Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 180.158.89.164 (talk) at 15:06, 23 January 2013 (→‎The ancient VW Santana had stopped its production.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAutomobiles Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Citroën C3 Picasso#C3 Aircross

Would anyone support splitting this into a separate article? I feel it doesn't fit in the article so well anymore and would work better as a standalone short article. There's more to add to it, but i can only double (at most) the current article size with the information available. It's practically the same car as the C3 Picasso but it's been made into a 4x4 and sold in Latin America and so most of my safety tests, specs, sizes etc aren't very applicable to it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Aircross is a trim level to me, same as the Volvo XC70 and the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo. One article per model to me. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebadged vans

Citroen Berlingo and Peugeot Partner differ only slightly as they are rebadged twins. Should we merge them? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the merger, based on Merging#Reasons_for_merger -> "Overlap". Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I second this proposal, and see no reason why these weren't together from the start. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged, discussion is here for anyone interested. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oldsmobile Diesel engine

I have a large amount of concerns with this article beyond the tags that it already has. The correlation between the cars listed as having specific models of the engine on the article does not really correlate with what the individual car articles say. I'm not really sure what to make of the "Changes from petrol engines" section - should it be left as is, trimmed down, or totally junked? The problems of the Olds diesel section also clearly needs work. I've already streamlined the layout a bit, without losing any content, and I'll attempt to look for better sources and such in the near future, but any help with this article would be appreciated. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "Changes" section should be rewritten in prose (and it could probably stand some pruning as well). As for the model listing, I would trust the inclusions here over not being mentioned in the articles themselves. I have some material, will check on some that seem unlikely to me, like the Pontiac 6000.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "changes" section is a heap of unreferenced WP:cruft, I would not be sorry to see it removed. For me, the biggest issue was the bias of the article, I suspect it was written by an ex-Oldsmobile engineer trying to blame everyone else for the failure of these engines. 1292simon (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested merger between Write-off and Total loss

Same article essentially. Merger talk on Talk:Write-off for anyone interested. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Car Commercial

Car Commercial, which currently redirects to Television advertisement, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 28#Car Commercial. The discussion could do with more input, particularly with regards the question whether there is a possibility of an article about this topic. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my opinion. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 16:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

Why are so many of the article alerts completely unrelated to this WikiProject? Lukeno94 (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Product pre-announcements

