Talk:Custom car

Untitled

Famous professional customizers include George Barris, Pete Chapouris (who collaborated on "The California Kid", a '34 5-window Ford coupe, in film of same name), Troy Trepanier, Boyd Coddington; several Hot Wheels products are based on famous customs; Barris built the '60s TV Batmobile and Green Hornet's Black Beauty. Don't see any of them mentioned.... Trekphiler 04:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:BB Graham 04:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, but WP:RS.... Trekphiler 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

NEW IMAGES IN TRULY "COMPATIBLE" 3D

The images I've posted are shot in a new 3D standard technique called "Anachrome" this allows people to view it either in 2D or 3D. The 3D is clean & very impressive, if you see it with RED-CYAN glasses. Many tens of millions of RED-CYAN glasses are sold each year recently. If you're a skeptical editor, I have enough of them around to mail some free samples to serious Wikipedians for evaluation. Contact me for an e-mail addess3dnatureguy 05:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a KITT?

I deleted this:

"A consequence is these new "scratch built" vehicles cannot be licensed for street use, as they do not meet the myriad of regulations applying to new cars, and are not exempt as they were if rebuilt from original components fabricated before new rules came into effect."

These cars can be licenced under the same rules applying to kitcars, which is more/less what they are. Trekphiler 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing a page

I had added some factual information to the custom car article and it was removed. I would like to know why this happened? How can I re-enter my additions? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyinlow39 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't find you in the edit history, Fly. What'd you put in? I notice a couple of questionable XT links, maybe considered spam linking, which would get taken out. Trekphiler (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Flyinlow is referring to edits made in February. These edits were the addition of links to a myspace page and adding a couple of names to section on customizers without real sources to verify there importance. The edits where reverted almost immediately and shouldn't be readded. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspected something like that. Trekphiler (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC).

Dispute between Zerocannon and Trekphiler

Please discuss the contested changes, I will mediate if necessary. Any uncivil comment posted here will be reverted and the account responsible may be blocked. I see that Trekphiler has already solicited help from WikiProject Automobiles, WP:3O is another option for bringing this dispute to the attention of neutral editors. Hopefully we can get some perspective and come up with a reasonable compromise that addresses Zerocannon's concerns over original research without losing any valuable content. Although this should be obvious, I'd like to affirm that my protection was not an endorsement of either version. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself alone, I don't see taking out the pix is valid, not when the subject is "custom car"; not when the reason is "enough on paint" & "redundant"; & not when it's begun with a suggestion to suicide. As it stands, good examples of custom painting treatments & examples of what would be "classic" custom techniques, including flame jobs, lead sleds, chrome aircleaner hats, hood louveres, & chopped coupes, are entirely absent, in favor of a handful of bland pictures.

As for the glossary, none of the terms are uncommon among rodders & customizers, & glossaries of common terms aren't unknown, even without specific cites; I don't have sources handy. Also, I do wonder what's "reliable", for terms that have never had an etymology attached, unless a magazine source cite of actual use is enough. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself alone, i don't see having forty-something photos is valid, not when the subject is "custom car"; especially not when as its name implies would be "custom" and logically inferred to be "of one's liking". We get it, different paint on different cars. So really now, it's your word against my word and frankly, Wikipedia is not your car aficionado magazine photo-collection. In my opinion having eight photos showing different kinds of modifications is far more than enough, if you want to scrutinize photos of cars, go to google image/car show/book store where it's meant for.

Handful of bland pictures? Oh so you and i now both have a point of agreement.

As for glossary, WP:NEO.

I don't have sources handy Then it's inadmissible. QED Zerocannon (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

While my intervention prohibits me from advocating for either side, I think it's safe to offer some suggestions. Wiktionary accepts jargon provided there is any written evidence of usage among a specialized group (see wikt:Wiktionary:Neologisms). Terms thrown around in custom car circles could be transferred over to Wiktionary under a "custom car lingo" category and linked to from this article, accompanying a summary that explains the background of their usage. Doing so would alleviate concerns over maintaining an uncited list. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of the glossary, l'd add it's not usual even in the magazines for the terms to ever be explicitly defined; they're in such wide usage, it's usually presumed the readership knows what they mean, which demands either omission, which isn't helpful here, or OR, which is frowned on... So which is the better, in such cases? (BTW, it's precisely because they're rarely defined I put them in; sourcing a definition could take rather a long time, absent OR...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:03 & 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The terms don't have to be explicitly defined by the source texts, you just have to demonstrate documented usage in a context that is consistent with your definition of the term. Specialized jargon is usually discouraged from Wikipedia articles, but a brief glossary at Wiktionary would certainly be a valuable resource (and not just for this article). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not your car aficionado magazine photo-collection." I would have thought the idea was to present fair coverage of the kinds of customs & techniques. That would seem to suggest at least representative examples. If I had free use images of the Chapouris '34 or the Hirohata Merc, i'd happily subsitute them. (Judging by the removal of the 2 coupes, the '56 Lancer, & the Buick, I'd probably see them promptly deleted as "redundant".) And since many (if not most) of the changes are visual, by definition, pictures are an obvious necessity. Should an article on Renaissance art not at least show typical examples? The pictures left are neither a comprehensive nor representative sample.

Take me down now!

Just what is wrong with a broader sampling? Or is it my sampling you object to? Or my addition of my own pictures? (Yes, I took most of them, because the previous examples were 3D or lesser quality, & untypical. The later ones were a broader look.) Was it omission of muscle cars? Fords? Chryslers? VWs? (I'd love to include a full-custom Beetle, but I'll just bet it would get taken down, too...)

"'Handful of bland pictures? Oh so you and i now both have a point of agreement." Yes, you decided to delete everything that didn't meet your absurd standards of what's acceptable, not to mention descriptive content (aside the glossary).

