Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Ford EL Falcon GT

Some assistance recquired. This vehicle, which is a very limited run and low notability, keeps getting recreated instead of being a redirect. Sourcing establishes the vehicles statistics, but not its notability and it's a double intersection of vehicle generation (EL series) and vehicle specification (GT). There was a discussion at Talk:Ford Falcon GT#EL GT but the editor is now ignoring it. Your advice? --Falcadore (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Page is a redirect to Tickford Vehicle Engineering, 30th Anniversary GT. Space alligator (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

sincerely Samblob

Stands accused by me of (now years of) persistent following stalking or dogging.
Here is the evidence, a week without the recourse that might otherwise be expected for these straightforward reverts:

• Daimler Conquest
• Daimler Fifteen
• Lanchester 14
• The Great Horseless Carriage Co

Eddaido (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of deliberate vandalism among those edits. I do see some rough editing that could use some mentoring and an over zealous reverter. There's also a difference of opinion on style and a need for some talking and mediation - but no actual vandalism. There's a middle ground that we can reach for here.  Stepho  talk  10:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

How long has this being going on for now between you guys? I see no evidence of vandalism, just a nasty disagreement. I best not complain too much because I've been guilty of edit wars before due to lack of wanting to enter time-consuming discussions; however, is this something you can work out through dialogue? Seems like the only solution to me. Rather than reverting blindly, may I suggest you try a different route by changing the wording of the offending paragraphs. Might take you a few goes to get it right, but has to be better than what your doing now.

Lastly, not wishing to increase the anger by taking sides, but without knowing anything much about these cars, Samblob's versions do seem to (mostly) be the more logical/encyclopaedic to me. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 10:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. If this were a balloon debate, I would keep SamBlob as an editor over you, every time. Your knowledge of some subjects is excellent and you have made great additions to some articles, but all too often you get some fanciful idea instead and then you're a dogged edit warrior to keep it in place, no matter how incorrect this is. SamBlob has frequently challenged you on this, as have I. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, regarding Daimler Conquest:

• my objection to the inclusion of the Nasser video
• my objection to the figurative language in the article, with reference to policy.

Neither of these were addressed, either on the talk page or in the edit summaries.

Secondly, Daimler Fifteen: It is true that I did not take the discussion to the talk page, but what was there to take? Violation of WP:IDIOM? I have already brought the policy to his attention. In fact, I left him some links at his talk page that I thought might be helpful to his writing style; his response to which was to delete my post and to tell me not to mess up his talk page. Removal of the terms "new" and "now" from events that occurred in the 1930s? I did not realize that the discrepency would not be clear once pointed out. The citation request? The statement to which the request was appended was not mentioned in the main body of the article, much less cited there. Without any citation, the statement might be speculation drawn out of thin air. The only remaining change is a simple grammatical correction. I cannot comprehend why any of the changes should be objectionable, and the edit summaries do not make this clearer. All I can conclude in the matter is knee-jerk reaction and WP:OWNership.

Thirdly, Lanchester Fourteen: I did not address this on the article's talk page, but this is where the "not un-" formation that I spoke of on Eddaido's talk page came from. The car body is also referred to as "very pretty", which is uncredited and about as subjective a statement as can possibly be made. Since bringing this to his attention had me admonished for leaving a mess, I decided to clean the mess up myself, going on to format section headings, separate words that had been run together unspaced, and turn ungrammatical notes into sentences. I went on to move a thumbnail to a less obtrusive place, to reposition section headings to include the infoboxes relevant to the sections within the sections, and to disambiguate the subsection headings that had previously had identical names to each other. I have to ask who, apart from a vandal, would knowingly and willingly change the article from how I had left it to how I had found it. On one occasion I also expanded the lead to include a summary of further information existing in the main body; this was also removed.

