT Whatever closed double square brackets with affected links but this is cumbersome and time consuming. Over to the rest for a say? The key point is needing to distinguish between corporate body and brand. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course I disagree completely with CtrlXctrlV. Since more than one editor shares his opinion, red FIAT links are unsightly and the matter is debatable, I think it should be discussed once and for all in order to adopt some sort of convention.
First off, I believe we can all agree that "Fiat" (not "FIAT") has been in common usage and unofficial print media since the interwar years.
  • Fiat was founded as F.I.A.T. (Società Anonima Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino) in 1899.
It became Fiat on 8 March 1906. That day Agnelli's re-established company bought rights to the "Fiat" name usage from the old F.I.A.T.. See: Angeli, Franco. I primi quindici anni della Fiat—Verbali dei consigli di amministrazione 1899–1915 [The first fifteen years of Fiat—Minutes from the boards of directors meetings 1899–1915] (PDF) (in Italian). pp. 371–378. 
Starting in the late 60s "Fiat" became increasingly common, both to denote the cars and the company. Since 1980 "Fiat" is almost universally used. The one exception (as brought up by CtrlXctrlV) is North America, where Fiat brand has been registered as FIAT.
My opinion: FIAT for pre-1906 (veteran and brass-era) vehicles, Fiat for everything else—according to common practice. If on the other hand consensus arises to use FIAT even on some later models, fine; as long as usage is coherent across all articles.
But I strongly oppose using FIAT on any model introduced after 1970. I challenge you to find any references to a "FIAT Uno" or "FIAT Punto". Ok, I'm done. Whew. –Cloverleaf II (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
PS: How can you claim it was Fiat that suppressed the A.L.F.A. acronym? You know better than me how and when A.L.F.A. became Alfa Romeo. –Cloverleaf II (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I looked on Fiat's website It consistently uses "FIAT" only where the entire sentence is also in all-caps and consistently uses "Fiat' in mixed case sentences. As for badges on vehicles, most vehicle brands use all caps on badges, including Ford, Nissan, Toyota.  Stepho  talk  09:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the Alfa Romeo correction Cloverleaf II! Usage of either FIAT or Fiat is neither here or there at the end of the day but it is just as wrong to arbitrarily say "up to X date, it is capital letters and beyond that it isn't" in light of the new FIAT branding, now also used in Australia [4] - go to the "Vehicles" tab (seems like a new FCA strategy?). At least in Italian, gramatically, the preferred way of writing is FIAT (see and translate [5]). Perhaps the conclusion is that both are valid and we should just focus to ensure that articles consistently use only one form. In the case of the Turin Motorshow, since it lists FIAT products prior to the 1970's, for consistency, leave all as FIAT? I don't think I'll have more to contribute noting the absence of material for either choice (save for, again, the new branding practice) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to correct you about the usage in Australia. I just around looked on the Australian Fiat website. Just like the global site that I mentioned above, the Australian site uses "FIAT" in all-caps only when the entire sentence is also all-caps and uses "Fiat" in mixed-case whenever the sentence was mixed-case. This was also true of and even the Italian website . At least for recent years, Fiat seems to have settled on "Fiat" except for where it uses all-caps for everything. Vehicle badges seem to all-caps, eg FIAT UNO even though advertising prose says "Fiat Uno".  Stepho  talk  06:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
"FIAT" (all-caps) is pretty rare. Most magazines and websites name both the company and the marque as "Fiat." For examples see here, here. Simple googling it you can find thousands of examples of "Fiat" and very few of "FIAT". As Cloverleaf lI said, the only instance where "FIAT" is in common usage is in texts written using only capital letters. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
As per Urbanoc, Cloverleaf 2, Stepho etcetera. No need to capitalize, would actually fly in the face of the company's own usage for over a century. I would also like to revert SEAT to Seat, if anyone shall care to join me...  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I have never been persuaded by the "SEAT" usage. As you write, "Seat" works just fine for the company itself and they should know better (even better) than those of us who contribute regularly (or, indeed, rarely) to Wikipedia. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Not so sure on that one. I went through some print ads and some press releases on the official site here, and the company itself seems to be using consistently SEAT in all caps. –Cloverleaf II (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't really mean to sidetrack - Fiat is obviously much clearer meant to be lower caps and I don't want to risk conflating the two here.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

1970s electric car of possible interest[edit]

1970s electric car of possible interest

I don't really know anything about this one; I was uploading images from the Seattle Municipal Archives & ran across it. If anyone knows quite what it is, great! And if it's useful to illustrate anything that currently lacks an image, even better. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but a great photo and should probably be very useful to someone. @Mariordo: Look!  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mitsubishi badges[edit]

A Mitsubishi template has (in my eyes) been cluttered with waaaayy too many variations, seeing fit to include the "Galant VR-4" as a separate link and the like. A discussion is taking place here, but I feel that two editors with opposing viewpoints won't cut the mustard. Anyone care to peek?  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes to production and model years[edit]

During the past two days, an anonymous user (talk) has been making numerous changes to significant number to the production and model years within a variety articles. Some are clearly wrong and appropriate experts of the particular models should carefully review and perform appropriate corrections. A further alert is that this contributor has taken on to name calling after I corrected their edits (on talk page here) that were wrong. It would be advisable to add additional references for these to help prevent further drive by changes. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

McLaren cars—proposed page moves[edit]

With the recent launch of the 540C McLaren Cars' marketing strategy is fully unfolded—each of its cars is offered in touring (C), sport (S) and track-oriented (LT) models. I think to clear things up a bit we could adopt McLaren's official nomenclature, with the following page moves:

What do you think? Too corporate? –Cloverleaf II (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, too corporate. These terms might eventually go into regular use, but they haven't yet. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

There should be a to do list box like other projects have on their talk page.[edit]

A to do list is a good way of telling other members of the project what work needs to be done to a article that is covered by this wikiproject. A good example of a to-do list box is here on this Wikiproject page : Doorknob747 (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Jackson/de Dion Wagonette[edit]

Thinktank Birmingham - object 1965S01945(1).jpg

Teh mage above is labelled "Jackson/de Dion Wagonette Motorcar - Single Cylinder. Painted black with red trim. Wheels wooden spokes with rubber tyres. Starter handle at front beneath radiator leather seats. Headlamps are powered. Footplate 'R. Reynold Jackson & Co Ltd. 'The Jackson Car' London'."

Can anyone shed more light on the maker(s)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I found: R. Reynold Jackson and Co made light cars with De Dion-Bouton engines. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move notification: Hemi engine → Hemispherical combustion chamber[edit]

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Hemi engine to move the page to Hemispherical combustion chamber. If you've anything to add, please step in! —Cloverleaf II (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)