Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5

Contents

Intro

Under the best 'be bold' tradition of Wikipedia I'm going to try and kick-start this project. Editing automobile, hot hatch and The effect of the automobile... has attracted enough comments for me to know I'm not the only one with an interest in cars.

I'm fairly new to editing the Wikipedia, although I've floated around long enough to know a little about what is here and what isn't. I would appreciate any guidance from more senior Wikipedians on how to set up a WikiProject - as yet there seems to be no article about this.

I know there are petrolheads and vehicle connoisseurs out there - please do put your names down and we'll try to get some good stuff going.

Thanks! akaDruid 15:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Announcement?

I noticed other Wikiprojects have announced their start on the announcement page. My boldness doesn't extend as far as editing that page - I would appreciate some guidance on that e.g. is there a announcements/submissions or similar page?

Thanks! akaDruid 16:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Possible 'To Do' List

There are a huge number of potential things to do in this project. Here are some ideas I've had to get started with:

  • Design a layout for pages covering individual vehicles, and select and example page showing the layout well. We need a boiler plate text, something along the lines of 'This is part of the automobile series', plus navigational links etc. Look at the ships and aircraft projects for more on this.
  • Improve navigation between vehicle pages, manufacturers pages and header pages. Car classification needs work. List of automobile manufacturers might be a good starting point for some work.
  • Fill in some of the gaps. There are some very major missing articles, of the top of my head: Caterham, Wolseley, Talbot, De Tomaso, Isuzu. The list of important missing vehicles is huge too.
  • Give advice on naming schemes for car makers and models.

I've made a quick start on a layout, see Jaguar E-type. akaDruid 12:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here's a stub To-Do list for you guys... See Category:Automobile_stubs. It's surprising really, the number of stubs you guys have now mark up to 300+ in two months time... Just thought to drop a note. You guys seem to have a daunting task ahead. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 08:50, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I recently revised most of the Lincoln Town Car article and after pondering over how to present the Trim levels built a section as well as geaphic dedicated to representing the different trim levels. This addition combined with the alredy existing article have in my opinion made the Lincoln Town Car site qualified to serve as a example of layout unitl a blank page is created Gerdbrendel 07:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Premier Automotive Group"

I added "Premier Automotive Group" to Wikipedia. The first sentence is: "Ford Motor Company owns the Premier Automotive Group (PAG), which is presumably a self-sufficient company that combines the business operations of Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo."

I'm not sure this is accurate; if not, perhaps a WikiProject Automobiles member could re-write it. —Vespristiano 05:10, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)

I've done some work on the article. In my understanding, the PAG is a division of Ford, rather than a company in its own right. Additionally, someone had added Lincoln to the list of brands in the PAG - this is not correct. Ford does sell cars under the Lincoln brand, but does not consider them part of the PAG. akaDruid 10:57, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lincoln was actually part of the PAG at its inception. Changes in personnel and marketing strategy (and maybe some cost-cutting) later caused it to be reorganized back into the Ford/Mercury operation. Here's an article at Ward's Auto Reports that lays out the original five-brand strategy. RivGuySC 06:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I didn't know that! akaDruid 09:54, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ward's article was correct at the time. Lincoln was pulled out of PAG primarily because of "brand-fit" issues... PAG is former independent companies, euro themed, with a whole different core customer base than Lincoln. PAG is more of an organizational subdivision -- like how the lines are drawn on the org chart --than an independent organization. Pmeisel 02:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ford Capri

Hi folks, I've set down a basic page on the classic Capri and made an assumption (based on a strong feeling) that the Capri was based on the Ford Cortina of the time. Can anybody confirm or deny this? I've struggled to find evidence on the web but I'm sure I read something along these lines in the motoring press some time ago. This is worth checking as it was me who assumed Lincoln was still in PAG and was proven wrong!! Thanks. --Pete Richardson 12:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't see anything about this, I would just leave it there until someone proves you right or wrong! akaDruid 10:39, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think I can confirm the Capri's origins. Collectible Automobile for June 2002 has the car's history as a feature article. It says that Ford was primarily looking to recreate the Mustang's success in a model suited to the European market: "Just as the Mustang had been born of the Falcon platform, a similarly utilitarian vehicle was needed to act as the basis for the European version...Such a car was available in the popular Cortina, produced by Ford of England since the autumn of 1962." RivGuySC 05:39, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can't cite a specific source but remember from the time that the Capri was a sporty version of the Cortina. I probably read it in 1960s era Road & Track magazine Pmeisel 02:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Default Layouts