A lot of the articles have sections for new generations that have been announced but are not actually on sale yet. I'm not very keen on these because the manufacturers often change the specs between the announcements and the actual start of production. Every manufacturer claiming their new model will rival the second coming doesn't help either, along with every facelift being called 'ALL NEW!!!'. Also, the release dates are often vague (eg mid 2013) or slip to a later date. But some editors are keen to put in any knowledge that is available, so perhaps I'm being overly fussy. I'm currently in a discussion at talk:Toyota RAV4#4th Generation? but this affects many other articles, so I'd like to get a policy decision.  Stepho  talk  02:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If discriminating third party sources think a future product is worth discussing, then you have something to base an addition to the article on. If all you have is the usual fan blogs that generate five different posts for each rumor or press release, then ignore it until something substantive appears. If all there are is press releases, that's less than nothing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a fine definition if we could identify discriminating third party sources. I am struggling to think of examples in the automotive media world, which by and large exhibit the taste of 12 year olds combined with the morals of crack-whores. Greglocock (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bwahahah! Well put... I miss L. J. K. Setright, he always seemed incorruptible.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a general media source, outside the automotive press, that's an easy one. If it's part of the automotive media, then you have to use your judgement and discuss. If this work didn't require judgement, it could be done by a script. The key is probably to look for an objective reason why the future product is important, other than merely existing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the RAV4 it was previewed at a car show and has Toyota press releases. I distrust press releases of this type (especially since it was laden with hyperbole about how wonderful it was). An official press release means that it will likely (but not guaranteed) to be sold but of course it may change in features and the release date is rarely trustworthy.  Stepho  talk  13:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For me what makes these future sections sort of needless is that they have to be replaced entirely once the car is introduced. This is not always done, leaving us with articles containing lost of crystal ball gazing stemming from 2011 and such.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction date from the manufacturer should be accurate to within 3 months at 3 years out, and one year out it will be to within a month, because the switchover at the suppliers need that sort of lead time. I must admit I rather like the idea that we need to establish notability for a new model announcement, for all the reasons mentioned so far, especially mr choppers, has anyone got an idea for a concrete proposal? Here's one which you can shoot down in flames "New model announcements will only be entered into articles if they have been discussed in the main business or political section of a broadsheet newspaper". My reasoning is that if a new model is truly important then shareholder disclosure will push it out of the motoring section into politics and business. Where it would be absolutely excellent is that it would eliminate any discussion of show cars and concept cars. Greglocock (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote in favor of such a proposal, seems reasonable enough.  Mr.choppers | ✎  08:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I fear it won't convince some people though. Since I'm likely to use that policy/convention to erase a metric bucket-load of new generation announcements over many Toyota articles, I'll wait a bit for more opinions to chime in.  Stepho  talk  01:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support that too. I've seen this used elsewhere on Wikipedia. A film really is notable if it's discussed outside the film media, a book is notable if it's covered outside the book media, etc. So there is precedent for this standard. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support Greglocock's suggestion. It takes pre-announced models away from all the promo rubbish. NealeFamily (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that waiting for the mainstream press to report new models, this will lead to innumerable arguments with car fans as the main stream press can be somewhat slow to report, and also a lot are behind pay walls (FT and The Times in the UK spring to mind). Surely if a car is reported in the reputable auto press (i.e. ones that involve being printed and published) that should surely be enough in most cases? I am all for not creating articles purely on press release and fan sites that do nothing but reprint press releases. Warren (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paywalls are a non-issue. See WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE. Arguments with fans are unavoidable, because fans want something other than an encyclopedia. Fans want to see lists of engine and frame numbers, lists of celebrity owners, and in depth coverage of used car prices. I think everyone agrees that coverage in the mainstream press is at least a minimum. If you have a future car with no mention in the mainstream press, then there should be a discussion to establish what reason there is for creating an article. If there is a substantive reason to make an article without non-automotive coverage, then let it be made. Otherwise, wait a brief period and make the article when it's released. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point, I badly made, is that if regular editors refrain from ever creating articles for forthcoming cars that are widely published in the professional press, then we will always be at odds with the fan editors and that seems a pointless position to be in. I see no reason for seasoned editors to take a punt on articles for forthcoming cars that have reasonable coverage, if only to help structure a new page with the right format and tone. By all means we need to ensure that PR spin from press releases is avoided, but I am not sure how not taking part in early trade press based editing is going to help. It will mean that pretty much anything from a motorshow will be written up by fans in the week or two it takes the mainstream press to get around publishing anything (if at all), and by then the articles will no doubt be in bad shape. Warren (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a clear policy then a bit of page reverting and explanation on the talk page ususally gets the lesson across. The same argument was made in respect of allowing refs to fan forums (see Lotus for an example), eventually they did stop. I disagree about the motoring press, they are only a tiny step up from the websites. Greglocock (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citroen DS

Is the DS really a marque? The DS car marque article seems a little vague and with the wrong name - surely DS is a model designation? I've removed a little PR fluff, but the article needs a good look at, and maybe is better suited as part of the Citroen page and the individual models rather than a stand-alone article? Warren (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citroën

Are these claims right? "Citroën was the first mass-production car company outside the USA [3] and pioneered the modern concept of creating a sales and services network that complements the motor car.[4] Within eight years Citroën had become Europe's largest car manufacturer and the 4th largest in the world.[5]"
Only asking because the sources might be reliable and then again they might not.

