Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 10

Please remember to: Be civil Start new topics at the bottom, and give your message a descriptive heading. sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia or frequently asked questions. To add a message, click here.

Archives

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 1 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 2 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 3 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 4 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 5 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 6 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 7 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 8 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 9

Replacing Tables With Infobox Automobiles

So far, I've replaced 7 tables with Infobox Automobiles on 7 pages for today. Sooner or later, all Infobox-like tables will be replaced by Infobox Automobiles. I may have the chance to replace all automotive tables with Infobox Automobiles for this week. Let's make sure every infobox-like automotive table is dead. -- Bull-Doser 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

11 done ;9--— Typ932^{T | C}  20:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you searching every vehicle on the "Vehicles by brand" type, just so we could kill every infobox-ish table? -- Bull-Doser 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) to see if anyone operating a bot could do this for us, since there are 500+ instances of the template, it would be tedious to do this manually. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we were talking about old table infoboxes not generation boxes, or Im missing something? Btw whats the meaning of this

"This article is part of the automobile series." in some articles, could it be removed?--— Typ932^{T | C}  11:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it should. -- Bull-Doser 12:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparent crusader/vandal

Looks like we've got a bit of a crusader on our hands. Ab7fh seems to be trying hard to promote his website, a discussion forum related to certain Ford-built SUVs, by inserting it in as many articles as possible despite repeated deletions due to enthusiast forums falling outside the guidelines for appropriate external-link inclusion. Yesterday he began taking his crusade to inappropriate areas by asking the fatuous and disingenuous question of why external links are permitted in Dodge Dart but not in Ford Explorer, Ford Ranger, etc. I attempted to explain the differences between adding bona fide external links and promoting one's own site, between external links that comply with Wikipedia guidelines and those that don't. He does not appear willing to understand those differences, and today deleted all the external links from Dodge Dart. I have restored the links, none of which is an enthusiast forum, and admonished Ab7fh not to repeat the vandalism. It looks like others have also tried to educate this individual without success, so I suspect he will attempt an edit war. Let's try and contain this problem before it grows larger, shall we? --Scheinwerfermann 04:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As I posted on your talk page, this should go to ANI, hopefully for a speedy resolution and a blacklist of the spammer's site. --Sable232 17:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This happens - you can try to explain - but linkspammers always have a hard time accepting it. They present dozens of somewhat reasonable-seeming arguments...but you can't let them do it. Quote this at them: Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. I've been engaged in an annoying 'debate' with a linkspammer over on Mini. It's not the same guy - but it's really upsetting. So: Revert as necessary. You might try adding a wiki comment into the actual article asking people to discuss adding external links on the talk page beforehand...that might help. But it's just like any other situation when you have a difficult editor...you just have to slog it out. It might help to point out that these links aren't going to help his blog get up the Google pagerank because Wikipedia quietly tags all external links with some magic HTML that tells Googles search engine: "Please don't add Wikipedia's reputation to the pagerank of this link". That makes us considerably less interesting to most linkspammers. Oh - and if he points to another page with a link to a blog or a forum, thank him profoundly for finding this mistake and go in there and clean it up. SteveBaker 03:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Automobile generation is gone

Just so you all know. This change was done with no discussion. --Sable232 17:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess we should revert. I see no reason for that. PrinceGloria 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Aaaand it's back. ;D Edit war in 5, 4, 3, 2... Lewis Collard! (natter) 20:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that Infobox Automobile engine had been killed as well. I reverted it, because there is absolutely no way it could be justified. I must say that I am sick and tired of OSX unilaterally making significant changes to templates that are in such wide use. --Sable232 00:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For your information, User:Pomte at the village pump suggested that I redirect the generation box, since it was identical to the standard Automobile infobox. If you check archive 9, DeLarge and myself suggested that we purge the affiliated infoboxes, and received no objections. Saying that there was no justification for such edits is wholeheartedly wrong. Therefore, if we could come to a consensus to this, I would greatly appreciate it. By the way, I apologise to those that found my edits annoying. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Woah, there. I suggested purging the "similar" field from other infoboxes.[1] Now, as it happens I think we're wayyyy too infobox-happy in this wikiproject; but I'm in the minority on this right now, so I don't think stuff like this, this, this etc should be done without a bit more discussion. Editing a template affects every article that transcludes it, which means edits to popular templates (and subsequent edit wars if the orignal edit is undesirable) have massively larger server hit than regular page edits. That's why so many templates are protected, and why it's much more important to discuss template changes in advance.

In the case of the generational infobox I agree that two identical templates are unnecessary, but what you could have done was come here, confirm that there wouldn't be a problem, and then redirect. You might have gotten a lot of users suggesting that the two templates be modified to reduce the overlap.

There's a limit to boldness. --DeLarge 19:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit here clearly states your recommendation of purging the affiliated infoboxes, and as with the Holden timeline, I fixed up ALL redirects that I could find. Also I don't see why I would have reach a consensus, just to see if it was okay to modify a template that was really only edited by me anyway. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty bold statement for someone who has only made one edit to {{Infobox Automobile engine}}. It would have been nice for you to come to the Talk page and whined about excessive infoboxes as a pox upon Wikipedia first before eliminating a template that you couldn't comprehend. McNeight 06:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OSX, you're pointing to exactly the same diff I was. I was not recommending deleting or redirecting the other infoboxes; I was recommending purging the "similar" field from all the infoboxes it appeared in. That's exactly whay there's a limit to boldness; you misread my statement entirely. In the previous paragraph of that same comment I said that we should only be dealing with the "similar" field, because any other edits (e.g. about "class") were more divisive and should be handled separately. --DeLarge 10:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected DeLarge, now that I have thoroughly re-read your statement, and can see where I went wrong, and I am sorry for that. But do feel that McNeight was just a tad rude, when I was referring to the Holden timeline, not the engine template. Now would it be OK to finally get rid of the darn generational infobox since they are identical? OSX (talk • contributions) 10:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(as a sidenote) Even thought maintaining separate infoboxes might seem superflouous (sp?) as of now, they are here with regard to the possible future use of infoboxes in some more automated Wikipedia factures, such as automatic list generation et al. PrinceGloria 10:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooo, looks like I stirred up another hornets' nest. First off, I don't entirely disagree with eliminating the generation infobox, because as far as I know the only reason for it was that it didn't have the "Manufacturer" line, which was forced to appear in the other infobox. Removal of the engine infobox is what perturbed me. I went to look at the Iron Duke page and found that all the infobox said was manufacturer. The engine box has nothing in common with the other two, and I fail to see any logic in redirecting it. And this was done to a template spanning 112 pages without any discussion or notice. --Sable232 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