Another idea in the pot: how about a standard data box for trim levels? Also (as I've mentioned elsewhere) it wouldn't hurt to have layouts for engine specs. I may knock up something for the Ford Mondeo page to see what you guys think. --Pete Richardson 14:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Vespristiano 22:21, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)
Yup. BTW, Ford Mondeo is looking pretty good. This might be a candidate for the example page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. akaDruid 10:39, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, Pete, that Mondeo article is way slick. But tell us how you did it--did you have to hand-code the table? (Ugh!) Or is it possible to export one from FrontPage or similar software? I haven't really figured out how HTML relates to Wikipedia, I'm afraid. RivGuySC 05:24, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I converted the table to the newer Wiki code for tables, which is a little more readable (in my opinion) than HTML. I think the visual appearance could be improved a little, possibly; also, we need for many (all?) cars to have both metric and Imperial measurements. —Morven 09:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nice work! I updated the example page to use the Ford Mondeo article - the new table code is better and it's a better example article than VW Golf. akaDruid 10:27, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposed naming convention

I put up a proposed automobile article naming convention in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Proposed naming convention - please look at it and comment/alter, thanks! —Morven 23:33, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

David Burgess Wise's Encyclopedia

I have a copy of David Burgess Wise's The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Automobiles that I've been regurgitating (not copying outright, mind you); thus far, I'm about three-quarters of the way through the A's. The book is 12 years out of date, but it's a very good resource for many old, forgotten marques. While it's concerned more with the technical side of various cars, I think it's a good start. And it has good capsule histories of many of the major makes, including Armstrong-Siddeley (which article I added this afternoon) and Panhard & Levassor (which appears to have no article whatsoever - rather shocking considering this company's importance).

I'm going to be continuing with the thing for as long as I can; I hope it will be of some assistance. --Boccherini's Guitar 01:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good stuff! I'm glad you're going to be careful about copyright - best to make sure that no wording is similar to the book, if you can. And please, break it into paragraphs a bit more than you're doing -- I went to Armstrong-Siddeley and did just that. We need at least a starter article on vast numbers of historic marques. —Morven 08:18, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
We also need a category (other than "Automobiles") for historic marques. In fact, I think we should have very few articles in the category to make it easier to navigate! Especially historic (as in no-longer-produced) marques should go in a subcategory, while current marques (those that people are most likely to be interested in?) can go in the first level of Automobiles. Perhaps "Historic Automobiles" or "Historic Automobile Marques"? Or maybe even "Pre-War Automobiles" and "Post-War Automobiles" to follow the field's standard nomenclature? --Sfoskett 12:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I shall be putting further marques in the "automobile" category for the moment, pending a decision as to what kind of organization historic marques need. I can always go through the list and change designations. A lot of them need to be redesignated as "auto-stubs", too.--Boccherini's Guitar 20:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK - I just went on vacation for a week and a half, and got back last night. I went to see the Frick Collection outside of Pittsburgh, which has a nice little auto museum; I got a few pictures for some of the harder-to-find historic marques (such as American Bantam) of which they had examples on display. I should like to upload these for insertion into the articles in question; would there be any problems with this?--207.69.137.137 19:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Problems? Quite the opposite - this is exactly what we want, car articles are always better with photos. Pictures really are worth a thousand words in this case! Go for it. [[User:Akadruid|akaDruid (Talk)]] 11:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New stuff

I just wanted to mention the following fun "list of..." pages. More input, as always, is appreciated!

Enjoy! --SFoskett 13:35, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Very cool! Just goes how many cool little corners of the WP there are. I'm gonna start dropping some edits on the first one I feel. akaDruid 14:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New subpage

I'd like to create a new subpage talking about things like typography conventions (cc versus ml, ft.lbf,  , and so on) within automobile articles. thoughts? --SFoskett 19:54, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm for it—would be good to get consistency. I know I've been doing cm3 instead of cc; we've chatted about L elsewhere; and I have a tiny problem with  , in that while it's a good way to keep number and unit together, on some TrueType fonts the space is twice as large as the regular one. Stombs 23:37, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's have at it! Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions --SFoskett 23:56, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Great, see you there! Stombs 23:59, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Timelines

Whaddya folks think of these?