Finally, The Great Horseless Carriage Company: This can be summed up in one word: "brilliantly". Eddaido believes this word should be used to describe the defence of Ernest Terah Hooley by Rufus Isaacs, 1st Marquess of Reading. WP:PEACOCK, a section of the Manual of Style, says that it should not. This all boils down to a battle between enforcement of policy on one hand and article ownership on the other.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

sincerely Samblob, the dogging editor

That alone says it all but you can certainly embroider it with obsessed stalker and follower, WP:Hound and WP:DE. Maybe I should mention Svengali
Thanks for the above chat about edits and things. Its a long time since I've read anything Samblob has written beyond its first few words (if that) so I can't comment further.

And, please don't mistake me, I do want to belabour the point about Dogging - it is the whole purpose for my writing here.

Wait on, there is something else—readers should consider the possibility that if they think Samblob has changed a statement and corrected it that might just mean they know as little about it as Samblob does. Eddaido (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that, if you keep complaining about how I ruin your articles and others aren't seeing the reduced quality you're talking about, then maybe, just maybe, I'm not the one who's getting it wrong?

Further, why is it that you only communicate clearly when you insult people?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it more helpful to concentrate on which parts of the edits are considered wrong. Attacking each other only makes it less likely for them to listen to you (as evidenced by the knee-jerk reaction of both of you reverting each other without further thought).

I'll start it off. I think the use of the word 'brilliant' in an encyclopaedia is a bit POV unless it is used in the reference. Do either of you have a comment for or against using the word 'brilliant' in the The Great Horseless Carriage Company article (without commenting on the other editor)?  Stepho  talk  23:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't seem to go as far as the Manual of Style does. WP:PEACOCK has a list of words that includes "brilliant", and says of them:

Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.

Whether the word "brilliantly" is used in the reference or not is immaterial. It adds image without adding substance and should not be included. "Successfuly", while redundant, would at least quantifiable. People in their own books can colour their phrases however they want. We are not supposed to do that in Wikipedia articles. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right that it's just a peacock term. But just in case the majority of references do actually say that the court defence was a high point in law history, I'd thought we should give him the opportunity to point it out. If he can't point out any such extraordinary measure then of course it should be deleted. The main point I want to get across is that discussion among a handful of editors will usually get to the heart of the matter. Pointing out a policy in the edit summary is useful the first time. But if it's being ignored then either he doesn't think it applies in this case (ie he may have more knowledge about this case than you do) or he has misunderstood the policy. In either case, an explanation/discussion can help more than mere reverting.  Stepho  talk  05:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, reluctantly, here's a couple of references both from London's The Times.

Lord Reading. The Times, Tuesday, Dec 31, 1935; pg. 6; Issue 47259

The Times Tuesday, Apr 28, 1936; pg. 10; Issue 47360

The headline on the first (its almost an entire page of obituary) refers to Rufus-Isaacs brilliant career. The second, a review of a new biography, refers to his most famous trials. The first name in that list is Hooley.
Eddaido (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for those references. A pity we can't see what they say. Could you provide some quotes, please? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I will note that this paragraph and subsequent paragraphs are indented differently from the previous paragraph because the previous paragraph is in response to Eddaido's post while this paragraph and later paragraphs are in response to Stepho-wrs's earlier, less indented post. This explanation is for Eddaido's benefit, as he has "corrected" the indentation of a similar discussion in the past.

The case might well be Isaacs' high point as a barrister, or might even have introduced an important legal precedent in English law (or it might not, depending on what the references presented actually say), but

1. it would be more enlightening and less like propaganda to quantify what made the defence "brilliant" than to merely claim that it was, and
2. if Isaac's defense of Hooley was that extraordinary, shouldn't there be an article or section about it somewhere in Wikipedia? Then, instead of a superlative with nothing to support it, there could be a link to the article or section in question.

Furthermore, I am not sure the extent to which the term "brilliant" applies to legal matters. I had thought it was a quality of light rather than of law.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Eddaido sent me scanned copies of the newspaper articles in question and I have put them on my website at http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/brilliant/ I will probably delete them when this is over.