8-) Eddaido (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly the case (well, I have believed for as long as my father told it me) that Andre Citroen went to America, was impressed by what Henry Ford showed him in respect of mass production, came back to Europe and applied mass production techniques to manufacturing shells for the front line and became fantastically rich, and then after the war machines ran out of steam, pioneered mass production techniques to cars. so [3] "...the first mass-production car company outside the USA..." . I believe that is uncontentious.
On " ... [4] and pioneered the modern concept of creating a sales and services network that complements the motor car ..." I can't make the link you provide work. Maybe it's the copper wires they use here in lieu of cables or maybe it's a dead link. I've not heard the claim before, but it is plausible. Citroen was the largest auto maker in France and France, till the US got its act together during the first decade of the twentieth century, was the largest auto-producer in the world. In the 1920s German industry was on its knees and the top auto-producing nation in Europe must have been France or Britain, with the other second. I guess someone had to pioneer sales and service networks, though I imagine the claim is open to interpretation as in "how do you mean?" I wish I'd been able to access that link....
On "... [5}Within eight years Citroën had become Europe's largest car manufacturer and the 4th largest in the world. ... " it is certainly believable. Someone had to be Europe's top auto producer, and the pioneer of mass production techniques in Europe would be the obvious candidate. (Opel copied the techniques and indeed also appear to have copied the car that Citroen produced with the mass production techniques leading to a splendid fee-feast for the lawyers, but that really got going only a few years later in the 1920s than Citroen and even in 1931, which is the earliest year for which I can find numbers, Opel only produce 16,135 cars (total passenger car production in Germany that year was 56,039.) I think top dog in the numbers game in the British auto-industry for most or all of the relevant years was probably Morris who started by buying engines from an American supplier but after World War I ended up buying engines instead from ... um ... the French. (Hotchkiss, not Citroen.) In the end of course Morris bought the engine plant and so was producing his own engines but not in the first part of the 1920s. By the time you get to the mid-1930s the Brits have survived the economic traumas better than the French, through dint of deft currency devaluation (well, there was a bit more to it...). It may well be that by then the British auto-industry was larger than the French one, and by 1936 the Germans were producing more than 200,000 passenger cars per year (213,117 in 1936). Do you know a good source for equivalent stats on the French and British auto industries? So I think the claim you quote is believable, but I've not seen or heard it expressed that baldly before, and I wish output stats for the three largest European auto producers of those years - the 1920s and the 1930s - were more easy to get hold of than, till now, I have found them.
On [8], ?.
No further thoughts. Thanks for sharing the conundrums. Charles01 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then my concerns are eased, thanks. This 8-) was an attempt to indicate that though beady-eyed I was hoping to seem friendly.
What this project needs is a really good nuts and bolts person on automobile mass production as currently practised with a good knowledge of relevant history. Someone like that is needed to make sense of the raw info available for Nuffield Tools & Gauges which can't be used by me for fear of creating nonsense instead of an encyclopaedic reference item. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Within eight years Citroën had become Europe's largest car manufacturer and the 4th largest in the world." Can't say for sure, because I don't have it in front of me, but IIRC I've seen that in one of Georgano's books, too. (What I do have doesn't mention that, or the sales & service. :( ). If orders for 30,000 Type As mean anything, tho... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo help needed

As the result of a CCI, there are many auto photos both here and at Commons which may not be in the public domain as claimed. While they will be nominated at Possibly Unfree Files, if you can provide either proof that the photo is in the public domain or write a rationale for its non-free use, your help would be appreciated at the list. We hope (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a saying in the UK that "I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire". The idea that any vestige of a problematic editor like BS Bob remains on Wikipedia is not an appealing one and I would welcome every one of his image uploads being removed. He clearly didn't get being a valued member of the Wikipedia community, never entered into the spirit of it, and that's what led to his demise. This is a far, far better place without him, his contributions and his images. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to think of him as "overly enthusiastic". He never quite got the shared nature of WP and that articles can't go on for a million words but he did try to improve the Vega articles as he thought they should be. My understanding is that most of his images are either of his own cars (fine in moderation) or scans from magazines and brochures (not allowed).  Stepho  talk  23:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than happy to keep any of BSB's own photos here. The scans are more problematic, but if the licenses check out (and if he did the scanning) I can't see what the problem. I'll take any crazy persons photos, provided they were theirs to give away in the first place.  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