--SFoskett 19:09, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Very nice; good work. SamH 19:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, quite interesting & creative. RivGuySC 21:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I like 'em! akaDruid 14:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Great, SFoskett! Also I like your use of the correct codes. Stombs 11:23, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I also like them very much. So I made Template:BMW cars. I'd approve a conversion of the Mercedes template: their W-numbers would work well in this format, although the sheer number of models might be better presented by splitting into sedans, sports and SUV. --Hotlorp 20:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just made this as a prototype: Template_talk:Mercedes-Benz_vehicles. Compare it with the current Template:Mercedes-Benz_vehicles . Let me know what you think, on that talk page. -- Hotlorp 01:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article needing help

We usually have surprisingly little mangled prose in the car articles. However, this one seems to have been machine-translated from Old High Martian: Chevrolet Citation. I could improve it--that wouldn't be hard!--but it would be better if somebody that knows the model could tear into it. I'm weak on compacts. RivGuySC 02:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sports cars and supercars

We've been having a little discussion over at Talk:Honda NSX and Talk:Sports car about what is and isn't a sports car/super car. I decided to put it to a straw poll. Please take a moment to "vote" at the following articles:

Thank you. --SFoskett 13:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

More cars to categorize:

Thanks! --SFoskett 12:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

The mysterious page rewriter

I've just reverted yet another rewritten car page from our mysterious page. We have to think of some way of reaching this person and trying to help them become a more productive member of the community. I have an idea:

I'd like to place a note in HTML comments at the top of some pages likely to be replaced by this person. The note would ask them to please create an account and join this project instead of merely rewriting entire pages. What do you all think of this idea? --SFoskett 01:06, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (I'll be honest, though: I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Would you be kind enough to elaborate on what the problem is?) —Vespristiano 23:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think SFoskett is referring to a mystery writer whose IP begins with 213.122; the latest one seems to be 213.122.196.51. I agree with SFoskett but wonder if we can ever track this person down since the IP seems to change each time (he's probably on a dial-up). If we can find him, then I hope we can persuade him to sign up. His latest changes at General Motors Astra were factually incorrect or POV-based, which I've reverted. Stombs 23:16, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
I've begun posting comments at the IP addresses that he's used and that I can locate. He does appear to be British, based on his contributions. Stombs 00:16, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
BTW seems other Wikipedians have had problems with a user doing wholesale replacements and: what a coincidence! His IP begins also with 213.122. See this link. One of them refers to a 11- or 12-year-old by the name of Michael James Patefield. Others refer to Wiltshire. This same user also wiped the contents at Communist Party of Great Britain with his own version, which has the same tone as some of the stuff he has been damaging automobile pages with. It will pay to keen an eye on this IP sequence. Stombs 07:42, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Is this linked to the mysterious overwrites I picked up a while back? I found several, and started listed them on User:Akadruid/overwrites because I thought they were copy-vio. I've not been watching my watchlist so closely recently, so I've not seen any for a while. akaDruid 11:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Forgot to say, a lot of them were done by IP 213.122.xxx.xxx akaDruid 11:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi akaDruid: I suspect so, yes. The Communist Party one I referred to was identical in behaviour: taking an existing page and overwriting the whole lot. He's still at it. Stombs 09:06, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

He's back! Now at User:81.131.76.208 so he must have gotten a new ISP or must be sitting in a coffee shop... The same MO with the "MK1" junk and UK-centric POV writing style. --SFoskett 19:20, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, SFoskett—I'll keep an eye out as well. Stombs 10:33, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Just a tiny note: both 213.122.x.x and 81.131.76.208 are BT addresses, in the UK, which supports the theory these are the same user. Stombs 11:40, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

American bias on world cars

I've edited the Mazda3 page because it neglected European and Japanese versions of the cars. American bias (and to a lesser extent, British bias) seems to be a problem affecting articles on cars that originated in places outside North America. This is mainly due to lack of knowledge and lack of research, and affects mostly available engine options and renaming for different markets. British bias happens on some continental models, but to a lesser extent.

Please use these websites on research about current and historical automobiles. They're not complete, and mainly refer to technical specifications, but they're not bad. --Pc13 14:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whatever bias there is (and I know it is there, witness Toyota Corolla) is purely unintentional. Please accept my invitation to continue correcting our Yank and Brit oversights! I've started separate USA sections on some articles (see Mazda Familia and Mazda RX-4 for examples) to show what is local and what is worldwide. I try to research, but don't always succeed. --SFoskett 15:00, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
No problem, I didn't think the bias was intentional. It just make things incomplete rather than wrong, and since I'm interested in market specificity in the automotive world (something I may want to add here in the future), I tend to notice these things. And since I believe the English Wikipedia is more likely to attract visitors from non-native English speakers, I'd rather keep the automotive articles as international as possible.
On that note, I'd like to propose the use of this format for horsepower, I've already started using it:
  • ECE/DIN: 1 kW (1.36 bhp DIN)
  • SAE: 1kW (1.34 bhp SAE)
  • JIS: 1kW (1.36 bhp JIS) --Pc13 15:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do think some of the problem is not intent, but often the research itself is biased (Googling a lot of models results usually in US pages first). I'm sure between us all we'll manage to internationalize Wikipedia. My view, and I already see it employed on a lot of pages, especially SFoskett's Mazda edits, is that the country of origin information should be the "base" and any export market information is "derivative". Stombs 23:27, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
The world car and derivative issue is getting somewhat more difficult to decipher as platforms morph and proliferate across brands of different nationalities owned by the same parent. Some Mazdas are brand-engineered Fords, and some Fords brand engineered Mazdas, just to cite an easy one. Pmeisel 01:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, may I suggest that date of release might be a way around this? This is slightly off-topic, but when I wrote the BMC 1100 and 1300 pages, I began with the Morris 1100 as the "main" page, since it was released nearly a year before the Austin equivalent. With the Landcrab, I did the Austin 1800 page first. But the lineage of Fords and Mazdas might help, for they could warrant separate pages. There are sufficient differences between the Mazda 323 and the Ford Laser, for instance—notably where each model "went" and how their histories developed. I do agree it is tricky: the Mazda B-Series is now two very different vehicles, one engineered by Ford for North America, and one engineered by Mazda elsewhere, and on such pages it may make sense to have both conventions depending on the model being discussed. Stombs 07:13, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