Unsubstantiated accusations of 'ownership' of the article, or the photos (it's not extremely clear to me which he thinks I do or don't claim) aren't supportable, unless a revert to preserve useful content is a claim on ownership. (If it is, I'd put on a careful watch, 'cause this is going to cause real trouble if it becomes usual practise.)

NEO? None of the terms mentioned is"'recent"; the newest, I think, is "hemi", & that dates to around 1965, scarcely "new". It is jargon (or patois), use in a limited community, & not in the dictionary; neither are CAM ship, overwatch, or kneeknocker, all of which are on WP, or in WP glossaries. Don't overwatch & Hummer qualify as NEO, then?

"your word against my word " And your word, again, still, has been derisive of what you don't like, not least a disbelief reliable sources for the glossary even exists. I didn't start from insults. Maybe you ought to desist. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I might also add it's not usual even in the magazines for the terms to ever be explicitly defined; they're in such wide usage, it's usually presumed the readership knows what they mean, which demands either omission, which isn't helpful here, or OR, which is frowned on... So which is the better, in such cases? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're making no sense. This is the second time you're addressing the things i've mentioned wrongly and misinterpreting it deliberately (or you're not, which then, well, god have mercy)

We're at the point where, you're simply not taking in any points i've raised and dispel unfavorable ones as "invalid", and this'll attrite till it's pearly gates and trumpet sounds. i'm disinclined to concede as well, and seeing how much spin is added, a third opinion doesn't seem very useful. Zerocannon (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any answers, just more insults. What, exactly, are your complaints with the deleted photos? Why shouldn't they be included? Which ones are most objectionable, & why? Absent some idea, some reason, you're right, I'm not going to concede they should be removed. You're claim of "redundant" isn't sufficient to persuade me, & your resort to claims of "deliberately misinterpreting" is even less so.

As to deliberate, or not, I invite anyone to read what you said & judge for themselves. If you'd care to point out exactly where, & how, you believe your deletes were "misinterpreted"? Since you seem so convinced I'm incapable of following your "brilliant" & ineluctable reasoning...

"ownership"? What part of that did I "misrepresent"?

"Besides, you don't even seem to own them photos" So which is it, the text, or the pix? What part of that did I "misrepresent"?

"Where exactly do you find scholastic credible sources on cars..? Lol" What part of that did I "misrepresent"?

"Oh i have no reasons? Okay do i still have to explain?" What part of that did I "misrepresent"?

"In the form of removing misinformation."? Misinformation? Or something you refuse to admit ignorance about? Oh, wait, there are no "credible sources". My bad. What part of that did I "misrepresent"?

TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 11:46 & 14:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Assuming I'm looking at the right dispute (diff), I'd say go with the Zerocannon version. I don't see a single source or reference in the added material, and it's the type of material that would need a source of information. It is not verifiable, and appears to be original research. As for the pictures, there are just way too many in the Trekphiler version. The gallery is insanely long, and the right-side photos are demonstrating statements that are also not cited. I'll also recommend that Trekphiler not label edits as vandalism that clearly aren't and calling people "idiot"- calmness really makes disputes easier to solve. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 10:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll label anybody an idiot who starts from suggesting suicide for adding material. Not verifiable? Original research? Not quite, just not cited yet; just because they're unfamiliar to you doesn't make them unknown. And I still don't see reasons for blind deletes of representative sample photos, which is more of the same claims of "redundant"; which ones are so useless? (Seeing Zerocannon prefers insults to answers, as his remarks above indicate.) Uncited statements in captions? I repeat, not yet. And which ones are you particularly concerned with? And if you intend to remove everything not explicitly cited, you end up with this. Is that what you want? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:50 19:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not cited yet == not cited. WP:V has a quote from Wikipedia founder Jim Wales about this: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. (emphasis mine) For specific captions needing cited, I'll go down the right side images: Pic #3, "Exposed engine is virtually mandatory, as are flat windshield, headers, and open pipes. Soft top (shown) is optional." Pic #5, "Note the non-stock one-piece windshield." Pic #7, "'Big Daddy' Roth 'bloodshot eyeball' shifter knob, a '60s craze." Pic #8, "'28 A roadster with Kelsey-Hayes wire wheels." All of these statements need to have references. As for the gallery, "with a lot of work to do..." is not remotely encyclopedic in image captions. Also, as I'd said, there is absolutely no purpose of having 40+ photos in an encyclopedia article. They don't contribute at all to the understanding of what a custom car is; that's in the text of the article. As for your cut-down version, yes, that would be preferable. The "Language" section is blatant OR, and all of that information in the history section has to be verifiable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"your cut-down version, yes, that would be preferable." Excellent. I'll delete everything without an explicit cite in future & refer them to you to defend.

"as I'd said, there is absolutely no purpose of having 40+ photos " So you don't consider illustrations of "flame job" or "lead sled" worth including? Or the distinction between "flame job" & "ghost flames"? Oh, wait, you think deleting it entirely is more appropriate. My mistake.

In light of that, I see little point in defending the captions (when was the one-piece windshield stock in a '40 Chevy? And the builder's display listed it as a '28 with K-H rims; what do you want?)

Why don't you open the page again, delete, I'll nom for deletion, & we'll see who agrees with your version as better. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at the current version of the page, and an earlier one by trekphiler. I have to say there would be no question in my mind but that the version with more images is better. The current article patently does not have enough images through the text. Contrary to an argument made above, it seems obvious to me that any article about 'custom...something' would need a lot of examples to encapsulate the idea. Aside from that, I think the argument about which exact image is typical is a bit absurd. Self-evidently every image is its own source demonstrating that such a custom car does exist. Is anyone suggesting the pictures are forgeries? They are simply examples, which self evidently are valid examples: if someone feels they are unrepresentative examples and therefore the article is biased, then perhaps they can add some others (ie produce some sources demonstrating something different to the current sources) showing a different aspect of custom cars.