To me it's a bit 50/50. The lawyer definitely had a brilliant career and Google finds plenty to gush about him, including this trial where Hooley was set free and the other man sent to prison. I think it fair to say that Isaacs presented a very good case in court. Whether 'brilliant' is the right word to use here is more subjective. Possibly we could say that Isaacs (as Hooley's lawyer) was instrumental in having Hooley set free while Lawson (representing himself) was sentenced to a year of hard labour (http://books.google.com.au/books?ei=bS-CUqjqFMfjkAWQwoDgCA&id=6KIKAQAAMAAJ&dq=hooley+lawson+hard+labour+isaacs&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=hooley+lawson+%22hard+labour%22). And of course the supporting references of the newspaper articles and "The First Marquess of Reading" book should be added.  Stepho  talk  13:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The extract from 1936 includes the Hooley case in a list of important cases in Lord Reading's career, and the snippet from Google Books shows me that Hooley was acquitted while Lawson, who defended himself, was convicted and sentenced to twelve months of hard labour. However, I have read through the long and detailed obituary of Lord Reading in the extract from 1935 and I have not seen the Hooley case mentioned anywhere. Could you please direct me to the column in which it might be found? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

An idea taken from WikiProject Motorcycling

While I do not normally put forward ideas of starting new organizations for fear of having to be involved in the creation of them, I have noticed the Special Interest Groups in WikiProject Motorcycling and I think it might be a good idea to have one in WikiProject Automobiles for British automobiles. To paraphrase the one for British motorcycles, it would aim "to ensure that the coverage of the history of British motorcyclingautomobiles on Wikipedia is as accurate and comprehensive as possible."

There are many articles on British automobiles and automobile manufacturers and they vary widely in content, quality, and compliance to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Would it be helpful to have a task force of editors to assess and improve existing articles and create new ones where necessary?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Japanese cars have a similar group: Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Japanese cars task force.  Stepho  talk  01:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested in being part of a task force devoted to German cars. I'm already a member of the Rail transport in Germany task force. How difficult is it to set up a task force focusing on cars from a particular country? I note that the task force for Japanese cars appears to be a task force of WikiProject Japan, not WikiProject Automobiles, although apparently the latter WikiProject is a "parent project" of it. I also note that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Task Forces page that sets out a 2006 proposal that there be a large group of task forces – should this proposal now be taken up to a greater extent than at the moment? Bahnfrend (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Improving the project

This project really could use a few truly dedicated obsessives. What might be the best way to try to attract them? sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought we already had a few. It's not like we are paid, how many hours per day are we supposed to editing for? OSX (talk • contributions) 07:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

We could pay them? That's unlikely to happen...ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are already many of us dedicated to the project and obsessed with automobiles; I'm sure we've already been telling our friends about it? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That's right and you, Samblob, seem to be obsessed with me. (that's focussed on content not personality!), sincerely Eddaido (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's focused on SamBlob. Focus on the issue. 'An eye for eye' rarely produces useful results. Rise above it.  Stepho  talk  23:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Two headings up, Eddaido started a thread to complain about SamBlob. At least two editors said the accusations had no basis. Nobody agreed that SamBlob was hounding or stalking anybody; it's just a content dispute. Now here we are with yet another thread created by Eddaido for no purpose except to again try to see if the charges against SamBlob can gain any traction. We call that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: Failure to get the point.

  This heading should be deleted. It is here to mock and harass SamBlob. Either drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, or take it to WP:ANI.

  With regard to content, both SamBlob and Eddaido need to listen to and heed the opinions of others who have joined the disputes, and accept that they might not get their way. But clearly it is Eddaido who is using sarcasm, mockery, and personal attacks, and that must stop. Now somebody delete this thread and let us never speak of this again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Are these coupes?

