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.

Super Sport vs. Schutzstaffel[edit]

I've often had to remove the commons category "Schutzstaffel" from a lot of Chevrolet Super Sport vehicle images. Is there any way we can prevent Schutzstaffel, from being added to the Chevrolet Impala SS, Chevelle SS, Malibu SS, Camaro SS, etcetera? Perhaps add notes to each category? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Bill Thomas Cheetah - needs protection due to an edit war[edit]

If anyone can help - page protection is needed due to an edit war - none of the participants appear to be reqistered users. NealeFamily (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Request made [1]. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks NealeFamily (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Fiat Chrysler nationality[edit]

Recently, various editors have been adding national flags next to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, either Italian or British, in the Automotive industry article. I've been deleting them, as the FCA article doesn't indicate a particular nationality for the company, which is aligned with Marchionne's original intent of keeping the holding company away from national entities. However, I prefer to know the general opinion before continuing, as I can be mistaken. My questions are: there is a consensus about FCA nationality? If that's the case, what the consensus is? Thanks. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSFLAG I don't think flag icons should be used in such contexts at all: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality". An automobile manufacturer, even if based in a single country, doesn't represent that country in any meaningful sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, no flags. If you have two high-quality sources that each give a different nationality, then leave the nationality out of the lead and the infobox, and elaborate on the different opinions about nationality in the body of the article. Infoboxes are for clear, unequivocal facts; anything in disupte needs a prose explanation. It's also fine to describe a company as "a multinational company founded in..." or "headquartered in...". When in doubt, say what the sources say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I agree companies, especially multinationals, shouldn't be represented by national flags. In fact, I deleted them all from the table that is the reason for my question the first time they were included, but I had little support and they came back :). I have doubts in citing policies to support my edits, because consensus sometimes override them in particular cases. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

New category for mods[edit]

Please comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_21#Category:Modified_Volkswagen_vehicles. – Fayenatic London 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

AfD on Aston Martin DB10 article[edit]

The new Aston Martin DB10 article is up for deletion here. All comments are welcome on that page. One-eyed Jim (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Chrysler"[edit]

The name of the article Chrysler is under discussion, see talk:Chrysler -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the Sinclair C5 fall within the scope of this project?[edit]

The Sinclair C5 is, as its lead sentence says, "an 'electrically assisted pedal cycle.'" As such, it would be rather better described as a recumbent tricycle than as an automobile. However, for some reason, it has not only been considered within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, it has been ranked as being of high importance to this project.

I therefore respectfully ask the members of this project for the reasons why the C5 falls within the scope of this project and, further, the reasons why it is considered to be of high importance to this project.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective,the thing with the C5 is not so much what it is, but more about how it was marketed, reviewed by the media and perceived by the public as an alternative form of motorised road transport for anyone. If it had been sold as a mere recumbent tricycle or as an electrically assisted pedal cycle, it probably would not have registered on the public consciousness in the way that it did. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • yes, as Antar above. It's a bit of a joke just what the C5 really is, and if it had been sold as an assisted recumbent it might have sold to fewer, better satisfied customers. At the time though, it was massively hyped as "Sinclair's electric car" and has long been considered to fall within such.
As this is the project we're considering here, not a definition, then we should of course be broadly inclusive, not restrictive. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
O.K., so basically it was "a car that wasn't" and probably falls within the scope of the project because of this. But why "high importance"? Was the debacle really *that* big? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I think to answer that, one would need a much more precise definition of what should constitute a "high importance" article. It seems rather arbitrary at the moment. In the UK at least, the C5 debacle was very big and very notable.Mighty Antar (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

New Icon Car?[edit]

I'm not particularly sure how long this image has been the icon for this WikiProject (at least since the April 2008 upload date), but I was curious if anyone else would be interested in creating a new icon or suggesting an image for us to use. While I wouldn't say I am "sick" of looking at the Honda, I would say that a new icon might freshen things up a bit.