British bias on European cars?

Related to the above: any thoughts on the Opel Speedster and Vauxhall VX 220? I think of them as Opels, but they are made in England, so it's a fair call that the Vauxhall page leads—then, the same argument could be levelled at various Luton- and Ellesmore Port-built Opels. I would also like to raise the issue of the Simca 1307 and 1308, and the Chrysler Alpine. I had redirected the Alpine page to the Simca, as that car was released first and is known as that in more countries, but I notice that someone else had changed this so that Chrysler Alpine became the lead page again. Thoughts are welcome as I believe this is another sign of British bias. Should Vauxhall VX 220 be changed, and should Simca 1307 be the page on which Alpine data reside? Stombs 09:53, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

There is some, but it's more problematic on non-British marques, including Renault and Peugeot. As for the Chrysler Europe/Simca/Rootes Group models problem, I suggest the Sunbeeam Alpine/Chrysler Alpine and Talbot 1510 pages should redirect to the Simca 1307, while the Sunbeam TI/Talbot Sunbeam should redirect to Chrysler Sunbeam. About GM Europe products, it's more complicated especially considering the Kadett/Astra relationship, but I'd prefer to see every new Vauxhall since 1981 redirect to its Opel equivalent. Of course, British nomenclature should be obligatory addressed, when different. --Pc13 19:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd rather see other names be stubs rather than redirects. For one thing, there is often some difference in looks, and some history unique to that version. I do agree that one version generally should contain the mass of information, however, rather than duplicating it. This should either be the original model OR the most produced, in cases where the original model is obscure and was unsuccessful. Obscurity in the English-speaking world is not, I think, sufficient cause to change this; someone might learn something.
I favor stubs especially so that the reader gets instantly the information that is relevant to what they were looking for, rather than being redirected to a page that at first doesn't seem like the right one. I think it's better that each version gets a short page along the lines of
The Chrysler Alpine was a derivative of the Simca 1307, sold in the United Kingdom between xxxx and xxxx. Differences from the Simca include ...
and possibly with explicit text of 'See the Simca 1307 page for more information.' —Morven 13:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
I like your idea, Pc13, because it's quite logical: Chrysler UK was responsible for the Sunbeam and Chrysler Sunbeam is where it should reside; the Simca 1307 would be a more logical place for the majority of the information. Sfoskett and I are both keen on the Opel pages being the main ones for post-1981 Vauxhalls—I would make exceptions for the cases that Morven describes.
For instance, the Vauxhall Carlton deserves its own page for the Mark I "cat's eyes" models, and the Cavalier should retain its one, especially since the name has some "lineage" prior to the Mk III.
Morven, I've come to believe a stub could be sensible for Chrysler Alpine for the reason you state—good idea. Stombs 09:12, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

General Motors Astra

i have updated the General Motors Astra with details of the Opel Kadett.82.42.151.164 Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It might be an idea to chat about model-specific matters on that particular car's discussion page. I did notice your adding a 1.7 diesel, yet I think that was in the Opel Corsa in South Africa, not the Kadett or Astra, and edited accordingly. Maybe let me know on the Astra discussion page. I'll catch it there. Stombs 10:44, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Private imports

It's happened a few times on New Zealand-related pages, and it's a bit annoying. I vote we do not include vehicles privately imported, or those unofficially imported by used car dealers (grey imports). Exceptions should be made when the grey imports are significant and create a large following, or if they alter the official concessionaire's policy. Any thoughts? Stombs 10:53, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem, exactly - what's the 'it' that's happened? You don't tell us. —Morven 19:16, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
'It' is the inclusion of privately imported vehicles or those unofficially imported by used car dealers on a particular model's page. Stombs 06:39, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hyundai experts?