seems that generation template has fuel capacity info but the main template not, is this the preferred way?--— Typ932^{T | C}  21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems stupid for the generational template to have anything that the main template doesn't - because lots of cars don't have generations - and hence don't use the template. Why would you not want to know the fuel capacity of a car just because there was only one generation of it?! SteveBaker 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Supported by WikiProject Automobiles

If there is an article without a notice that it is supported by WikiProject Automobiles, do we just add the template and wait for a review, or must it be discussed. The article in question is the Caparo T1, although I am rewriting the article. Should I wait until after I have rewritten it? —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the template has anything to do with it. The articles I maintain don't use the template (I really hate all of this kind of extraneous junk decorating articles these days) - but all three have been rated by the review process several times. I just added them to the list in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment whenever I felt they had changed enough to warrant an upgrade to the next level (eg when I'd passed WP:GAC and WP:FAC). Clearly it would be unfair on the people who do the assessments to overdo this - but I don't see any harm in making one rating request now (you should rate 'start' or 'B'), another when you make WP:GA (at which point you are clearly a 'GA' and maybe they'll give you an 'A' and go for the third after you pass WP:FA - which should be a mere formality since you know the article is an 'FA'. Going for an early assessment (maybe even when the article is just a stub) allows the assessors to allocate an importance grade - that doesn't depend on how good your article is - but on how important the subject of it is to Wikipedia. (eg Automobile is a more important article than Bumper sticker no matter how well either article has been written!) SteveBaker 02:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... huh? Sorry, that was very confusing for me. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 21:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What he's basically saying is that there's too much talk page userbox graffiti on WP. A similar opinion is expressed by User:Doc glasgow: "Wikipedia has too many boxes. Userboxes were bad enough, but now we have the infobox virus, and dozens of superfluous navigation boxes spouting up all over otherwise decent articles. We have a multitude of boxes on talk pages claiming ownership by some project that typically has contributed nothing to that article, except of course the box." --DeLarge 19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - and I was also trying to convey the fact that the template has nothing to do with rating. To get your article rated, you have to add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. SteveBaker 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you for clearing that up. I have added the articles to be assessed. =) —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 02:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Eagle Talon

At the Eagle Talon article, one user with two accounts keeps inserting poor images of a heavily modified car, despite it being reverted by myself and another user. I've already reverted twice, so I can't do anything about it for a few more hours, so if anyone can get rid of the images for now or arrange for a more permanent solution, it would be helpful. IFCAR 17:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

While we are at it - do we really need a separate article for the Talon? FWIK, it was just a rebadge of the Eclipse... PrinceGloria 22:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I am one of the users that keeps reverting it. I have already gotten the article semi protected, since they were both new users and IPs doing the editing, but they both managed to get around the semi protection. I am now requesting full protection in order to finally solve this. They have also taken to trolling the talk page. I am going to create a sockpuppetry case since the two accounts are the same person. Karrmann 11:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, the page is protected. Karrmann 11:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I filed a checkuser and sockpuppetry case against teh guy, as I have evidence that link MikeTSIawd and an IP to Spoolintsi. I just want anyone involved in this conflict to come and back up my claims, so we can get these guys blocked, adn hopefully end this conflict before it gets completely out of control like the Infiniti G20 or Amc Matador incidents. Karrmann 13:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed that they are the same guy, I am now requesting that they be blocked. Karrmann 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, through the processess and talking to some freindly admins, the user and his sockpuppets that were edit warring on the page have all been blocked, and I am having the page unprotected. It looks like this dispute is over. Karrmann 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tuner cars article

Recently I discovered an article called Tuner cars, all it ever do is describe modified sportscompact cars in a negative manner, which is probably written by a import hating V8 dreaming wannabe owner (aka Coolmanedward) and checking his contribution record, all his other edits have been are vandalisms. Also to ask, have anybody heard the term before used on sportscompact cars and I don't mean to describe cars by companies such as Koenig or Gemballa, which is what I associate with and shall I nominate this for AfD, lets have your opinion on this. Willirennen 22:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Send it to the glue factory. This is already covered by other articles, such as import scene, car tuning, hot rod, etc. Lewis Collard! (natter) 06:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a common enough term (127,000 Ghits), so you don't need to go to AfD. Have a thorough look through for salvageable, unduplicated content, and merge/redirect. --DeLarge 11:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: WP:NPA. --DeLarge 11:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, my point was that there's way too much overlap with other articles. There's also no salvageable information in the article: it's entirely unsourced and full of personal opinions. AfD, therefore, is the best option, or blank and redirect (less hoops to jump through that way!).