The S2000 image is a PNG, and there are few other car PNGs available. Those that are available are illustrations and not photos like the Honda (try these: boring but Ferrarish; Rolls-Royce Phantom III). I'm not even sure if icons such as this are bound by background transparency restrictions (seems pretty inane). Though if we found a pleasing image that garnered enough support, anything is possible regarding creating a derivative work with transparency and backgrounds.

The S2000 is a great photo, but perhaps we might find an image that depicts a more widely-popular or mid-century vehicle. This WikiProject is concerned with autos from the late 1800s-today, so maybe something "middle-of-the-road" could do rather than a recent car? And for the sake of discussion, does the icon even have to be a car? What about a truck or SUV?

I hope I'm not alone here, and I certainly welcome any discussion on the matter. Cheers --Stratocaster27t@lk 05:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not against a discussion, I'm quite content with the S2000. It's a happy, cheery little car that's sold world-wide. New enough to be modern but not new enough to be in the "must have a photo of the absolute latest model" group. A JPG version might be nicer to make downloads a little quicker but th eimage itself is quite fine.  Stepho  talk  08:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I also have no qualms with the Honda S2000 image. However, if a higher-quality image that was representative of the project was proposed, I would support a change. OSX (talkcontributions) 13:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I am a fan of neither the S2000 nor planned obsolescence, and my initial reaction to this proposal was that it is a pointless waste of time. However, upon giving it more thought, I realize that this is an opportunity to think of what kind of car would actually represent the project.
It probably should not be a sports car, as that would be a bit too specialized a vehicle to represent automobiles at large. For the same reason, it should not be a pickup truck or an SUV. A sedan/saloon car or hatchback would probably be best.
It should probably not be an icon of any specific country, which would exclude the '59 Cadillac or the Tri-Five Chevrolet (USA), the Mini (UK), the Citroën 2CV and DS (France, although a Renault 4 just might look generic enough to work), the Fiat 500 or 600 (Italy), the SAAb 90 series and 900 (Sweden) or the Honda Civic (Japan). It should doubly not be the Volkswagen Beetle so as to avoid mention of the Third Reich.
Despite this, it should be a highly notable car, but not necessarily an easily identifiable one.
Based on these criteria, I think suitable cars for the project's icon would include (but not be limited to, of course):
Finally, having edited quite a few motorcycle articles at a certain time, I must ask: please do NOT let it be a BMW! They are already overhyped by Wikipedia!
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Curious, two cars you listed as explicitly undesirable are two cars that would be in my top 10 list. The Beetle may have got it's genesis by a mad dictator but became a world-wide phenomena under its own merits. It is instantly recognisable in almost any country by almost any generation. It's also cute and cuddly and decidedly non-threatening, explaining its popularity as a child's toy over so many generations. The original Mini has a similar (but slightly less) world-wide popularity and recognisability. I would prefer to not have a plain sedan because they're just plain boring. Bland is not necessarily a goal to aim for.  Stepho  talk  00:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Being boring might not be a desirable goal, but being representative is. "Plain sedans" are what most people see on the road and what most drivers have on the road.
If the icon of the project is a picture of a car with a strong national identity, then we will get accusations of national bias.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
SamBlob, I have to both agree and disagree with you. This certainly is an opportunity to discuss a more representative image for the project, however, I think the vehicle chosen should be notable and recognisable. Looking at other transportation-related WikiProjects: Aviation's icon is the Wright Flyer, Buses is a red London Routemaster. These are both extremely important and notable symbols (probably the equivalent of having Karl Benz's Motorwagen or Model T as icons) of these projects. If well-photographed or illustrations of, say, the 2CV, Beetle, or 1950s Cadillac Deville exist, these should be prime candidates for a representative icon. As a reverse example, a Chrysler K, though it sold well, is perhaps one of the most dreary cars of all time and probably difficult for people across the world to recognize. Cheers --Stratocaster27t@lk 02:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at both projects, I also notice how they chose logos that are symbols on their own right and not directly identifiable with any currently active manufacturers or marques.
Replying to both comments above, the fact that a car is recognizable as make/model shouldn't be a criteria here. This is WikiProject Automobiles, not WikiProject Volkswagen or WikiProject BMC. Whatever we choose, it should be instantly recognizable simply as an Automobile. Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I the the Beetle is the obvious iconic choice. and frankly, it's links with nazism are pretty tenuous, in context.Greglocock (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Tenuous links? Even if it went on to become a world car, it was designed by Adolf Hitler's favourite engineer (who plagiarized Tatra's patents) on specifications dictated by Adolf Hitler himself. Just like that other thing. Not really the best choiche in my opinion. – Cloverleaf II (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with SamBlob's ctiteria. Reasons above. – Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Two more possibilities, along the same lines:
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
A summation of all I've said earlier: The most important property of the car in the icon is that one can point to it and say: "This is what a car looks like." The second most important property is being as uncontroversial as possible. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
While I appreciate the argument re Naziism, the Type 1 really didn't depend on the Nazis, but on the British Army (since it never reached mass production til postwar anyhow). If the (IMO tenuous) ties are too much, what about the Model T? Or the New Beetle? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the Beetle would be completely inappropriate, not just because of its Nazi links, but also because it is both a celebrity in its own right (independently of its status as a means of transport), and highly atypical in its engine location, cooling system, and appearance. I also agree with SamBlob's criteria. As far as SamBlob's list is concerned, most of the cars in the list, and also the Ford Model T, are either too Euro-focused or too North America-focused to be a suitable worldwide choice, and the NSU Ro80, although important and highly influential, is too rare and had a Wankel engine. I accept that the Chevrolet Chevette, etc, almost qualifies as a worldwide choice, but in my view only one of the listed cars really stands out, and that's the Mercedes-Benz W124. Not only was it built in huge numbers (2.5 million plus) over more than a decade (1985–1997). It was also produced in five distinct body styles (sedan, wagon, coupe, cabriolet and stretch limousine), with a wide range of petrol and diesel engines (2.0L 4 cyl diesel to 6.0L V8 petrol), and two and four wheel drive, and was sold in significant quantities all around the world, including in Japan, Eastern Europe / Russia (mainly second hand), Africa and even India. And, as SamBlob hints, it was highly praised in North America, and therefore also influential in relation to North American car design. (Disclosure: I have owned more than one 124.) Bahnfrend (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I think if we really need to change the icon, and we're not looking for an iconic automobile, then like the project itself, we should be using an image that gives a more general overview of the topic. Heres a few I would consider as possibles:

Mighty Antar (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The first picture looks like a road; might be a good icon for WikiProjects on Transport or Highways, but I'm not sure how well it would work for WikiProject Automobiles.
The second picture looks like some kind of factory, but it's hard to tell what kind of factory at the size it is now, and will be even harder at the size of a project icon photo.
The third looks like a city skyline and a lot of dots.
The fourth shows cars in the foreground and buildings in the background and I'm not sure whether the focus is supposed to be on the cars, on the buildings, or on some relation of the buildings to the cars.
The project icon picture is going to be rather smaller than these are now, and they're not that easy to understand at the size they are at now. They are therefore not particularly clear representatives of the project.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks SamBlob, you do realise we are allowed to edit the pictures? Click on the pictures and see the originals on commons if you're not sure what they are. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't understand how using a bland photo of a MOR sedan is going to get anyone slightly more interested in contributing to this projectMighty Antar (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If the purpose of the icon photo is to attract contributors, then my initial assessment was correct: this is a pointless waste of time. Do you know of anyone whose decision to contribute or not to contribute to this project was in any way influenced by the look of the logo? Do you actually believe that anyone shallow enough to be attracted to the project by how the logo looks is going to have anything of value to add to it? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Antar, you bring up a great point. Rather than focusing on a single automobile, how about a group of automobiles? Perhaps something along the lines of these (which are not the greatest photos but more recognizable)? After all, the project is named "Automobiles"