Any Hyundai experts among us? I found a comment on the Toyota Corona page by a 150.204.50.38 which turned out to be bogus (viz. that there was a Toyota Alexia), and noted this user's rather major entry on the Hyundai Elantra. I'm not that au fait with the model, but knowledgeable enough to know that 2001 certainly wasn't the launch date for the countries which called the older Lantra under the Elantra name (e.g. Canada). The writer lists UK models, and I shall be interested to know if they are correct. Corrections there are welcome. Stombs 12:01, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sources of information: www.autoweek.nl for Netherlands, various UK car websites for England and www.consumerguide.com for USA cars. Hope this helps. Apologies for the vandalism. 82.42.151.164 Jan 19, 2005

Thank you—I knew of these but I wasn't particularly passionate about the brand and probably wouldn't enjoy writing it! I might see to this—depends how frustrated I get with the Elantra info as it currently stands. Stombs 00:47, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
OK, all done at Hyundai Avante and Hyundai Elantra, but both are stubbed. Stombs 01:10, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering at what we should use as a standard for naming convention among Hyundai Models. For example, there is currently a Hyundai Accent (the American Model) page, which also describes the current Verna (the Korean Model) - the reverse is true of the Hyundai Avante (the Korean Model) page, which describes the Elantra (American Model). There is also a seperate page describing older American Elantras and European Lantras - where this is essentially the same model as the Avante/Elantra of modern day. I'm wondering how we should organize these - should there be seperate pages for Korean, American, European models, or one page per model for all of them - and if that is the case, how should we name that single page? GHoosdum 15:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Using different pages for Korean, American and European models wouldn't be good, since there are very few differences of the cars designated for different markets. But what do we call them... ? The 1995-1999 generation of Accent has to be placed att Hyundai Accent, because (as far as I know) it was sold under that name both in its home market (Korea), and in most major export markets. With the newer generations it is difficult, when it was called Verna in its home market, and Accent in most other parts of the world. Similar applies to Avante/Elantra/Lantra. We can exclude the Lantra name, since it was only used in some European countries for the first generation(s). So Elantra is the name used in most parts of the world, and Avante in the car's home market. --Boivie 20:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that seperate pages for each model would be a bad idea. Perhaps migrating (and redirecting) all models to the Accent and Elantra names (in these examples) would be better, since that is the most common naming convention on these cars worldwide (and would therefore be known to more people)? That would also allow us to merge into one article instead of the current two for the Elantra/Avante/Lantra models. This exercise sure is a lot easier for Sonata, which seems to have the same name in Korean and International markets... ;) Any other ideas - should I perhaps post this suggestion as a pilot project on the current Avante Talk page? GHoosdum 15:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
It's largely agreed here that the home-market information is "base" so there can be no accusation that Wikipedia is biased toward any one nation. If we adopt a European convention for a Korean car, we'd alienate American editors; and vice versa. The fairest solution globally is to use the home market, as Autoindex[1] does. Stombs 11:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello & Help!

Hello-

Since I seem to have a great interest in American Automobiles, I thought I would drop in, if its OK. I'm hoping to get some help with an article that just posted to Wikipedia Mohs Automobile. Can some folks take a look at it and tell me what you think? user: stude62 user talk:stude62 04:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! Your article on the Mohs Automobiles looks really really good so far. I've already made some small edits and may add some more details when I find them. One question—you describe the F.O.B. cost, which is something that I'm unfamiliar with. Can you explain (or reword) what this means in the article? Overall though, interesting stuff! --Milkmandan 04:50, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
Hi - Thanks for your input. F.O.B. price is the price of the vehicle from origin of business - as if one were to pay cash for the vehicle as it rolled off the production line and drive it off the grounds (no transportation costs for the manufacturer to build into the wholesale cost). If you go through manufacturer to dealer lit, you'll see the price of a Packard was 5,999 F.O.B. Detroit, or for a Studebaker F.O.B. South Bend. I included it in the Mohs Automobile listing because they sold direct to their customers, never having a dealer network per se. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 13:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Name of the game

I know I'm new, and that this probably isn't the correct fodder for this forum, but I find it amusing when cars are rolled out into a market with names that "aren't right" for that market. For example:

  • Daihatsu Charade - (If its not what it says it is, then what is it?)
  • Chevrolet Nova - (Sold poorly in Mexico because it "didn't go")
  • Ford Aspire - (A small car that its makers seeming wished had a loftier cachet)

user: stude62 user talk:stude62 14:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've always found marketing (and specifically, design) trends to be particularly interesting. I've been wanting to put together a page on automotive design trends for a while, but I don't really have the reference materials to make it work right—an article describing differing naming conventions used on cars (e.g. the use of numbers vs. names on higher-end marques to shift the focus toward the brand itself) would be really interesting. A discussion of oddities like this one would probably be very appropriate in an article like this. Do note, however, that the Nova connection has been debunked already :) [2] Overall, though, I like the idea. --Milkmandan 17:52, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
Milkmandan, are you thinking of an article that describes, say, how car shapes have moved from horseless carriages to more uniform, unified shapes (e.g. minivans), examining the reduction of overhangs, etc.? I would definitely support an automobile design trends page to which we could all contribute. I've noticed the alphanumeric phenomenon, too, especially at Land Rover now. Could this be put on the model and marque page that SFoskett started? Stombs 02:36, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking; and, probably highlighting the major design themes and unusual exceptions during distinct periods. I presume the model&marque page you mentioned is marque; this is what I was thinking it terms of names, although I'm sure we should discuss whether or not to branch it into a new page.
In any event, we need to be very careful with references. Any design commentary and critique would have to be referenced in from the outside. I've already noticed that the marque article has an NPOV tag—I suspect the same thing would happen on a design trend page. --Milkmandan 03:03, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Move De Lorean to De Lorean Motor Company?

I've moved all the DMC-12 specific information from the De Lorean page to the De Lorean DMC-12 page. Since all that's left in the De Lorean page is a discussion of the company itself, I think it's appropriate to move it to De Lorean Motor Company, which currently redirects in. I tried to move it over with admin help, but they want a more formal call for votes—please weigh in at Talk:De Lorean if you have a moment. I'd rather this get discussed first within the WikiProject Auto community, as opposed to the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. Thanks! --Milkmandan 07:45, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

'Bolding' of car model names

I've noticed that in some automobile articles, names of variants of the main model are written in bold (for examples, see Aston Martin V12 Vanquish, Chevrolet Corvette and Honda NSX). The Manual of Style says: "If the subject of the article has more than one name, each new form of the name should be in bold on its first appearance.". It seems to me that variations of the article's subject (here, variations of the main automobile model) shouldn't be bolded, but I wanted to know if anyone else has an opinion on this (or cares ;-)). SamH|Talk 23:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I get the impression this is in response to some of the bolding that I do when grooming pages :) Trying to find information about a specific model can be a real mess when combing through an entire article. I usually bold out the names so it's easy to pick them up when scanning the article. This achieves a different purpose than the Manual of Style entry you linked—emphasis isn't, after all, limited to section titles. Do you know of a Style entry that covers this use more directly? --Milkmandan 23:49, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
I concur - I've been bolding anything important that people might be looking for. So, for example, I bold the main marque and model name, any other model names (especially if they're redirected to the page in question) and any important submodels. If it's got a whole paragraph or more, I bold it. Anyone care to suggest a different style? --SFoskett 00:31, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
OK. Although I don't use bolding myself, I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other, and it does make sense to emphasise important sub–models. I just thought it would be good to establish a policy about whether or not we should use bolding in this way, so that in future, all auto articles could be standardised. SamH|Talk 11:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Policy established in the conventions document. Please change it if I've botched it. --Milkmandan 13:50, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Looks good to me, Milkmandan. I've been doing something along these lines, perhaps subconsciously. Stombs 12:23, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

"Part of the Manufacturer automobile series"

I've noticed a bunch of pages (e.g., Jeep Wrangler, Ford Explorer, Mazda RX-7) that use the phrase, this article is part of the automobile series in the sidebar have the manufucturer crammed in there, too. This article is part of the Ford automobile series seems a bit forced, considering that we don't really have a manufacturer-specific series and, in any event, the manufacturer is clearly listed at the beginning of the bar.

Does the manufacturer name in the text serve some other purpose? I'd like to see the sidebars generalized. --Milkmandan 16:06, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

As a newbie, I'm not sure if its my place to comment, but it seems excessive. It seems that the people using computers and looking at an automobile article should know what an automobile is in the first place. The simpler, the better. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 18:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Very good point. I guess that unless we have a page devoted to the Automobile Series, then having that line at all seems unnecessary. --Milkmandan 20:46, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm leaning towards using the version without the manufacturer just because it standardizes the sidebars. I suppose this is something to reopen later...probably when we start considering revamping the formats. --Milkmandan 17:33, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
Ah... (raises guilty hand) I put it there while creating that box cos one of the other projects (might have been aircraft?) had some text in a similar vein, and I thought the bottom of the box looked a bit incomplete... with hindsight, it was probably a dumb idea. I was intending on just doing some sketching out at the time to get things started, and never really came back to it. I'm awful at biting off more than I can chew :) akaDruid 14:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Marques