I'm not sure why you pointed me to no personal attacks. Lewis Collard! (natter) 15:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

NPA directed at User:Willirennen; should have been specific about that. --DeLarge 16:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, I didn't write that article at all, all I am trying to do is telling you what should I do with it, as well as I'm just trying to say, as a non-American, I have never heard of that term before, all I know is in the UK (where I live), they are referred to as boy racer cars. In my opinion, I think a redirect would be a good thing. For what is worth salvaging, the only thing worth salvaging is a little bit of it for Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians, considering how it is used as a stereotype on Asians. Willirennen 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Exotic car images

Today I went to the Eyes on Design car show and got many free licensed images of rare and exotic cars. They are under my commons category, and you can insert them into articles if you want. Karrmann 20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

New hoaxer

Be on the lookout for any new edits made by 72.80.151.43. They seem to be making mostly innocent looking changes regarding model years (most of which can be easily proven wrong), but they are slipping in some non-existent and sometimes offensive model names. As you can see at Special:Contributions/72.80.151.43, this user has been very busy (and bored out of their mind, apparently :) in the last two days. I normally don't bother warning anonymous users, but left a "test3" warning on their page given the number of edits. If they try another round, I guess it's blocking time. --Vossanova ^o< 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to see somebody did notice it. I have too little time to take care of that, but this is certainly the return of our regular hoaxer. PrinceGloria 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's kill them and eat them. :/ Thanks for pointing this out. Lewis Collard! (natter) 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

302

How do we deal with the Ford 302 being advertised as a 5.0 when the actual measurement is 4942 cc? I recently reverted an anon who changed "5.0" to "4.9" because it was NEVER advertised as that by Ford and is NEVER, EVER referred to by anyone as a 4.9. However, my revert was reverted. As much as I would like to just say "302" the English-unit haters wouldn't like that. --Sable232 17:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are now three mentions within the Ford Mustang article that explain that the 302 V8 is known as the 5.0. Moreover, the article about this engine, Ford Windsor engine#302, clearly indicates that this is a 4.9. Ford Motor Company's marketing and advertising departments stretched it from 4.9 L to a "5.0". It is true that Ford promoted the 5.0 as a model name and the engine was sold as a "5.0", but that does not change the fact that the engine has 4.9 L in actual displacement. This marketing "hype" was also conducted by other automakers. An example is American Motors' 304 V8 engine. AMC marketed it and even badged some of its models (such as the Gremlin X) as "5.0 litre" (see: the decal on rear panel in this ad from 1972) long before Ford came out with its 5.0 advertising. Nevertheless, effective ads and promotion does NOT change the size of the engine. For the purposes of detail and accuracy, automobile engines should be described in their actual size. Wikipedia is not part of corporate promotional departments. CZmarlin 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you say "Ford 4.9" it is always assumed one is referring to the 300, which is the primary reason the 302 was said to be 5.0 liters. Say "4.9L V8" and nobody will have a clue what you are talking about, and there will be anons changing it back to 5.0 on a daily basis. Calling it a 5.0 isn't marketing hype, it's being clear, especially for those Wikipedia readers who don't know what the actual metric conversion is. All mentions of the Pontiac 350 call it a 350 even though the actual displacement is 354 cubic inches.

Again, calling it the 302 would be the most accurate and clear option. --Sable232 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that describing it as a "302 engine" is better than the automaker's marketing hyperbole. The 302 description also clearly shows the lineage of this motor. It seems that too many people think that it was a brand new engine when advertising started to promote it as a "5.0". Mentioning the actual metric conversion is necessary for accuracy, but the engine should be called what it is a 302. The model name of "Mustang 5.0" is not a problem because that is how the car was designated by Ford. Therefore, where reference is to the actual engine: it should be 302, but when the article discusses the model badging or option names: those remain as 5.0. I hope this would make things clear to all readers. -- CZmarlin 22:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

More BS regarding fair use

Image:1972 Custom Cruiser.jpg It appears as though the fact that it is nearly impossible to find a 1970s station wagon to photograph isn't a good enough explanation for using an image that was released to the public by Oldsmobile, in part, for this purpose. Thoughts, please. I am sick and tired of having to deal with admins who can't seem to comprehend that. --Sable232 17:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Insert a large fair use rationale and it'll be fine. I uploaded fair use images for Plymouth Laser and Eagle TAlon because one didn't have an image for a certain facelift, and the Laser had only one image available, and the car in that one was in poor condition. Karrmann 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I already had. In fact, this image was tagged as replaceable before, but was kept. (The user who listed it for deletion anyway is User:Quadell, one of the most ravenous fair-use image deletors I've seen.) I wish we could have a clear position on using these images. I suspect that the conditions under which the automakers release these images means we are more than welcome to use them, since there can't be any copyright issues. Those images are released by the manufacturer and freely used by automotive journals.

What would be even better is a position on this from a major automaker. --Sable232 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

They'll never give away their rights to anything - forget that. You've got to find an enthusiast who has one - that kind of person is usually only too happy to have a photo of their car in Wikipedia. SteveBaker 23:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a quick look on Flickr, but had no results of the same model. However, if you are in search of an image, Flickr is a great place to start. Most images are not released under an applicable Creative Commons license, but I have found that emailing the photographer, and asking them to relicense their work highly successful. (see: Image:1997 Ford EL Falcon GLi.jpg, Image:2004-2005 Ford BAII Falcon XR8 interior.jpg, Image:1996 Holden VS Berlina.jpg, Image:2001-2002 Ford AUIII Falcon SR.jpg and Image:1980 Holden VC Commodore L.jpg) Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 09:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also found eBay Motors, cars.co and other car sales sites to be a useful source of photos. They have some significant advantages over Flickr: Firstly, you can always contact the owner of the car (who is typically the copyright owner of the photo), secondly, they are selling the car and (rightly or wrongly) see it's appearance in Wikipedia as being a good selling point, thirdly, in a few days/weeks, they'll no longer own the car and often have no particular desire to own the photograph anymore (On FLickr, people are posting photos because they like them as photos), fourthly, images are very accurately described because the owner of the car is describing it very accurately! How many other times could we add the milage and (perhaps) restoration status of a vehicle to the image description? SteveBaker 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

olds 350 diesel

71.50.23.127 19:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the invite on your talkpage. I about six months ago I purchased a 1983 seville that has the 350 diesel engine. It has only 29,000 miles on it. The car has been kept in the garage for a long without being started or driven after the death of previous owner. I have read the articles about the problems concerning this type of engine. I really would ponder the question, is the engine worth keeping or is there some other option? Is there another gasoline engine that will work in this car? I was told that it was possible to change out the cylinder and center heads of a gasoline engine and convert the diesel over. Thanks for your comments and anwsers. Abbason.