From our Mercedes Benz SL article i found these two pictures:

• File:1999 Mercedes-Benz SL500.jpg
• File:SL73.JPG

Is anyone able to confirm that these are Saloon/Sedans or Coupes? And if they are both convertibles (One clearly is). There is no mention of the available body styles in the infobox or article. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

All convertibles, the first photo showing a car fitted with a removable hardtop.  Mr.choppers | ✎  10:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Really?

I've just had another look but not all of the images we have for the two models i'm looking into look like convertibles. See Mercedes-Benz R129 and Mercedes-Benz R230.

Some like like they are just Coupes. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I know a fair bit about Benzes. They're both R129 SL roadsters. The burgundy coloured one has a detachable hardtop roof. Bahnfrend (talk)

OK...But are they all convertibles or does the article show some that aren't? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

They're all roadsters - see the article roadster (automobile) for more info. The R129 is fitted with an electrically operated fabric roof, and can also be fitted with an optional hardtop, which can be completely detached and left behind in the garage while the car is out on the road. Its successor, the R230, is fitted with an electrically operated metal roof, which folds away completely out of sight when the roof is open. In each case, the "R" in the model designation refers to "roadster". At the time the R129 was on the market, Benz also made a cabriolet (ie convertible), the A124, and a coupe, the C140. These are both distinctly different, both from the R129 and from each other (although the floorpans of the R129 and the A124 are similar, as are their fabric roof mechanisms and electrically operated pop-up rollbars). By the time the R230 came out, both the A124 and the C140 had been replaced by later models. Incidentally, the problem you have identified is not so much with the images, but with the articles Mercedes-Benz R129 and Mercedes-Benz R230, both of which could do with significant improvement. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"They're all roadsters" Looking at that pic of the SL500, with the hard C-pillar, I'd say coupe...& the definition of "roadster" I use is, "no top", so they're 'verts, not roadsters, anyhow. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That's everything i needed to know. Thanks a lot guys ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry TREKphiler. The roadster article says "without a fixed roof". The hard C pillars of the SL500 are completely detachable at their bases, so that the whole hardtop roof can come off. Therefore the SL500 is a roadster. Bahnfrend (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been written a number of times already, but here it is again: fitted with a "removable hardtop". Here's a pic in case this is still not clear. As for roadster versus convertible, I'd say that's mostly marketing speak and not really worth an argument. In my opinion, a roadster ought to have a cut down windscreen and it should be fairly light and spartan - I'd call the R129 a convertible.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable online sources, eg Car magazine, Car and Driver, The Daily Telegraph, Top Gear, and Mercedes-Benz, invariably refer to all SLs (except the Gullwing of the 1950s) as roadsters, as do printed reliable sources, eg Taylor 2009, page 36.

Roadster (automobile) says "A roadster is an open (without a fixed roof or side weather protection) two-seat car with emphasis on sporty handling" (my emphasis). Convertible says "A convertible is a type of automobile of various automobile body styles that can convert from open-air mode to a provisional enclosed (roofed) mode." Assuming the car is of a sporty nature (ie not an open top boulevard cruiser), this seems to imply that a convertible is a subset of roadster. So if a sporty car can sometimes have no roof or sometimes have a soft top or sometimes have a removable hard top, then it is both a roaster and a convertible.  Stepho  talk  05:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say that roadster is a subset of convertible. Both the roadster article and the convertible article could probably do with some further references to reliable sources such as this one. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The first roadsters didn't have any tops at all, later they got the same rudimentary folding tops and side screens as touring cars (the British called both touring cars and roadsters "tourers") Convertibles (or all weather tourers) had well-fitting tops and side glass retractable into doors. Eventually, most "roadsters" became two-seat convertibles.