I am not entirely sure what is being argued against with the insistence on referencing. I read the debate above, but which statements, exactly, are being claimed to be false or contentious and thus to need referencing?

As to the over-used quote by Wales: Wales does not write wikipedia. As I recollect, the quote is a misquote, since he was specifically talking about biography. However, and as I just said, what exactly is someone asserting to be random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information? wiki editors, indeed all editors, proceed on the basis of common sense as regards what is sensible every day fact and what is speculation. wiki does not require verification of simple facts, such as the meaning of technical terms or widely accepted concepts. Sandpiper (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Final revision

Since it's now evident my defense of the included pictures is in vain, I'll desist. Since it's further evident, in the face of the preference for deletion & the expressed disbelief in their very existence, any sources I may add will be challenged for lack of reliability or accessibility, adding them is also in vain. It's also evident adding them myself will only lead to more claims of ownership. That being true, it's clear any effort on my part to make any improvements of any kind is futile, and a complete waste of time. So. be. it. Delete the page. Those of us who care about custom cars can go elsewhere. Those who are ignorant...can also go elsewhere, since they will find little elucidation here. Chalk up the victory to the Philistines. 20:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a moment here, delete the page? So those of "us", meaning YOU -- feeling protective and butthurt about the page not being the way you want it to be despite having one reference and rest conjecture, would rather demand it being deleted than being encyclopedic? Does "you" speak for the rest of the "who cares about custom cars"? Or will the page be deleted all because you said so?

And you're still denying wp:ownership?

Defense?in vain? Wow, you're on fire with those misnomers. Victory to the philistines? Rofl, whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep. Zerocannon (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should the article have more images in the text?

Should the article contain images of examples of customised cars in the body of the text? Examples of different page approaches such as [1] with images and [2] without. There is also a question whether the specific images chosen are representative, whether they fairly represent the subject, and if not whether this merits their deletion from the article.

• With images Why would you not want images? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• The usual solution for material not being representative is to add material to balance it; the usual solutions for material that is uncited is to find citations. Some subjects are best handled by an article that may predominantly illustrations rather than words. if specific points are being discussed to which illustrations are relevant, they if possible should go with the points. encyclopedias which separate the pictures are examples of obsolete technology. DGG (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that images should be relevant and well linked to the text but would add that, in some cases, illustrations cannot depict an entire concept and therefore can only be examples. This is not a reason not to have images, but they should balanced and representative. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• With representative images; but I'm a bit confused by the linked version with images. The leader for the article makes an impression that the term "custom car" could be applied to any make/model without restriction, including current models (for example, a custom (=tuned) 2007 Ford Focus. But all illustrations, and the body of the article, refer to 1930-1960s cars. What's the correct version? MaxVT (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• With images, I much prefer. It gives a clearer idea of what a custom car is. By the way, if there were an article on "color" that had images of different colors on them, would one seriously consider removing them as a way of improving the article? I could see if they were all shades of green, that would be a problem, and the solution would be to add the primary colors and pigments. The same applies here. If they're all the same make/model/color, then that's a problem. Images of a variety of make, models, colors, and customizations of custom cars would clear make the article more informative. One should also be careful to get a variety of different styles/genres of customization. I'd be a shame, for example, if this article was turned into a photo album of ghetto-orange lincolns. Or a gallery of the oh-so-original flame paint-jobs. Kevin Baas^talk 18:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• With images. I would support having fewer images in the gallery (perhaps a link to an appropriate category at Commons instead?), but there should be at least one image at the top of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• With images. Strong support. No argument to fewer images (such as this?), but keep representative or distinctive samples as illustration. Having few, or none, especially to illustrate a flame job or striping, is pure obstinacy, IMO, which is why I opposed removal to begin with. The text & pix are heavily weighted in part because that's the way the hobby runs. Newer cars tend not to be listed as customs but as "tuners", & the two groups are pretty exclusive (or segregated, if you like). Also, newer cars tend to be too expensive to do radical chops on. (One might argue the body lines are cleaner than the '50s/'60s cars & lend themselves less to it, too.) You're also getting into the age-old (more/less) debate over "rods or customs?". The 3-window could just as EZly be on the hot rod page (& is). There's also the issue of the cutoff year (pre/post-'49), which tends to segregate rods/customs. Neither have I seen (free use) pix of really top-grade newer/modern customs anywhere (tho I did shoot a del Sol tuner with basically stock exterior). Much the same applies to the VW guys; there are some gorgeous Type 1s & KGs out there (IIRC, Boyd did one of the first really wild ones), but they're rarely seen at non-VW events. I also did take out a basically stock '57 Buick, '55 Chevy, & '56 Dodge, tho they had certain custom tricks (Carson top & flipper caps) 'cause they were so mild, which does (somewhat) unbalance the article toward the wild. (The Merc with deSoto grille, minus the nice pinstriping, is more typical than the 3-window.) And that doesn't even begin to mention Britain, Sweden, & elsewhere.... IMO, this is a fair (if nothing like exhaustive) sample of typical, if high-quality, customs. (Far & away most aren't this nice, & these aren't trailer queens.) BTW, a quick look at Commons reminds me, there's almost nothing here for custom interiors, which could be a whole 'nother subject... IMO, there might be room for daughter pages on specialized subjects. (A whole page could conceivably be done on '50s Mercs, since almost everybody has their own ideas, & another on interiors, & another on flame jobs...) As you've probably gathered, it ain't nuthin' like simple. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• Previously uninvolved RFC comment: it's hard for me to understand why we would not include images. Picking particular specimens is something we do on every article, from Dog to Nebula. If no one objects, I will close this RFC tomorrow. Cool Hand Luke 17:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Art?