As long as you don't try towing with it or put any unnecessary stress on it, the diesel engine will be fine. GM built these engines on the cheap and didn't reinforce the crankshaft. But since it's a diesel, people just assumed it was built for heavy duty applications. Now this isn't a forum, so unless there's something about a particular article, try Yahoo Answers instead.Mustang6172 21:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep a full set of glow plugs handy. The car will eat them like candy. Also IIRC, there is no water separator on that engine which means that if enough water builds up, you can have hydro lock. Best to treat the fuel with some sort of additive, I know Standyne is a good one.--Analogue Kid 18:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Listing "competitors" in the article text

Even after the "similar" field is gone, many articles include paragraphs that are nothing more than "this car competes with the following cars:"; essentially a form of "similar" in paragraph form. Is this acceptable/desirable? IFCAR 12:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For me it is not, for the same reasons as the field. You can hardly find a source - actually even automakers have trouble finding hard data what actually constitutes their competitors (GM once discovered that many people decide between a Corvette and a high-speed motorboat). An exception would be a reference to an automaker explicitly stating that they intend to rival this or that, IF it was notable in itself. PrinceGloria 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much what I was going to say. Listing it out like that is awkward anyway, and the number of potential "competitors" is too large. But, as PrinceGloria said, if a vehicle was intended to rival a certain car, that should be mentioned. --Sable232 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To make my statement clear - ONLY when there was an explicit statement from a manufacturer, or perhaps a reliable impartial source (like a dedicated book on the car or the company), or maybe Lee Iacocca wrote this in his autobiography it MIGHT be considered mentionable if it is especially notable (for example the competitor's features determined some of the model's own characteristics). Normally, I'd consider this both unverifiable and trivial. PrinceGloria 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

An example would be the Ford Taurus. It was originally designed specifically to one up the Accord and Camry. Karrmann 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with PrinceGloria that some competitors are unverifiable and trivial, particularly when it comes to older cars. Perhaps the best examples are the pony cars. It is helpful to list the competitors of the Mustang that was introduced in 1964 (calendar year) because it took the direct competitors Camaro to 1967, Javelin to 1968, and Dodge Challenger to 1970 (model years) to respond. A short description of the competitive environment helps to set the context of the particular model under discussion. It also directs the readers for additional information about the market and the competitive environment. Do we have to take Lee Iacocca to explain this to us? Although his autobiography is good, but it only covers one point of view and a limited time period. There are enough verifiable third party sources that list the direct competition. For example, Motor Trend and Consumer Reports have done direct comparison tests over the years. One big problem is that vehicles change in their classifications and target markets. For example, the first generations of the Honda Accord were nothing like the market segment that Ford was aiming with its Taurus as pointed out by Karrmann. The original cars were only "econoboxes" with sporty pretensions, but they were also plagued with early rust problems and recalls. Then there is the issue of "competition" when some may "decide between a Corvette and a high-speed motorboat". To stretch the example, I would not be surprised that some deadbeat dads also decide to have a Cadillac escalator (opps, I mean escalade) rather than the alternative to make their child support or alimony payments! There are many options for the consumer's money, but I think an article should include a short list of direct competitor's models at the particular time! CZmarlin 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I don't think stuff like the Mustang is what's being discussed here. That was a car which, as you demonstrated with your wikilink, was so successful in defining its niche that they named a class of car after it, and you'll find plenty of external sources to verify that kind of thing. Heck, you'll find entire books about the pony car class and how the Mustang started it all. The Mini had a similar effect in its little niche. What you won't get is reliable sources (outside the dedicated car press) discussing in any depth who the competitors are for the latest generation of mid-sized Chevy, Dodge pick-up or Honda supermini. Where a car doesn't define or redefine a class, we don't need to namecheck a bunch of similar cars, especially when such namechecking is typically unsourced, subjective and parochial. --DeLarge 15:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

DeLarge, you are correct that newer vehicles are often hard to categorize because the markets have become more fragmented and automakers try to differentiate their products ... some are only different due to their nameplates and advertising themes. However, what I was talking about were the older cars (as noted in the first sentence. Forget the easy example of the pony cars, but take the case of the so-called mid-size cars or intermediates. This class grew out of the 1956 Rambler Six, to include numerous competitors. It underwent significant shifts with the price of gasoline and changing consumer demands. Having a list of competing nameplates from the other automakers at each juncture would be helpful to explain some of the design, style, and sizing changes. Just my $0.02 — CZmarlin 18:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

See, I think the best place to describe these historical shifts would be at the car class articles themselves, i.e. pony car, mid-size car, muscle car, etc etc (and looking over those, boy do they need sourcing -- one reference in 44k of text across three pages). Saying "the Wakisaki GTX started off targeting the humble Stetson Bajingo, but over time grew to become a prestigious competitor to the Bratwurst Bahnstormer" doesn't actually tell you anything unless you're already familiar with the competitors' cars and their place in the market. We should be tailoring our content on the basis that we're a general prupose encyclopedia and our readers don't necessarily know that much: "the Wakasaki GTO started off as a humble mid-size car for buyers on a budget, but over time grew to become a prestigious competitor to the premium vehicles imported from Europe" says more, yet namechecks less.