One can still get a new car that's like the old roadsters: the Caterham 7, Morgan Roadster, and Ariel Atom come to mind.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

New article

I would like to hear your opinion about this recently created article: Range extender (vehicle). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It answers the question (1) "What is it" and makes a good start on (2) "How does it work?" I like that. And it's nice having brief descriptions of the things in action courtesy of GM and BMW. I like that too. Overall, it combines the simplicity needed if the general reader is not going to give up with enough back up to be helpfully informative. I like that. And lots of nice pointers for the incurably curious. Thank you. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how far you can drive a Chevy Volt before you have to stop, and how long you have to stop for. Plus how long can you keep the car before you have to replace it? But I appreciate that the closest thing to a simple answer there may still start with "It all depends..." Meantime I stick with my VW designed turbo diesel that doesn't go wrong very much and which the local garage understands how to fix if it does.. and which the local filling station can fill. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"Mustang"

The usage of Mustang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Mustang horse -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

yyyy-mm-dd date format in references

Many of our vehicle articles have all the references in yyyy-mm-dd format. But a recent policy change at MOS:BADDATEFORMAT says that year+month dates (ie without a specified day of the month) are no longer allowed in the yyyy-mm format (claiming a conflict with year ranges in the 2013-14 format). This requires a reference date such as 2013-04 to be changed to April 2013. But this conflicts with MOS:DATEUNIFY, which requires all reference dates to be in the same format and thus forcing all other reference dates in the article to no longer use the yyyy-mm-dd format. If you hate the yyyy-mm-dd format and want a chance to boot it out then add your view at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Is YYYY-MM an acceptable date format?. Or if you love the yyyy-mm-dd format and want to keep it, then add your view at the same place.  Stepho  talk  06:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone plz review my article

Can someone please look at my article and see if it can go into the article space? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qunty/sandbox2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qunty (talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at what's there and there's very little; just an infobox showing that the Allard J2 was made from 1951 to 1952 and that 89 were made.

However, I also noticed that there isn't really a page for the real Allard J2 and I think it's a crying shame. You might find some information on the J2 through Google Books, in your local library, or from classic car magazines if you have access to them.

More power to you! Thank you for starting the article.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a start! I organized all the Allard photos in the Commons and planned on making articles, I say go ahead and transfer it and I'll be happy to add perhaps enough material to bring it over the stub threshold. And then the Allard K, L, M, and P models will no doubt eventually follow. As a side note, here are two photos I took of a K2 this summer - sadly not much use for wp...  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all!

Everybody post your goodwill messages to get a warm and fuzzy feeling. We'll delete the section in a week or so when the fuzziness has turned into blurriness :)  Stepho  talk  03:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas on this third day thereof. I hope the French hens were/will be even more palatable at dinner time than the calling birdsturtle doves were yesterday! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting reviews of *long* automotive articles

I hereby ask for reviews of the articles History of BMW and Daimler Company. Both articles have a long way to go, but the History of BMW article has come a long way since the multiple issues tag was placed on it in 2009, and it would be good to know which, if any, of those issues have been cleared up.

The Daimler Company article, on the other hand, has not come a long way. An attempt has been made to improve its structure and organization, but it is a daunting task and all I seem to do with it of late is look at it in despair. Any suggestions as to what to do next and how to should be done?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel like you do about the Daimler article. The TOC alone is frightening.  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