For anyone wondering, I would call customizing a visual art form, even if it's not generally so considered. And this is a "history of the automobile" & "history of customizing" (or "customizing art"?) subject, too... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Resto

In hope of doing a resto on the deleted Hirohata Merc page, can anybody say, & source, if the '53 or '54 Merc windshield would've fit the '51? What was the grille bar from? Any info on the Merc would be appreciated. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:53 & 07:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Customs vs. Hotrods

My apologies if I am stirring up a previously debated and settled subject, but this statement "Customs are distinct from hot rods; exactly where the difference lies has been the subject of debate among customizers and rodders for decades." seems contradictory with the photos in this article as well as the references to "Customizers". Maybe I am misinterpretting the use of the word "customs", but in my opinion these terms are not mutually exclusive hence they can't be distinct.

For example, probably few familiar with the Hirohata Merc would question its status as a "custom" (i.e. lead sled, etc.), but in my opinion the Merc in the Stalone movie "Cobra" is a custom as well as a hotrod. Is this just one example, yes, but I am sure that many others can be found. Isn't by virtue of the statement above, its just a matter of personal opinion or perspective as to whether a car is a "custom", a "hotrod", or both? Scalhotrod (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it's a matter of attitude. Customs tend not to be built as much for speed as show (even if capable of it). Is The California Kid a custom? Maybe. Hot rod? Definitely. I confess, I don't recall the "Cobra" Merc well, but my impression was, it was more stock. There really isn't a "bright line" between the two, which is why there's been debate for so long. Looking at the page, the Merc is obviously a custom, the T bucket & the '31 A arguably hot rods, the Henry J maybe both (could be a street legal gasser repop). And there's the cutoff year, too; customs IMO tend to be earlier. (That's changing as they get older, inching into '50s cars lately.) Hope that's muddied the waters a little. :p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Trek, I completely agree that its a matter of attitude. As such, attitudes and opinions vary. A couple of points that I'd like to address. Here is link to a pic of the Cobra Merc. I admit that its not as radical as some 49/50 Merc customs, but its definitely not stock. In the movie it was equipped with a high-power engine and nitrous, two rather "hotrod" characteristics. But in all fairness, I would have to call it a "crossover".

To address your point about "There really isn't a "bright line" between the two...". I agree with this as well, but I would like to offer some guidelines for possibly categorizing cars or making some distinctions. My first example is the original cutoff year for membership in the National Street Rod Assoc. which became a defacto standard of sorts since 1970. This cutoff was 1949, anything made before '49 qualified for membership. Going by this alone just disqualified my example about '50 Mercs, but there's more. As a side note, the NSRA is switching to a sliding year cutoff starting next year, anything 30 years or older will qualify someone for membership. So in 2011, a 1981 (or earlier) "Whatever" is considered a "rod".

Another example is the categorization of cars at the Grand National Roadster Show (a.k.a Oakland Roadster Show) for judging. This show has been in existence since 1949 and later adopted the regulations of the International Show Car Association in the 60's. The majority of the cars at the Roadster show are anything but roadsters and the volume necessitates specific categories with fairly straightforward guidelines for inclusion. Many of these guidelines, especially for pre-'49 cars, are based on Ford body styling. From the mid 20's to the late 40's, Ford was arguably the styling leader of the production auto world. I would venture to say that this was a matter of styling AND volume at least early on. There were quite simply more Ford's on the road earlier on than any other brand. This became the case less and less over the years as the other brands increased production, but Fords had been indelibly imprinted in the minds of most Americans of those eras.

Back to my point, according to the ISCA rule book starting on page 22, cars have descriptions that put them in one of the "custom" or "rod" main and subcategories that bridge the same time frames. 1932 is considered a pivotal year because of Ford's introduction of the first production V8 engine (the flathead) and it was the starting year for their yearly change in body styling. Other manufacturers had already adopted this practice prior to '32. Then '32 to '38 are considered arguably by many (clearly by some) as the "rod years". Then '39-'48 are considered by many (show car categories and the general car community) as the "fat fender" years. In our main article, its cited that Bill Burham considers 1935-1949 as the "fat fender" years, but his opinion is not as prevalent in the car owner and manufacturing communities as the '39-'49 time frame. I should probably challenge that definition once I find other sources. The ISCA categories continue in similar fashion up to today's cars and trucks branching off into less broad categories for late model cars.

The reasons for the time frames above are many, but for the most part its based on overall styling and how the original fenders are designed. Up to '38, Fords and others had distinctly separate fenders from the grill shell that hearken back to the days of the horseless carriage. Many '32 to '38 cars can have their fenders removed without the car looking awkward. This is subject to opinion of course. Then '39 started the decades long transition to contemporary styling, the fenders started to become more integrated into the main body and were less distinct or separable. 1949 was another pivotal year for cars with the fenders now becoming fully integrated into the body style so that they were approaching being indistinguishable from the main body in the eyes of the average person. This was the practice for most of the manufactures through the 50's until the radical styling jump made by Ford, Dodge, and Chevy over the 1957 and 1958 model years respectively, Ford and Dodge making the jump first.

By the way, I should mention that trucks and commercial vehicles tended to lag behind a year or two or just not pace with passenger cars at all. An example is the Chevy/GMC SUVs of the 70's - 90's.

During the late 50's the fender comparison and guideline falls away and then it become a matter of rear "fins". The fins on most cars influenced their character. Then inexplicably over the '61/'62 model year fins were removed from the major brands.

Suffice to say, according to the largest show car association on the planet, cars that are considered "customs" or "hotrods" can come from many eras from the 30's forward.

Does this put the debate to rest, not really because attitudes and opinions vary. In my own opinion, what determines what any modified car is or isn't, is the initial intention of the owner or builder. How to categorize it from there just depends on circumstances; assoc membership, car show, etc.