Compare our WikiProject to, say, Books or Films. They're able to describe their article subjects as thrillers, comedies, romances, etc without having to add "...like A, B and C, which came out the same year" (I'm basing this on the content listed at WP:FA). Yet those genres I mentioned are as well defined as car classifications. --DeLarge 21:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There are times when you do know the precise reason a car was created - exactly which competitor it was set up to beat - or what the rival companies created in reaction to it. That is certainly likely to be notable. So if it can be sourced and written into compelling prose (ie *NOT* a long boring list or a table or anything like that) - then for sure it belongs in the article. The trouble with lists and tables is that every random person who reads the article thinks of another thing to add - and pretty soon the list/table is bloated with irrelevent, unsourced, ill-explained cruft. People who only wish to add another car to the 'competitors' or 'similar' ones will be considerably dissuaded by the challenge of writing some actual prose and tacking some sources onto it. I continue to believe this kind of somewhat subjective data does not belong in the infobox because that is standardized information that we expect to be able to collect about every single car in the encyclopedia - and it's only stuff that is needed "at a glance" by people who aren't interested in reading the entire article. SteveBaker 05:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I Am In NYC

Hi, I just recently went to NYC today, and took 9 car pictures. You can go to them @ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bull-Doser and click on an image to see. -- Bull-Doser 21:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is great to see that you're producing some halfway reasonable photographs nowadays. Just keep up the good work. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I will be back in NYC in 2 weeks, since my family went on vacation. I am currently in Mexico City. -- Bull-Doser 05:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's great! We absolutely need more photos of Latin American cars, like Chevrolet Montana/Tornado, Chevy C2, Ford Ecosport etc. PrinceGloria 13:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And now, I am in Mazatlan, Mexico. -- Bull-Doser 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, but could you aviod shoting pictures of cars with passengers in them, who aren't aware that they're being photographed. The man in the Audi station wagon seems a little put off ;-) (It just doesn't make for a good picture) Also, try taking your pictures in such a manner as to reduce the glare. Your pictures have improved greatly in quality but please consider these two suggestions. Signature^brendel 21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yamaha V8

User:Raiderboi8888 has been blanking the 4.4L section in Ford Yamaha V8 engine and has created two different articles with that content. I recall reading at one point that the 4.4L used in Volvos was the same engine family as the 3.4L SHO. Could someone more familiar with this chime in and warn the user if necessary? --Sable232 17:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, clearly Yamaha V8 engine and Volvo/Yamaha, being two identical articles, need to be merged. preferably the latter into the former as "Volvo/Yamaha" is far too ambiguous a title. Thereafter, if need be, "Yamaha V8 engine" can be moved (and it probably deserves to be, since a quick Googlesearch uncovers unrelated V8s from the same manufacturer.[2][3][4]

Beyond that, we have the perennial issue of people not citing sources. Your version of Ford Yamaha V8 engine says it's made "in its Bridgend Engine Plant in Mid-Glamorgan in Great Britain". User:Raiderboi8888 claims it's made "by Yamaha Corporation in Japan". No references for either claim. This might be the root of the problem? RB8888 thinks the info on the Ford/Yamaha page was wrong?

I'll merge/redirect Yamaha V8 engine and Volvo/Yamaha just now, and leave a message on the user's talk page explaining why. Beyond that I think it's up to the contributors of Ford Yamaha V8 engine to tidy the page. After all, RB8888 could be argued to be doing the right thing by deleting the paragraph: removing "controversial" (i.e. challenged), uncited material. --DeLarge 09:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I've seen forum posts saying the Volvo six cylinder is built at Bridgend, but not the eight. Now supported by a semi-reliable source.[5] Also, I keep seeing reference to the engine being "specially-designed"[6] and similar terms. Even the existing article says "officials of all three companies involved insist that the Volvo V8 is not related to the SHO engine", so it looks like that page may have been cleaned up, not vandalized.

2nd addendum: From Canadian Driver, "Volvo's new XC90 V8 model features a new 4.4 litre V8 engine built in Japan by Yamaha to Volvo's specifications." We now have a verifiable reliable source. Still want to "warn" the guy about his blanking? Looks like he was right to remove that paragraph. --DeLarge 10:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

3rd addendum: While looking at Ford Yamaha V8 engine I see that the "similar" field still affects {{Infobox Automobile engine}}, and that particular page is an example of its usage to excess. I just want to double-check, nobody minds if I remove it from the template? --DeLarge 13:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The main issue is whether or not the SHO V8 and Volvo V8 are the same basic engine. If yes, one page. If no, split. I did know that a connection between the two has been "officially" denied, but considering the circumstances with the 3.4L it's no surprise. I recall that the 3.4 blocks and heads were made by Ford and shipped to Yamaha for assembly. Karrmann would know more about this, I think, or at least have a resource to check.

Regarding addendum 2: Wrong information should be corrected, not removed, IMO.

Regarding addendum 3: Please do, it's even worse in this template than it was in the others. --Sable232 22:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong information should be corrected, not removed - well, ideally, yes - but if you see something and you know it's not true (and assuming it's not referenced in some way) - then if you don't know what to replace it with then removing it is the very least you can do. Better by far to have no information than wrong information! SteveBaker 04:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for Popular Culture Apperances for Cars

Stemming from an apparent edit war on the Chevy Camaro, IMCDB.org has a rating system where cars in the various TV shows and Movies are rated on a scale of 1 to 5 stars. Copypasta from the site:

• 1 star: vehicle that has no interaction the story, character or one of the other vehicle. Some may be visible less than one second, some may be visible for a long time.
• 2 stars: a short action, or a minor action, like a crash or a taxi that leaves one of the character. For cars used by a character only in a short sequence we also sometime use this rating, since the car is not visible for a long time in the movie.
• 3 to 5 stars: this depends of the importance of the vehicle in the movie, the time that it is seen on the screen and the importance of the character that uses it. It is quite difficult to explain but usually when the car has at least three stars it means that is seen for at least few minutes in the movie.