My instant reaction is that they're both too long. There used to be a suggestion somewhere that anything >30,000 bytes is ripe for being split which presumably means anything >60,000 is more than ripe for being split. The first step to deciding where to split what is to put in some sub-headings - maybe a hierarchy of three or four levels of sub-heading - to see more quickly what you've got and how it fits together. Both these entries seem to have sub-headings, though I've no idea how carefully/thoughtfully they've been added. Once you've got the right sub-headings in the right places, then I guess it gets easier to see the obvious places to split an entry. With BMW there's scope for more on the aero-engines, a subject on which I am utterly ignorant and sourceless. But that, obviously, could easily be a separate entry with just a three line summary in the main BMW article. You could easily separate cars and motorbikes into separate entries. BMW's return from the dead after World War II could easily be a separate entry. Ditto the Glas acquisition and the acquisition thereby of somewhere to put the Dingolfing facility, which solved the problem in the 1960s of what to do about the Russians having ended up with Eisenach in 1945. That's only one set of ideas about how to split it. May not be the best set. But anything this long risks being pretty indigestible. I don't know so much about Daimlers in the UK, and I'm pretty sure there are fewer coherent sources out there to provide us all with an agreed structure for what happened when. Some of it goes back a long long way.... You could, presumably, quite easily separate out a special entry on Daimler buses for the Bus enthusiasts. Something on how the plants were used during the world wars for war enthusiasts. You might attempt a split between one entry for the company and a separate entry for the cars. Someone made a start at doing that with the German language BMW entry, though they maybe seem rather to have run out of puff before finishing the job unless - which is entirely possible - I missed entirely the point of what people were doing there. I guess the starting point for any split of the Daimler UK entry could simply be to divide it chronologically. Before and then after the Jaguar acquisition. But .. getting repetitive here for which I should apologize ... the longer entries become the harder they are for the reader to navigate and for the contributors to structure consistently. And of course if anyone has the time and courage to attempt any such split - preferably AFTER discussion and agreement - on the BMW or the Daimler entry - please take care not to lose any of the information!

Also, can anyone help me with a definition for TOC, please?

Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll start at the end: Unless I'm mistaken, TOC = ToC = "Table of Contents".

I looked up WP:SIZE and found this: "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." "History of BMW" has a total size of about 69.5 kB, but it also has several thumbnails and references, so the "readable prose" is likely to be within 30 kB to 50 kB. If the article is big enough to be split in two, I suppose the logical splitting point would be the end of World War II, but that's just my opinion. As for separating cars and motorcycles into separate entities, I should note that there is already an article titled History of BMW motorcycles with a total size of about 53 kB.

More about the aircraft engines would be good, especially the Type IV and the radials.

Do you have any opinion on the existing prose in the BMW article, or on how it might be improved?

The Daimler article is huge at about 93 kB, but again it has infoboxes, tables, and tons of pictures, so I don't know what amount of it is "readable prose". We could probably see potential splitting points better if the article were better organized; the structure of the article is one of its main problems, but I'm not sure how even to start with that. Another problem is finding sources; they seem to be few, far between, too old to have scanned versions readily available, and somewhat expensive to buy. I'll try to get back to working on it, though.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I just looked another look at the table of contents of the Daimler Company article. I see what you mean. Frightening indeed! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If lots of people contribute to an entry it is likely to make the entry more interesting and more informative. That's good. If lots of people contribute to an entry it is likely to make the prose style jumbled. That can be irksome, but on balance it's usually a small price to pay. Getting the information (1) right and (2) sourced (and for me (1) is even more important than (2)) should surely come before worrying too much about style, provided the meaning is clear. We all, necessarily, learned our English in a range of different continents and generations, so you should not be surprised that we have different ideas over what "normal" English looks like. Generally, therefore, I am content to keep to myself the distressing thought that no one else writes English prose like wot I do. Though I do occasionally quietly split other folks' sentences where the number of clauses persuaded into a single sentence is giving me indigestion. Now that I know what a TOC is I agree that it should be welcoming rather than frightening. Which counts as which may be to some extent in the eye of the beholder, but it's open to any of us to improve the structure of the entry before venturing to split it, and I agree that that's the logical sequence. The length of the TOC appears to confirm the length of the textual portion of the entry which does reflect the length of it, and supports the case for a split. Judicious further use of different levels of heading could be useful for "nesting" together more precisely what belongs with what: that should make the architectural logic of any subsequent splitting more self-evident (and so easier to agree if any of this becomes contentious). Just - please - can anyone plunging into that one try to avoid losing stuff in the process. + Good year to all. Charles01 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Rest assured, I am not going to plunge into this! If I do go in, I will wade carefully and with great trepadition (pause as I check my dictionary) trepidation. In that case, I will do my best not to lose any information. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ferrari timeline splitting

Hello. The Ferrari timeline right now is very cluttered, comprising six decades. Should I split it in two templates? If yes, I'd like to have some opinions on the two timeframes to choose (in my opinion 1960s-1980s and 1990s-present would work well). Thanks --Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's the odd thing: The Ferrari timeline is already split into two templates; the one you linked to earlier, and the one before that: Template:Ferrari road car timeline 1947-1968. This begs two questions:

1. What's so significant about 1968 why the first part of the timeline ends there?
2. Why does the second part begin eight years before the first part ends?