Dissertation over, for now... :) What are your thoughts? Chris Scalhotrod (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see... For a start, I'd agree this (your link came back wrong :( ) is clearly a rod. The Moon discs are a dead giveaway IMO, the scoop too. (I'll leave aside the esthetic mistake it is...) Also the bland paint. This is a guy who doesn't care about style as much as speed. No custom guy would let this see the light of day as a finished project; there'd still be primer, instead. ;p

I also agree Ford tended to lead with styling, at least til the '55 Chevy. After that, I'm less sure. (This has something to do with the term "non-Ford" gaining currency too, tho that may be more because there were just more Fords built & so survive for use now.)

I broadly agree with your characterization of the "classes" by year. (I was a bit surprised by Burham calling '35-39s "fat fenders", myself. I've always called them, & seen them called, "pontoon fenders", distinct from the fat-fenders. I also tend to cut off at '48, 'cause I forget the non-Fords of '49. BTW, it was actually Nash that did the first slabsided car, in '47 IIRC, tho the '49 Ford gets the credit...) What I had in mind, tho, as s simpler year issue: pre-'49 v post-'49, with post-'49s tending to be rods, not customs. Within the pre-'49, you're right. I won't say you can't find post-'49 customs by any means, nor pre-'49 rods. (The Deuces & T-buckets come immediately to mind.) AFAI can tell, the only prima facie clear distinction is the absence of obvious "go-fast" intent in a custom: no blowers thru the hood, no scoops, no Moon discs (& TBH, I wouldn't rule out Moons on a real smoothie sled, either), & as the cars get newer, no steamroller rear rubber.

I don't think what AMBR or ISCA judges do really governs, tho it does inform. IMO it's what enthusiasts agree on that counts, 'cause most aren't building to the rules, but to the trends & their own desires (which might be against the trends, or retro, or whatever). As noted, I think a clear line is going to be impossible to set. Take a look at this. I'd happily put most of those cars on this page, & many of the ones here, there. And IMO that's how it's always going to be. The builders are going to segregate themselves by intent, but the audience will happily look at both: I happily read Hot Rod & Rod & Custom, & I'm pretty sure there are lots of others like me. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:26 & 11:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Trek, So it seems that we are on the same page or at least in the same chapter. I agree that the AMBR and ISCA rules don't govern the rod community, but its good to understand how they make distinctions.

By the way, I am heading to the Goodguys West Coast Nationals this weekend with my '32 Ford roadster. I'd give a dirty look to anyone that calls it a custom, although I am less offended lately when its referred to as a Kit car. Its a Brizio built car with an entry level NASCAR engine with the only original Ford parts on it being a pair of cowl lights mounted on the frame rails that I use as turn signals. I may run this question by some of the luminaries that usually show up; Blackie Gejeian, the Brizio's, Steve Moal, and maybe even Chip Foose or Troy Trepanier. Regards, Chris Scalhotrod (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Give 'em a wave for me. :D And if you can get anybody with good sourcing to have a look at the custom car pages here, please, please do it!! It hurts me we haven't got a page on Ala Kart, or pix of the Hirohata Merc. And the coverage generally is so bad... I can't keep up. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Trek, No problem, I'm friends with Roy Brizio and on speaking terms with George Barris. George doesn't always recognize me right away, but when I start talking about his late wife Sherry, he remembers. I actually knew her better than George, nice lady. Also, since I've been recommending contacting Dave Freiburger, I'm thinking about reaching out to him to see how much input I can get. He's written some pretty amazing articles over the years. In addition to particular cars like Ala Cart, I am of the opinion that we should have every builder that is an AMBR winner on Wikipedia. That's a pretty notable achievement within the customizing community. Chris Scalhotrod (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Trek, How much of our conversation do you think is worthy of integration into the main article? We're not challenging or arguing with widely accepted notions. Maybe the History section? Scalhotrod (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

TBH, none. It's all unsourced &/or POV. It's based on experience, & not untrue, but....

Should the AMBR winners have pages? For damn sure, builders & cars. (I'm unclear if owners alone meet the notability criteria, but if Pokemon characters & "Seinfeld" episodes are here, I'm all for finding a way to get the owners on, too. ;p) And IMO every "named" custom, from Ala Kart & the Hirohata Merc right up to the Boydster (the last one I can think of...) should have a page, too.

BTW, considering the above discussion on inclusion of pictures, I can't tell you what a pleasure it is to encounter another buff. I was beginning to feel lost among the barbarians. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:22 & 20:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I can find citable references to the majority of my claims/statements. It all comes from HOTROD, Carcraft, Street Rodder, and Street Scene magazine and it would take me a bit, but its still citable. Waddaya think? Scalhotrod (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

On another note, I was taking be bold fairly literally in the Language section... Scalhotrod (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If you've got 'em handy, go for it. ;p (I'd have to dig mine out of storage... :( :( ). And I took the liberty of moving some, 'cause I've tried to segregate by intent: this page for the "show", this for the "go". I should also explain. I took out the intro date of the flatty as irrelevant as the page stands. When there's more info on it being adopted by rodders & customizers, & on when it's supplanted by the hemi & SBC, do put it back in. (Don't forget, the same info works as well on the rodding page, too!) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:43 & 23:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, fair enough and good advice on the rodding page. So "no go" on the additional highboy ref. or the "3/8's" one. The latter is really old school... :) I take it that rest seemed reasonable at least. Scalhotrod (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, anything you can source, go have a look there, too. There's so much crossover, you can probably just paste it. FYI, I also took out the broad refs to auto industry terms. What I wanted here was a "jargon glossary", expecting common terms like hardtop wouldn't need explaining. And I've come across the 3/8s by 3/8s. As I understand it, you'd never be able to do that any more, 'cause you'd never find a cherry block... Unless you don't mind having rods sticking out the fenders all the time. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

History Expansion

Since Trek and I have been having our conversation, I'm wondering who else things that it might be useful and informative to expand the history section with more information about the development of the custom/hotrod car movement. There is clearly a delineation of pre- and post-WWII trends and efforts. This was written about extensively by, as I recall, either Dave Freiburger or Gray Baskerville back in the late 80's. It was a multi-part article that covered roughly 100 years of hotrod & custom history until the time of the article.