I propose that we institute a similar system here on Wikipedia. For example, using the Delorean_DMC-12 article as a starting point, car appearances should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as to the importance of the car in relation to the media. So for example, the appearance of the Ford Mustang in Bullitt, Gone in 60 Seconds (via Eleanor (1973 Ford Mustang)) and The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift would be considered to be noteworthy to mention, while appearances from say, 2 Fast 2 Furious are excised out.

So going by the IMCDB example, the policy could go like thus (for lack of a better example):

• Main car - car is either the star of the show (The Delorean_DMC-12 from Back to the Future or Eleanor (1973 Ford Mustang) from Gone in 60 Seconds, KITT from Knight Rider) or is used extensively by one (or more) of the main protagonist(s) or antagonist(s) (Toyota AE86 Trueno by Takumi Fujiwara in Initial D, The General Lee from the Dukes of Hazard).
• Secondary car - car is used by major secondary characters (see Wangan Midnight) or is featured as part of an extensive roster of other cars (i.e the Ford GT in Gran Turismo 4). Car importance will be handled on a case by case basis.
• "Roster" car - car is part of an extensive roster of cars (i.e. Video games like Gran Turismo, Forza Motorsport, Need for Speed, etc.). Roster cars can only be mentioned in passing as appearing in the media in question and doesn't require extensive descriptions (i.e see Delorean_DMC-12#De_Lorean_in_popular_culture for an example.
• Background cars - cars that only appear as background props or in other non-Main or secondary situations. These sort of apperences should not be added to Wikipedia.

Of course, then we'd have to deal with Motorsport next like NASCAR, WRC, etc.....--293.xx.xxx.xx 12:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed both here and at User talk:Sable232/Standards with reference to the specific website. The advantage of following it exactly (as opposed to making up our own guidelines) is the greater adherence to external sources with less reliance on original research (which is what any self-penned notability guide would be). As you'll see in the linked-to discussion, only five-star entries (and maybe certain borderline four star entries) would be acceptable.

The trouble is that such content is an absolute magnet for cruft, so I think we should be fairly firm about cutting it out unless there's very good reason for it, e.g. the DeLorean. After announcing my plan to cull the trivia section from Mitsubishi GTO, another editor created a dedicated sub-page (a la User:SteveBaker's previous actions on Mini). Rather than have it stand alone, I eventually morphed it into Mitsubishi vehicles in media and moved all MMC cruft to a single page. It is of course a load of rubbish; bullet points galore and not a single citation that I can see. This may be the way to handle persistent pro-trivia edits. --DeLarge 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that my 'sub-article' containing the list of movies with Mini/MINI (BMW)'s in them was the victim of a successful WP:AfD (insane IMHO - but deletionists rule these days). You can still see (and update) the contents here: http://www.miniownersoftexas.org/wiki/index.php?title=Movies - but sans convenient WikiLinks to the movies themselves. (Grrrrrr!) SteveBaker 15:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That now begs the question: why isn't such a "guideline" out on the main page? Plus it's not that hard to try and make paragraphs outta lists. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It didn't seem to get much beyond the discussion stage, to be honest. I think it probably should be up there, though. And I agree about the paragraphs; aside from being straightforward to write, paragraphs are (marginally) more difficult for passing cruftiphiliacs to edit than bulleted lists. --DeLarge 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

With paragraphs, at least we can cut out people just randomly adding stuff in. At least it requires some forsight and perhaps some mentioning, to a point, about the inclusion of the car. I can try to work out a solution, but I have too much on my plate right now. --293.xx.xxx.xx 23:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bulleted lists are not recommended to be used for anything that can be covered by prose anyway. Just for further reference, I agree with having the regulation as discussed in Sable's page made official and put in the main page. PrinceGloria 04:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

An aside: Apparently the standards were tried once before. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Standards This hasn't been edited since August 2006. Only reason I found it was because I was going to add that link to the main page and put this regulation there. About time to finish this up, no? Maybe get the articles around here up to a higher quality. --Sable232 15:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If I remeber corectly, we don't list famous owners, nyaa?--293.xx.xxx.xx 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal. You are focussing on "How important was the car to the movie". The criteria (that we have already agreed upon) for a mention of the movie in the car article is: "How important was the movie to the car?". NOitce the difference there? In some cases, such as (my two favorite examples again folks!) Mini and MINI (BMW), the movie "The Italian Job" was so important to the sales of the former car that BMW paid to have a remake of the movie made using the remake of the car! This worked perfectly for them - causing a massive spike in MINI sales within weeks of the movie being released. Ditto for "The Prisoner" (TV show) and Mini Moke. Hence, mention of those in the car articles is 100% justified. Required in order to adequately tell the story of the car. But there are other instances of cars taking the lead role in a movie where that fact had little or no impact on the car. When a beat-up Citroën 2CV featured as the 'lead role' in a 007 movie car chase - I'm pretty sure it did nothing for the history of the car - and whilst a mention of the car in the movie article is entirely justified, a mention of the movie in the car article would be "trivia" - which Wikipedia is currently stiving to eliminate. A Land Rover called "Lucifer" played a pivotal role in the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy"...again, no impact on the history of the car - so no mention in the car article. So the guidelines presented above are useless for car articles. They would (of course) be entirely relevent to articles about movies where one has to answer the question: "Is the car used in this movie so important to the plot that it deserves to be mentioned in the article?". The precise same reasoning must be used for the notability of books, famous owners, TV shows...and anything else that isn't directly about the car...in the article about the car. SteveBaker 14:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Steve on this one. You are suggesting that we add a ratings system to these pop culture sections, thereby expanding them and focusing more attention to them. This is completely counterproductive. We should not have these "pop culture" and "trivia" sections at all, and I have been working hard to get them removed from automotive articles. Rarely is this sort of pop culture trivia important to the actual article. You don't see a list of movies that have featured a ham and cheese sandwich. You don't see a list of celebrities who own a Seiko watch. But for some reason, certain users always feel inclined to add this sort of useless information to car articles. Sure, it's fun to compile these kinds of lists, but rarely is this kind of trivia ever important to the car itself.