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── When choosing icons, the number one criteria is simplicity. You need for the reader to look at a page, see an icon and with somewhat less than 3 wobbly brain cells recognise the core subject. Groups of cars works against that. Easily recognisable cars (eg Beetle and Model T) are also easier to recognise as cars - ie tha familiar is more recognisable. A single car that is well-known world-wide with all the background cropped away would be ideal.  Stepho  talk  07:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that more than one subject in the logo will only confuse the onlooker. I disagree that a famous car would make a better icon than a generic one. Putting a Beetle on the icon would give the idea that we're about older cars, small cars, or Beetles. Putting a Model T (or a Silver Ghost) would give the idea that we're about vintage or pre-vintage cars.
Pretty much anything with a front clip, a passenger compartment, and a boot or trunk will do. A front clip and a passenger/cargo compartment with a rear hatch would do as well, although a hatchback might be preferable to an estate car or station wagon. All it has to be is something one can point to and say "That's what a car looks like." The less identifiable it is as any specific brand or model, the less likely it is to be controversial.
I shall look for an example later; it just might be a European Ford Granada Mark II, or a Cortina Mark IV, which looks almost exactly the same except that it's smaller.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Examples of as close to an NPOV car as I can find immediately:
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with SamBlob and Stepho on every point. Except that maybe the Cortina Mk IV looks even more anonymous (which in this case is a good thing) than the Cortina Mk V. And/or equivalent Taunus TC as long as colo(u)rs are strong enough to work well even when people are trying to figure out that it's a car while using their pocket telephones as computers...
Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not quite sure why we are going out of our way to engage in a race to the bottom to find the most dreary looking car possible, but it seems like we are heading that way (if it counts, I pick the Toyota Camry (XV20) or Toyota Corolla (E110)—the 1990s were epic when it comes to sleep-inducing styling). Rather than trying to pick the car, I think we should be looking for a good photo first. It's all well and good so say "Ford Granada", but we need to actually have a quality image to work with to use that car. As it turn out there is a really good image of the Granada (File:Granada 2.8PIC 0083.JPG) that could easily be converted into a car-only image with a white background. Basically, we need a car that is not white, the car needs to have minimal reflections and shadows on it because it looks really weird when you have "studio shot" style car on white background with reflections, and lastly there can't be much discernible background showing through the glasshouse of the vehicle. The Granada image meets all of these criteria.

However, another option, with a little more spice would be a German car. Such models meet the NPOV criterion in my opinion because they are widely sold—and sold globally—the styling tends to be relatively tame and copied by the other marques, and lastly, they are exciting cars within the realm of "mainstream". Audi would be the obvious brand for me because they have the blandest, most neutral styling. I found a great picture of an Audi A3 cabrio (File:Audi A3 Cabrio 2013 (11210434484).jpg) that would meet the above image composition traits. It's yellow, so stands out; it is also a cabrio, yet based on a fairly mundane hatchback model and is reasonably affordable—so bridges the gap between dreary and exciting quite well.

Another option would be this Volkswagen Passat image (File:2006-2010 Volkswagen Passat (3C) sedan (2011-07-17) 01.jpg). Again, some more thorough photoshopping would be beneficial to remove the rain droplets of the bonnet/hood.

Of these images, I feel that the Audi A3 and BMW 3 Series have the least editing potential when converted to sit on a white background.

Regards, OSX (talkcontributions) 13:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

♠The Type 1 is inappropriate because it's rear-engined & aircooled? I wasn't aware it needed to meet special criteria for "common features" beyond being recognizably a car. On that basis, most of the front-engined, rear-drive cars don't qualify, either, since most cars in production are front/front... As for "iconic", IMO, that's a point in favor of the Type 1; anything not reasonably well-known in its own right is only going to raise questions of, "What in blazes is that, & why did they pick it?".
♠Of the "gallery" choices, I dislike them all as too recent, & without any real character of their own. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)