My suggestion would be to expand the 1947-1968 section by one year (to 1969), have the second template begin at 1970 and end at 1999, and then have a third template begin at 2000 and run to the present. A fourth template would not be started until 2029.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

How about a single template with a scroll function like Template:Holden? OSX (talk • contributions) 23:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep I've seen the 1947-1968 template. I figured it was made so short because of the multitude of models made in these early years, and that it stops more or less when mid-engined cars were introduced; all this with the rationale of avoiding two or three almost entirely blank rows. The next template then obviously has to comprise the 1960s to properly show the models that were omitted.

I didn't know of the scrollable template, but to me it's not the best choiche for Ferrari: unlike Holden the categories of cars they made varied significantly through the decades (think of the Boxer years or the Dino and Mondial models). On the other hand a scroll function would make much clearer something like the Maserati timeline (that's next on my list).

I'd go with SamBlob's idea, but starting the last template in 1996; that's when the Boxer was dropped and the current Ferrari model lines (V8 Berlinetta, V12 GT, V12 2+2) were fully estabilished.--Cloverleaf II (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of probable vandal

Hi, I've just noticed an anonymous user has been going through several car pages and changing dates (I noticed as they broke an image on Oldsmobile Bravada).

They could be legitimately correcting dates but I suspect systematic vandalising, but it difficult to tell for sure as almost all the dates changed are not directly referenced. However the second change they made to the Lexus ES was sourced and the change was definitely invalid.

So it would be good for someone on the project that has a source for such dates to check out the changes Special:Contributions/98.244.154.61 and decide constructive or vandalism!

If this is systematic vandalism and its all they have done then they probably require a final warning thrown their way.

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppets on the German and English airbag site

Hi folks,

I am quite new here and I am just a “simple Wikipedian editor” not a professional one. Furthermore I am not a native English speaking man and not so familiar with communicating over wikipedia. But I have a big concern:

Actually there seems to be a real "fight" for what could be said about airbags – especially on the German site https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag! It seems there are a lot of sock puppets around - who manipulate the site. They also seem to “care” about the englisch page!

E.g. all my efforts to say something about toxic substances coming from an airbag after deploying were quickly deleated on the German page by other Wikipedia-"contributors".

Obviously the reason is: in Germany there is an equivalent to the SAE24-4. It’s the AKZV01 (Arbeitskreis Zielvereinbarungen 01; Pyrotechnische Rückhaltesysteme im Fahrzeug, Workinggroup for target agreements 01; pyrotechnical restraint systems for cars). But this one is kept top secret by the German manufactures! (Therefore there is no official document to find on the Internet... Nevertheless I posses documents/measurements, that these gases will be released by airbags – please ask for them if wanted.)

Apparently these sock puppets also manipulate the English page: E.g. one (German!) member deleatet an (older) hint on the english site telling that a britisch person died because of inhaling airbag gases and dust just after I mentioned it on the German page too with a reference to the English site: (The link was http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/9730969.Driver_dies_after_breathing_in_airbag_gases/ This story seems to be true. I contacted the editor of the story, the Coroner Terence Carney and the forensic pathologist, Dr Stuart Hamilton).

It seems there is an investigation on the English airbag site because of sock puppetry. I would be glad, if this investigation could be extended to the German site as well!

Hope Wikipedia gets rid of these sock puppets soon!

Best Gerhard Samulat (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)