Pop culture sections, trivia sections, and lists of celebrity owners should be removed from every automotive article unless the information is directly related to the development, production, or sales of the car. If, for example, sales of the Audi S8 went up 650% after its appearance in the movie Ronin (hypothetically), then that might be worth mentioning. But 99 times out of 100, pop culture trivia does NOT belong in an automotive article. Jagvar 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think people are underestimating IMCDb. The 2CV mentioned by User:SteveBaker was in For Your Eyes Only, and it gets only four stars. They do seem to be quite strict that way, which is what we need. I don't think anyone's suggesting that "if it gets five stars on IMCDb it must be included" -- it's the other way around: if it didn't get five stars it's therefore been demonstrated by an external source to be insufficiently important to the movie. If it did get five stars, then we can have a closer look at whether the situation warrants a mention (with an expectation that sources can be cited, as always). It's one of the few cases I can think of on WP where we can actually cite a source when deleting material. --DeLarge 11:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You aren't listening carefully to what Jagvar and I just said. IMCDb is great for telling you how important the car was in the movie. It tells you NOTHING about how important the movie was to the car - which is our criteria for including information about the movie in the article about the car. You said it right there "insufficiently important to the movie"...that's not the criteria we're seeking to test!

• A car might maybe only play a bit part in the movie - but somehow the movie might have become a HUGE influence on the sales of the car - or promoted a change in the culture of its buyers or caused a design change or a special edition version of it. This was the case with the TV show "The Prisoner" and the Mini Moke. The car only got 4 stars on IMCDb - so your rule would force me to delete that information - but no article on the Moke could possibly be complete without mentioning the TV series! Mokes became trendy in the late 1960's only because of that TV show - no TV show - no more Moke! So your rule fails miserably in this case.
• The reverse may also be the case - in movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy", a 1959 Series 1 LandRover plays a lead role and justifiably gets the full 5 stars on IMCDb...but the movie had absolutely no effect on the LandRover - no more sales, no change in culture, no design changes, no special edition...nothing. Mentioning that the LandRover appeared in that movie is "avoidable trivia" for the LandRover article - and precisely the kind of thing we're trying to outlaw with this policy (although the LandRover should certainly be mentioned in the article about "The Gods Must Be Crazy" - it wouldn't be the same movie without the hilarious antics that revolve around the damned thing refusing to start!). Your rule would force article maintainers to accept all sorts of annoying trivia on the basis that IMCDb provides the requisite number of stars! NO WAY!

So the star ratings from IMCDb tell you nothing useful about how the movie affected the car - and that is our criteria - it's NOT how the car affected the movie. Your proposed policy would simultaneously rule out critical information whilst providing a green light for the trivia merchants. Forget IMCDb! SteveBaker 11:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) It's not that I'm not listening or reading, it's that I'm not agreeing. While I do agree that IMCDb's role is to reflect a car's part in a movie, to say that there is never any reciprocal relationship is just disingenuous. 99 times out of 100 IMCDb's assessment will be that a car's role in a movie is not of pivotal importance, and that will support our edits to remove mention of a film from the car's article. I'd like to think that the edit war over the mention of police AMC Matadors would have been a little shorter if this IMCDb entry had existed at the time. The exception of the Mini Moke doesn't negate the general effectiveness of the site. Further, we won't be introducing a "rule" -- we're only a WikiProject; the best we can manage is a guideline -- but despite that, for the occasions when IMCDb doesn't fit the bill, that's exactly what WP:IAR is there for. The existence of one guideline in one wikiproject does not trump any of the five pillars, and if you've cited sources to support you there's nothing to worry about. I'm simply seeing this as a shorthand way to deal with the incessant edit warring that goes on with passing cruftists inserting pop-culture references.

I'm not going to push for anything where there's no consensus, and since there's an obvious split here there's probably no place further to go right now. But that doesn't mean one side is right and the other is wrong, and to date I've seen more people favour IMCDb as an external resource than oppose it. I don't know if your arguments have changed any other minds since the previous discussion, but this particular user would still support such a guideline. --DeLarge 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that IMCDb is useful - but understand that this issue is a contentious one in many car articles. Even suggesting that IMCDb is a valid way to resolve those debates is dangerous because the information is telling us the wrong thing - it actually provides more support for people who are trying to violate our guidelines than it does ammunition for people who are trying to implement our guidelines. Adding it as a rule would be downright wrong - but even making it a suggestion is extremely counter-productive. SteveBaker 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Another issue is anthropomorphic cars such as those credited as appearing in Grand Theft Auto series, should that be removed immediately. Willirennen 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify this? I don't understand what you're talking about. Do you have an example? SteveBaker 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

cars that have a likeness to a real life car but are not credited as so... ren0^talk 07:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Very similar articles

Hi WikiProject Automobiles. I notice that the Transmission (mechanics) and Gearbox articles are very similar (in fact, undoubtedly one was copied from the other at some stage). Perhaps they should be merged or one should be a redirect to the other? DH85868993 11:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Second time today I've come across this; British or European English article is created, U.S. English article follows later, first article is eventually merged/redirected to U.S. article. Same thing as happened with coupé convertible and retractable hardtop. Anyhoo, "gearbox" was merged on May 13, 2005, became a disambiguation page on June 25, 2005, was reverted to a redirect on February 3, 2006 and then became more or less what it is now, a duplicate of the "transmission (mechanics)" page, on May 30, 2007 when an anonymous IP did a copy/paste. I guess it just needs reverted, which I'll boldly do just now. --DeLarge 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point DeLarge!