It talked about the beginnings and development of a variety of subjects from racing (drag, dry lakes, etc.) to customizing trends to the aftermarket parts industry and cultural aspects. I'm sure its not the only source of information, its just the one that comes to mind the quickest for me.

Thoughts? Opinions?

SEMA

SEMA, the Specialty Equipment Market Association, has had a tremendous impact on the development and expansion of the aftermarket parts industry in addition to being one of the most pro-auto, auto performance, and auto modification lobbying groups in Washington, D.C. It has its own article, but I would suggest that it is worthy of a mention (at least a sentence or paragraph) in the main article.

Customs vs. Hotrods, Part II

Hey Trek (and any spectators), SO...! Rather unexpectedly I walked into a conversation about this very subject today (August 28, 2010) at the West Coast Nationals. It happened while I was at the Brizio booth where Roy and his dad, Andy, were within earshot. Anyway, two gentlemen were discussing this topic and this is what I gleaned (eavesdropped)... So in one gentlemen's opinion, ANY modified car from ANY era is a custom car simply by virtue of the fact that it has been changed based upon someone's (owner, builder, etc.) personal tastes. That said there are categories of custom cars from specific eras that are referred to in particular ways and from the popular jargon in use, it is not always contextually clear as to which eras is being referred to. For example, a popular style of custom car in the mid 50's to 60's were "customs", "kustoms", or even "kemps". These cars represent the genesis of this styling trend. Overlapping this era were cars customized from the late 40's to early 50's that are clearly hotrods, BUT hotrods from this era are referred to in a particular way. During the 40's and 50's they were just known as (contemporary) hotrods, but today a car customized in that era is considered an original rod where as a newly built one is considered a resto rod. Were there "hotrods" in the mid 50's, of course, we call some of them "Street Machines" today, then in the 60's the specific category of hotrods were known as "muscle cars". Generally speaking, with the articles we are trying to explain and distinguish overall trends and their evolution and derivations.

Make sense, any glimmers of hope? Or still clear as mud?

My thinking is that if we accept the overall premise (any modified car is "custom"), the Custom car article can get reworked slightly, a Kustom article can be created basically with info split off from this main article, and the Hotrod article can be adjusted accordingly to accommodate the eras and types of "rods". This way the ISCA rules, NSRA/Goodgoys guidelines, and our collective understanding of the subject all essentially work together. It's not perfect, but its a workable structure. Chris Scalhotrod (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There's truth in that IMO. It does run contrary to what I'd take as common wisdom, at least as far as customs are concerned. (As far as "street machine", I'd say that encompasses more than '50s cars.) I'd take a slightly different approach: put that broad definition under Vehicle customization (or something) as an umbrella page & link out this page, Kemp, Lead sled, Kustom, & whatever else arises. It might also serve as a place to list the customizers by nickname (I'm not sure there's enough to support a full page). Is that light at the end of the tunnel just an oncoming train? ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a thought, think its worthwhile to do a genealogy style chart/tree of the evolution of "custom cars"? Could help to provide a framework for pages, eras, and main categories. Sorry about the "Street Machine" reference, that was a bad choice, but you seem to get my overall point.
Speaking of nicknames, I found this a while back... Motorsport nicknames. It used to have its own page, I'm not sure why it was moved to a User page. Scalhotrod (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're thinking something like a list or table of customizing milestones, I do like the idea. I am concerned about claims of "firsts"; IMO, too often the hot rod/custom mags claim it far too readily, so I'd want a minimum 3 sources agreeing on it. There's also IMO a question of what belongs: the birthdate of George Barris? (I'd say not, offhand, only because it doesn't feel right. I could be persuaded.) Or the year of Ala Kart or the Hirohata Merc? (I'll wager a "first appearance" to the day for customs could be mighty hard to find, unless we accept a "first showing" date, like a first AMBR, which might leave out many that were never formally shown. Not to mention that could differ very substantially from date of completion...)

That said, a listing of, frex, the flatty, the SBC, Ala Kart, the Hirohata Merc, Polynesian, The Red Baron, The California Kid, the first Boyd & Troy & Rick Dobbertin creations, & all the AMBR & Riddler winners, first flame job (if possible; I've seen them dated as early as 1935, but very different from what would be considered same now), first pinstriping, & first candy paint (& first use, which could differ) would seem to be a minimum, to show the evo of the art.

I'd debate inclusion of the Batmobile, & tend to oppose, & oppose factory showcars, unless they influenced a particular project directly. The factory trend to dual canted headlights, OTOH, might need a passing mention, since it attracted a lot of imitation in late '50s & early '60s customs I've seen.

Also, there's an issue of "movie cars". The California Kid is the obvious example, & deserves mention; The Car, no, IMO. TV Tommy's T-bucket (or am I thinking of somebody else? "Dobie Gillis"?), absolutely. The "Graffiti" Deuce, too. And there've been customs featured in TV & film for years. I'd love to see a listing of every film & TV show Ala Kart showed up in, myself. (I can imagine the work it would take, tho. :eek:) And there was a fine custom Merc in "A Private Investigation" (starred Belinda Montgomery, IIRC), if it could be traced...