67 X

I just added two redirects. It seems to have 2 names, 67 X and 70 X or 70-X. Emails have been sent to the builders, Esso Canada (sponsors), and Schmitt cars that have some very nice images of one they sold recently. Only two of the original four are said to exist. The builder may have the vin numbers still which may help track them down. I have one vin number now. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with access to period newspapers may be able to assist - there must be a mention if they were raffled off after the Expo. Don't get into the trap of original research - see Wikipedia:No original research. Warren (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not OR. I would just like an image or two to enhance the section. It has since been re-directed to Toronado. I found a legal image for another strange mod from the same era. Canada doesn't have the pre-1977 rule so any scans from the period would have copyright still, I assume. The ultimate plan would be four images, one of each, and possibly a history of their fates.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a more complete reference. Were they raffled after Expo? Would the phrase 'for Expo' work?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting C3 Picasso in two

The article is now within 5,500 bytes of being 100k, making it a candidate for a Size split. Discussion is here. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for attention

At: Ford Falcon GT#FPV GT R-spec. regards. --Falcadore (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some assistance please, we have another forked article now in EL GT as well as FPV GT R-spec. --Falcadore (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thia discussion, do we want numerous pages for each version of the Falcon GT - more a fan sort of approach. Wouldn't mind if a few of you could join the debate and exprss your views. NealeFamily (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox automobile, British English

The template seems to think that in Britain imperial measurements even extended to measuring engines in cubic inches. How do I steer around that please? Looked everywhere for any sort of cones or stuff. Eddaido (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand your question. DH85868993 (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template only has one bit of code that handles British English spelling. If you set "sp=uk" then it displays "Kerb weight" instead of "Curb weight". --Biker Biker (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is not the issue that US engines were measured in cubic inches when we were all a little younger? Some of us are still around to remember that time, as are many of the US automobiles and the contemporary sources on them. I understand that in Australia "going metric" was a one-time event, at least in relative terms. Some states prefer the incremental approach. In the UK if I talk of fuel consumption in l/100 km I get blank looks, though it is some years since you were able to buy fuel here in God’s own (so roughly 25% bigger than Uncle Sam's?) gallons. I don't know if there is - or needs to be (in which case, please...) - a template to steer us round the different approaches to measuring engine size. I certainly become perplexed trying to use the fuel consumption template, though it seems to work when I use it correctly: is that within the scope of this discussion? probably not. But on engine size, is there a need to request a new conversion template from a template guru? Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proper gallons are indeed 25% bigger - derived from the fact that a US pint is 16 fl.oz. as opposed the proper pint which is 20 fl.oz. Their pints are smaller because they can't hold their beer, and that too is why their beer looks and tastes like monkey piss. Anyway, we digress. For US cars I think there is some merit in converting cc's into cu. in. given the long history in US-manufactured vehicles (on land and in the air) of quoting piston engine sizes in cubic inches. For vehicles manufactured outside of the US or made by foreign companies I see little value in using that conversion but have absolutely no objection to it being used if it aids the understanding of readers. It doesn't detract from the content IMO and it certainly is no effort to add an extra unit of measure into the conversion template. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I would like to apologize for Canadian beer imported in to the US tasting like monkey piss as well. I think there is some kind of rule or law that says we have to water it down before export, so please don't blame our breweries.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait On, major misunderstanding there by everybody (else)!
(speaking as a resident of God's One True own country) I found the (new to me) British English,Vehicles designed and marketed using Imperial measurements template with the name above on it. When I entered the number of cubic centimetres in the engine box it converted them into an ocean liner sized engine also in c.c.s. I solved it by taking a template / equation? (there has to be a way to distinguish these things) from something else and using that.
Doubters have a look at this page: Template:Infobox_automobile and scroll down a bit and read "engine = 16 cm3 (1 cu in)" _ See? it converts the wrong way, multipies by 160 because the wrong equation(?) has been used —from cu in to c.c when what is wanted is from c.c. (the then customary description for the cubic capacity of an engine) to cu in.
I'll live, I think the template-builders are wonderful people. Thanks for all the attention I got, Best wishes Eddaido (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Infobox_automobile}} template has an 'engine' field that simply displays whatever you put in it and does no actual conversion on its own. If you put 'engine=two hogsheads' then it will display exactly 'two hogsheads'. However, the documentation page also has the {{convert}} template used within the infobox template. The 'convert' template can be used to convert between L, cc and cu.in. in any direction. The idea is that the number and units you put into the template comes from your reference source. In purely US specific articles (eg Ford Mustang), the display order should be imperial followed by metric. In all other articles (including cars like Toyota Camry, sold in both US and other countries) then display order should be metric followed by imperial. If your source doesn't match the desired display order then you can flip the display order by using '|disp=flip'. Examples using a 5.7 L / 350 cu.in engine (note that sources often round generously, so exact cc and cu.in are better then tenths of litres):