In this case, I think there is good justification for there being two articles. A gearbox is a very general thing - it's not about cars (although most cars have several of them - my Mini has at least five gearboxes but only one transmission. The five gearboxes are: one for each windshield wiper, another inside the wiper motor, yet another connecting the starter motor to the engine and one more to transmit power from the engine to the wheels). A transmission (as it's name implies) transmits power from the engine to the wheels - and it something that's pretty much unique to a car. The article about gearboxes should talk about gearing in general with a brief mention of automotive transmissions. The article on transmissions should say that a transmission is (in essence) a collection of gearboxes, including the main gearbox, one or more differential gears, a clutch of some kind...etc. SteveBaker 15:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone here would be able to take a look at Non-synchronous transmissions, which is in a terrible state. I have suggested that it be merged with manual transmission, however the author does not agree. Kevin 23:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes and Image captions.

MINI
Orange Mini

Something which bothers me about infoboxes: When generational infoboxes were recently added to MINI (BMW), the two photos originally had very descriptive captions that said precisely what model year the car was - what the colour is called (not just "Orange" - which you can see - but "Hot Orange" - the official name of the colour). When rolled into an infobox, the title of the photo disappears - and that important information is lost - to be replaced by (IMHO) less relevent data about the dimensions of the car, etc.

IMHO, there should be a way to retain the caption on these photos because there is valuable information there that would otherwise be lost to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

By hovering your mouse over the image the caption should appear on the screen, however a change could easily be made to the code in the infobox to display the caption down the bottom. BTW, would it be more appropriate to rename the article to Mini Cooper? OSX (talk • contributions) 03:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:OSX: No, the article is correctly named. The article covers all three MINI models: The MINI One, the MINI Cooper and the MINI Cooper'S. The two 'Cooper' models are the up-market 'performance' versions. People in the USA assume the car is called "MINI Cooper" because the down-market "MINI One" isn't sold in the USA and therefore all MINI's are Coopers here. However, elsewhere in the world, they are all just "MINI's". The MINI One is superficially very similar to the Cooper models - but it has a lower trim level and is much more fuel-efficient than the Cooper. There is even a diesel version of the MINI One (called the MINI One/D). But the One is very basic - it doesn't even have air conditioning. For that reason alone, it is presumed that it would not sell well in the USA. SteveBaker 04:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I Agree w/ OSX, a simply change in the infobox mark-up could allow for the caption in cases such as BMW MINI article to show. I'm a proponent of the gen infoboxes as they are an easy, consie way to convey some key generation-dependent info and give our articles a sense of unity. I think adding a simply option to enable pic captions on gen-infoboxes will resolve the probelm Steve pointed out. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is important info you can use [[Image:MINI Cooper S Convertible 2005.jpg|250px|2005 MINI Cooper S Convertible]] ''Orange Mini'', I have used this if the picture shows some specials models, which needs explanation --— Typ932^{T | C}  06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hovering the mouse over the image shows the caption, and one can always click on the image to see the full description. But I suppose the infobox could be modified to show the caption if it's necessary. --Sable232 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bentley Azure (2006)

The Bentley Azure (2006) page is just a very brief stub and requires expansion. Also, it needs to be updated, since the Azure is now in production, and this was written when the car had not yet been released.

I would re-work the page myself, but I'm incredibly swamped this week (researching and writing about cars for an actual paying job -- sorry, but work trumps wiki). If someone could take on this page as a project, I'd appreciate it. If not, I might have more time next week to have a go at it myself. Jagvar 04:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of having a separate article? There is much more content, both in the article and to be covered, about e.g. the Corsa, and somehow it can all be contained in one article. I'd understand splitting if the article became unwieldly long, but in this particular case... PrinceGloria 14:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Automobile platform

I am just asking as to whether it would be OK to update Template:Infobox Automobile platform to mimic the look of Template:Infobox Automobile. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be the only auto-related infobox which doesn't follow the standard look, so that seems reasonable. --DeLarge 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The hoaxer returns

I'm back on this project after a wikibreak... good to be back!! Unfortunately the hoaxer's returned, adding fake info to Dodge Spirit, and he created two fake articles which are listed at AFD - Ford Calrema and Eagle Skye.

Dodge Spirit should be watchlisted so we can revert this one easily. --SunStar Net ^talk 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)--SunStar Net ^talk 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is a good opportunity to remember the importance of WP:V - always cite sources and require other editors to do so. Regards, High on a tree 13:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted both articles under CSD G3 as vandalism and closed the respective AFDs (Eagle Skye AFD & Ford Calrema AFD). I decided not to count User:TonyWonderBread's opinion based on his other edits and comments at AFD. Any more hoaxing and I'll be glad to see it off. On a more positive note, I'll be going to the Auto Salon motor show tomorrow, which won't be good for any production models, just modified cars. Are there any specific requests? I'll be taking my camera anyway, but if someone wants pics of something specific like Brembo brakes or a bolt on turbo just leave a note on my talk page. I'll be leaving at midnight UTC today so be quick! James086^{Talk | Email} 13:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Old merge proposals

There are two merge proposals that have been sitting for more than a few months and haven't received many votes. I hope a consensus can be reached so the articles won't be frozen in time for another few months. Talk:Automobile layout and Talk:Vehicle brake. Leedeth 06:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)