This got branched off this as a WIP. And this is something I'd hope we can populate with customizers, rodders, & others who aren't "motorsport". Everybody from Zora to Larry Shinoda to John Z. (if they aren't there already...). A new name would be good, tho. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I agree with your approach and the list/table idea for milestones. Granted there will be argument (if others join in) about which milestones to list, but its a good framework. So what pops into my mind first is this style of presentation... Geological era-period-epochs We don't have to be limited by this setup, we could have 5 or 6 levels instead of 3. It allows for overlapping periods within other major eras and such. So if you can picture this applied to our topic, the distinctly different "rod eras" can overlap with our "fender & taillight eras" along the emergence of different "racing eras" and such. Once we set that up, we can specify points in time (I think just a year is fine) for certain milestones. For example, 1932's introduction of the Flathead, the year of the founding of the SCTA, NHRA, NASCAR(only because it has hotrod roots), NSRA, ISCA, etc., Hotrod magazines first issue, or whatever can be deemed a notable event within the context/confines of the notion that any modified vehicle is a "custom car". IMO, what is notable or significant will probably reveal itself fairly easily as we search for citations. By the way, I mention racing because its where the hobby got started. Whether you're talking about Carl Benz's horseless carriages and whoever the first two people were to "race" or any following event. Scalhotrod (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, I lean to a simple list of points. And my inclination is to break out two lists, one here, one here. (I presume you don't disagree.) As noted, I'd limit as far as possible "off-topic" entries, so this page's list would omit NASCAR & NHRA, for instance. (I confess ignorance on the early history of customizing, so I'm unclear if SCTA belongs.) I would include REO or D. D. Buick (1st customizer?); they offered specialty engines IIRC... On the hot rodding list, yep, everything from Benz's quad to Maybach (first tuner) to Henry (arguably first hot rodder) to REO or Buick. Otherwise, I think we're in complete agreement. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So why the separate lists, one here, one here, when a single list (linked appropriately) would accomplish this and indirectly demonstrate the evolution and connections between the general concepts of "go" and "show"? I really need to find that 1985/1986 article in Hot Rod that Gray Baskerville wrote about the history of racing and hotroding. It literally went as far back as the Roman chariot races and was split up over about eight issues. It was a monumental piece. Scalhotrod (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why the separate lists? I guess I'm still not entirely used to links out. If you mean a separate page for the shared history, no objection here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so is there a time based list template? Scalhotrod (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. I was thinking of the motorsports people format, myself. Also (& I knew there was another reason...), IMO separate lists avoid confusion over which trends or dates are custom-related & which rod-related. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:50 & 22:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Templates, any help here...? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Templates Scalhotrod (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Found this one too... Template:Automobile_history_eras Scalhotrod (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not a fan of them, either. I find them hard to decipher. That said, it's not up to me alone...so if you're strongly in favor of either navbox style, or if you know a lot of people like it, do use it. I'd rather the info be there in a form I dislike than not have it there at all. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:18 & 20:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, "I may not be able to describe what the correct way is to represent the timeline, but I'll know it when I see it..." ;P So are you thinking of a vertical scale that can be edited in perpetuity? Not that I'm trying to push the "single list" idea, but what do you think of parallel timelines? One for "hotrods" one for "customs", then the co-significant (geez, did I just make up a word?) events be displayed in their context to each area of car customizing. Just something off the top of my head, I'm still good with separate lists/timelines. Chris Scalhotrod (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A double-column list? That could work. I don't know if there'd be real need for all the events on both, tho; that's why I lean to separate lists on each page. A master list on a separate page, like Timeline of hot rodding and customizing, would do nicely, which as I undestand is what you mean. Now, I've seen color backgrounding, but IDK if it's possible to code for "colorized" lines, which would be clearest & simplest to distinguish custom from rod, if you follow me. (Note, the colored font was not exactly what I meant...) This is something like what I mean. Feel free to tinker there. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:06 & 05:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! If we can figure out how to display two column format/template, each list can be unique, yet have a corresponding time scale. The same years are side by side. Then the only time they interact is when an event significant to both lists (so maybe 1932 for the Flathead, first known instance of a flame paint job, first issue of Hotrod magazine, etc.) As for the colorization (thank you Ted Turner for that word), I think we're just at the mercy of what Wiki can or can't do. Its probably worth some additional investigation to see if there's a similar list in existence on Wiki. Scalhotrod (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried using the 2-column syntax; it doesn't parse what I think we both want, presuming we accept the 2-column format. That being so, a single-column list for each page seems the simplest solution. The tables do have the line colorization I had in mind; if that can be adapted outside tables, I have no idea. (I've never seen it elsewhere.) If you want to request at the Auto Project talk page, maybe somebody can custom-write (adapt) something. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to give it shot, but I think the two article format will work for the time being. I was also thinking that the double column single article would be easier to update rather than track each one. But hey, as long as we're making progress... :) Scalhotrod (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it wouldn't make a huge difference, since most of the updates will go to one or the other anyhow, & you can just copy & paste as needed. Progress is always good. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

We must be doing something right if we've attracted the attention of a vandal. Bizarre, but at least we know people are reading the article. Scalhotrod (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish we could claim credit. ;p This is a pretty low-traffic page, so vandalism has been pretty uncommon. Unless we can get it to FA, or get a DYK maybe, I don't expect that to change. There's no anime, Pokemon, Twilight, or Seinfeld links to here... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL... Well its good to have aspirations... :) Hey, if we address the SEMA show and "contemporary customizing" that could draw some traffic. Speaking of, do you attend the show? I just received the early bird registration post card. Scalhotrod (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't, & IDK if I'd qualify. As I understand, it's for people in the biz, & I'm not. I expect news coverage will increase traffic some. Seinfeld getting run over by a lead sled would even more. (I can dream, can't I? ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:54 & 04:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

References from print sources!!!