I've added in thirty-eight (38) additional marques to the Canadian section of the List of automobile manufacturers page. I have this strange, sudden urge to rush out and buy an Acadian Beaumont ... user: stude62 user talk:stude62 16:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Milkmandan has been kind of enough to look at the list and fix some links. I'm willing to start on the stubs for the unwritten articles, but I have a question. Since many of these marques have U.S. origins, but many are different enough (trim, body basis, name, no US equivilant, etc.) that they really aren't the same as US models. For example, the De Soto Diplomat was a De Soto in name and trim only (it was actually a Dodge); do I notate on the master De Soto page (De Soto automobile) or does it deserve its own De Soto Canadian page. I would prefer that the model have its own article and then tie back to a blurb on the current De Soto page rather then the other way, which would seem to start another naming convention. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 21:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Depends entirely on the situation. Here are the three that I can think of (excuse my abuse of the Diplomat name):
  1. If the Diplomat was really just a rebadged Dodge, definitely redirect into the Dodge page and put a note in the introduction paragraph that it's also sold as a De Soto.
  2. In the contrary event that the De Soto Diplomat in Canada was a substantially different car than the De Soto Diplomat sold in elsewhere, I'd suggest an article called De Soto Diplomat (Canada), with a note in the regular De Soto Diplomat page that multiple cars with the Diplomat name existed.
  3. If the Diplomat has no non-Canadian equivalent, De Soto Diplomat will do just fine.
As far as the De Soto (automobile) page, I'd say to just add information to the existing page until it demands fragmentation. I can see there being significant benefit to splitting regional information of a really long page (such as breaking BMW US out of the regular BMW page), but it'll be a while until that's necessary. Until then, all models worldwide go on the same page.
Does this answer your question? --Milkmandan 22:00, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
  • Speaking of this, the page for Asuna sounds good, but I don't know if there is any more information on Asuna that can be put on that page. --DanCBJMS, 22:26 EDT, Tuesday, 11 October, 2005; 02:26 GMT, Wednesday, 12 October, 2005

Cadillac links

A few weeks ago I noticed a link being dropped into the Cadillac Escalade page. [3] It points to a Cadillac picture gallery, but the gallery requires registration to see anything more than thumbnails.

It turns out that these links have been dumped across the Cadillac pages. (Special:Contributions/68.215.43.208, Special:Contributions/65.11.181.194)

There's a quick discussion on the Talk:Cadillac Escalade page about it, and I'd like to suggest that we remove these across all of these pages.

It seems like links are getting dumped inconsistently across most car pages anyway. A set of guidelines of what is appropriate and what isn't seems like a really good idea. --Milkmandan 18:44, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

The limited response I've heard so far is that these links can probably be dumped. I'm going to start removing them in a few days if I don't run across some serious opposition. --Milkmandan 08:11, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

FAQ

I've added a FAQ because it seems like a lot of the same issues come up with new contributors. Any way to make the transition into the Wikipedia easier is, in my mind, a positive thing. The FAQ serves to address questions that are already answered in the other Auto Project (and main Wikipedia) pages, but which aren't immediately accessible due to article size. I think a FAQ would provide a vital first shot at getting the most important information to new WikiGearheads.

I haven't linked it to the main WikiProject Auto page yet because I think the concept needs to be discussed and the page needs to be expanded/edited.

What are your thoughts? Please discuss at the FAQ talk. --Milkmandan 20:16, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Featured Article

I'm trying to get Wankel engine to be a featured article. I've been modding it according to the "friendly" suggestions of the folks at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wankel engine, but think maybe some help from the folks here might be more useful. Anyone want to take a go at copyediting the History section? --SFoskett 12:57, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've got a printout and a red pen that will be heavily employed during my classes today—expect something in a few hours. The first thing I see is the usual Featured Article complaint: references, references, references. In-text cites are your friend! --Milkmandan 16:06, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
One of my favorite authors said that the best way of editing down an article is to try and eliminate all words that end in "ly" and every "very". I don't know if this applies here, but I know I have to do a better job at following it. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 03:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'm having a fairly hard time editing this. Generally this means that the paper is either pretty good or I'm just too unfamiliar with the subject material. In this case, I'm thinking it's a bit of both—I have some pretty good rewrites for everything up to the history section (including two paragraphs totally rewritten), but I keep getting stuck at that point. I'll take another stab at it tomorrow after I've gotten some sleep. --Milkmandan 06:56, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Stutz Motor Company

I'm a sucker for weird marques. So I just went through adding lots of info on Stutz. I especially focused on the crazy 1970s cars. Anyone care to add/edit/read? --SFoskett 17:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Popping over there now, SFoskett. Been busy on assignments at work. Like you I like those Exner cars—almost bought the Hot Wheels one when I was a kid. Stombs 22:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate Pages for V12 Vanquish