Purely US only article Everyone else
reference is in L {{convert|5.7|L|cuin|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}} 348 cu in (5.7 L) {{convert|5.7|L|cuin|0|abbr=on}} 5.7 L (348 cu in)
reference is in cc {{convert|5735|cc|cuin|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}} 350 cu in (5,735 cc) {{convert|5735|cc|cuin|0|abbr=on}} 5,735 cc (350 cu in)
reference is in cu.in {{convert|350|cuin|cc|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}} 5,735 cc (350 cu in) {{convert|350|cuin|cc|0|abbr=on}} 350 cu in (5,735 cc)

Note that the 'convert' template's first few params are input value (eg 5700), followed by the input units (eg converting from cc), optionally followed by the output unit (eg convert to cuin, template will choose for you if you skip this parameter), followed by many options (see {{convert}}). Normally it will display the input value/unit (eg 5700cc) followed by the conversion (eg 351 cuin). You can swap the display order by using '|disp=flip'.  Stepho  talk  02:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Stepho, Eddaido (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant FFD

The image File:1969 Ford LTD Country Squire.jpg, used in the Ford Country Squire article, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments in the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 20#File:1969 Ford LTD Country Squire.jpg would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar Cars

There is a discussion about the correct name on the above talk page to which I have added this:
I am really delighted to see this discussion because it brings up a matter which bothers me a lot, and often, on which WikiProject Automobiles seems hopelessly unclear when writing about — say Austin or MG.
The following things are all different (list from off the top of my head):

  • there is 1. the founder a living person or persons
  • there is 2. the product or series of products
  • there is 3. the business that is making those products/ cars of a particular brand
  • there is 4, the legal entity that owns that business—almost always an incorporated entity such as a limited liability company perhaps once upon a time the founder him or herself e.g. Ford, Morris etc
  • there are 5. more legal entities further up the chain that may own all or most of 4.
(I suspect this list is not complete)

Wikipedia tells a reader Austin went "defunct" (a special Wiki word I think) when BMC started. This is patent nonsense - just sloppy thinking! By the same logic Jaguar should be "defunct" and the current article on the subject of current Jaguar cars should be about Tata. Imagine what all the articles about Aston Martin would be like!

We very happily muddle them all up and end up with disputes like this. Isn't it better something be done about better defining things? At least on the Jaguar talk page everyone seems to know they are discussing a corporate entity and that, it seems to me, round here is a significant advance :) Eddaido (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've laid my thoughts out here on paper. I know they are imperfectly formed, I hope that makes them easier for others to develop / demolish.Eddaido (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An outline guide on how to structure an article on (1) a marque (or brand), (2) a company that owns the marque and actually designs and builds the cars, and (3) the holding company (if relevant). This is causing time-wasting edit wars in numerous articles such as Porsche, Mini, Vauxhall and Jaguar. I would propose that we need to make sure any article pertaining to the marque or brand needs to make sense of its whole history, irrespective of who owns it. The company that owns the marque (past and present) will as in most existing cases outline the corporate history. In some of the more complex ownerships, the need for a holding company article will be obvious. We do urgently need some clarity on how we could resolve this so avoid pointless edit wars, and wasting 1000s of words in talk pages. For most readers I would imagine they would expect most detail to appear on the marque page, with clear links to the corporate entity that owns it. Warren (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient VW Santana had stopped its production.

The ancient VW Santana had stopped its production. (Link in Simplified Chinese) http://www.csvw.com/csvw2011/xwzx/qyxw/dzxw/2013nsbn/70593.shtml This article should be modified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Santana Not confused with VW Santana Vista.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&oldid=534498188"