Trek (and gang),

I was digging through my magazine archives and ran across some 'treasure'. I found an issue of Look magazine (Sept. 21, 1971) that validates my comments about the areas of auto styling about fenders and fins. I also found in the January, 2001 issue of Rod & custom magazine (EMAP-Petersen Publishing, i.e. Hot Rod, Car Craft, Motortrend...) an article titled Everything you need to know to become a Hot Rodder" that is basically an A to Z dictionary of Rodder terms. Plus there's a side article called What makes a Kustom?. So what would be the Wikipediest way to integrate all of this? Scalhotrod (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. I bought a new project, a '52 International Metro Van to fix up and get running as a swap meet truck and parts hauler. What have you been up to? Scalhotrod (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. :D Without knowing the content, it's a bit hard to judge how to put it in. First thing I'd suggest is source as many of the terms out of the glossary as you can. (Don't forget hot rod & the "see also" pages, & some may be duplicated at Glossary of motorsport terms & drag racing, so they bears a look, too.) From there, integrate as best you can. If you come across it, there's also Hirohata Merc. Make a start & let me have a look, I'll see if I can offer more advice. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Darn it! Speaking of the Hirohata Merc, I just saw the thing up close when I went to the Grand National Roadster Show in LA. I could have taken a bunch of shots to upload. Oh well... Good idea on cross checking the terms. Scalhotrod (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Be glad you are out of my reach. ;p Dang! Don't you know, any time you go to something like that, you shoot anything that might be interesting?! (I've taken to wearing my digital camera all the time, just in case. Take my advice: start. ;p) I just finished here, & it could use sources, so don't forget it, either. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the good news is that I got roy Brizio's blessing on writing a biographical article about him. Luckily there is a book that documents most of the important stuff. I'm going to go spend a few hours reviewing it for material and references. I'm sure I'll find some good "custom car" factoids in the book. Scalhotrod (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

American Icon: the Hot Rod TV series

Hey Trek, Have you watched any of this miniseries produced by the Discovery channel? It's really fascinating stuff. A lot of the living "big names" are featured in the show. I'm trying to find out if the production company did a print press release about it so that I can reference it. Then once I get the episode list, I'll write an article about the series and its significance. This is SERIOUSLY vital historical information about the origins or hot rods and customs. If at all possible, I'll even see if I can get the mini-series added into IMDb.com. I bet that Roy Brizio, Art Chrisman, and Ed Iskenderian would get a kick out of being in IMDb.com. Scalhotrod (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, but I will look!

If (when) there's an IMDB listing up, you might be able to use it to cite the series. There's been some discussion about prohbiting cites from IMDB as unreliable, tho...

Is it on DVD? Using the box info & the DVDs themselves has passed muster elsewhere, so it might do here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a member of IMDb.com with my own listing (I worked in Entertainment), so even if the production company does not submit it, I can. Luckily mini-series with a fixed number of episodes are like submitting a movie, its hard for them dispute especially when its currently running on TV. In our increasingly digital world, finding actual print references is getting harder and harder, hence being proactive and asking the PR person for the show. As for the reliability of IMDb.com, I had a challenge to using it as a reference a while back when I was editing the actor Kirk Douglas' bio article. Here's the discussion, Talk:Kirk_Douglas. The reference I found was from the WP article about IMDb.com, IMDb Sources of Data. Everyone working in the Entertainment industry (mainstream AND adult) knows that the site is the defacto master database. Why people feel compelled to challenge it is beyond me. Again, print references are getting harder and harder to find when a lot of new information is solely online. Scalhotrod (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

♠As I understand the beef, it's because IMDB members can put up reviews or comments of their own, so it gets a bit bloggy. (If it's basics like the existence of something, AFAIK, there's no problem.) In this case, & why I raise it, you'd be referring to the content, so you'd need the actual DVD.

♠I've also seen some conflict on WP over whether web sources are OK or not... It seems to depend on how well they check out against paper. (And I'm old enough, I still default to paper. ;p Tho Google Books has proved handy once or twice, & it's got stuff for my own use I can't get here. Ibiblio is good, too, tho IDK if it passes WP:RS.) The trouble I find with web sources is how sites disappear, & can't even be Waybacked. :( Until somebody saves copies of every site up ever, & figures out how to manage all that memory required... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting about IMDb and good to know about basic facts vs. content, that's a key distinction. I've been using Google Books as well. I used it several times in a BLP I wrote several months ago. I will have to check out Ibiblio. As for Wayback, I joined the site several years and submit websites for scan fairly often. Once requested, they usually get to it in less than a week. But I agree overall as to how fast/often websites just disappear. We'll have to go without until we find the print source. Think its worth setting up a subpage sort of an article specific sandbox just to store text and info until we can verify and merge it? Scalhotrod (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

custom cars

Hi all im in a bit of pickle im customizing a ford KA into a ford KA pick up i have cut the back end of the roof and got it welded to ceate the pick up look but how do i register it as a pick up do take it through a pre mot first or contact DVLA and how to i tell them the mod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rednrawmeat (talk • contribs) 08:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Custom car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080928062921/http://www.wheelsthroughtime.com/content/view/23/90/ to http://www.wheelsthroughtime.com/content/view/23/90/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707213519/http://www.barris.com/gallery_cars/Kustoms_HotRods/gallery_hirohatamerc.html to http://www.barris.com/gallery_cars/Kustoms_HotRods/gallery_hirohatamerc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ala Kart (custom car) old photo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this article supposed to be about custom cars in general or just Kustoms and Hot Rods?

This article presents itself as being about customized cars overall as a concept but nearly all of the info is incredibly detailed descriptions of classic Kustoms, later American customs, hot rods, and American cars in general. If the article is meant to be about custom cars as a whole, it needs to be rewritten almost entirely. If its specifically supposed to be about "custom" as a colloquial term to refer to the practice and style of traditional American car customization then it needs to be rewritten, renamed and labeled as such, and a separate article should be written for the term "custom car". ~~ TKOIII (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)