I noticed that there are two pages for the Aston Martin V12 Vanquish. The more developed one is called Aston Martin V12 Vanquish. However, there is also a page simply called V12 Vanquish about the same car. Can anyone fix this? Perhaps remove the second page? Jagvar 15:12, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sorted. The V12 Vanquish article didn't conatain any info that the longer article didn't already have, so I just turned it into a redirect. SamH|Talk 23:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Need Help With Rarer Vehicles

Attention all car experts! I have added to the page List of supercars the names of several rare, obscure supercars on which I have little information. I will continue to research these vehicles and start up as many pages as I can, but it is a daunting task to tackle all those cars myself. If you know anything about these supercars or feel like a new project, I encourage you to add. Keep up the good work everyone. --Jagvar Apr 3, 2005

I recategorized them (no need muddying the waters with unproduced models) and added one more that was produced, the Panther Solo. I have some info and will create a page for it soon. --SFoskett 21:32, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Standardize photographs?

I wonder if we should try to request certain types of photographs, since so many are wide-angle shots that are substantially inferior to commercial photos of the same car. (E.g. the Ford Mondeo image) We don't need to be this bad. Perhaps by "suggesting" certain types of photo in the template (I'm thinking side view, front view, rear view, front 3/4 view, rear 3/4 view) we could start a flow of good submissions. If all these images are submitted, perhaps the template could display the side view and link to the rest, to avoid clutter and allow photos of other submodels to be shown. I'd also like to remind photographers to try to stand a good distance away and zoom in, rather than use a wide angle. And try to be as dead-on exact side-on etc. as one can manage. With well populated data, we could automatically generate nice collections of car profiles, rear ends, etc. --Hotlorp 20:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. I uploaded the image of the Ford Mondeo (it was my third Mondeo of six!) as something to fill a gap - I intended it to be replaced with a good quality image at some point. Back to the point, I'd suggest a standard image of front 3/4 view, taken from standing height, car pointing to the left. We also need to be careful of background - e.g. car parks and people's houses is not good... Any other suggestions welcome! --Pete Richardson 14:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Example of a somewhat artistic but acceptable picture
I think a quality standard is most important as well as background standards. The picture should be taken in a way that the neighborhood and background are not well recognizable. There should however be some artistic license as to the perspective from which the picture is shot. Take the following picture I posted on the Ford Panther Platform page. Gerdbrendel 00:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Update on Needed Articles

Apart from older and obscure vehicles, there are some more common modern vehicles that still need articles. Feel free to add a car you feel needs a page:

Honda Accord

I propose that we move some of the US-specific info on that page onto the USDM Accord page, so that the Honda Accord page is a general introduction to the Accord from the fifth-generation onwards (where it first branched out into market-specific versions). Detailed info of JDM, Euro, & USDM Accords can then be inserted into their respective pages. I would also like to expand on info regarding Accords from the 1st to 4th generation on that page, as Honda basically sold similar cars worldwide. What do u think??

Senna6094

Merge E500 and E-Class

It has come to my attention that there is now a page called Mercedes E500. This should really be merged with Mercedes-Benz E-Class. At the very least, the person who started the page should have called it Mercedes-BENZ E500.

Who is up for the task?

--Jagvar Apr 19, 2005

This is sort of a tangent...but I've noticed that, on the German Wikipedia, most of the Mercedes-Benz model articles (and all of the platform articles) are named Mercedes instead of Mercedes-Benz; example: de:Mercedes E-Klasse. Additionally, Volkswagen models are named VW, although the parent company pages for each brand is named formally. I suspect this is partly due to the fact that en.wiki has more article organization maturity. My colloquial German is piss-poor, but I've heard that using Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz in common speech sounds exceedingly stilted.
Anyway. I'd merge this right now, but there's really nothing of use there. Half of it is POV and the remaining details are too vague to incorporate into the existing E-Class article.
I recommend deleting the original article instead of filling it as a redirect. The name doesn't follow our existing convention, and I doubt it's a common enough search term to warrant keeping it around.
--Milkmandan 04:52, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Use of "fair use" magazine covers to illustrate articles

I must confess to being uncomfortable with the increasing use of magazine covers to illustrate articles.

For one thing, how solid is a "fair use" claim here? I suspect that using a magazine cover to illustrate an article on a magazine would be no problem, but to illustrate articles on cars and engines? I have a feeling that this might be pushing fair use a little too far.

For another, the images contain a lot of extraneous stuff and don't necessarily illustrate the article all that well.

Any thoughts? —Morven 18:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I gotta agree that they're sort of ugly and contain lots of extraneous info. But it is a way to get a picture in, and it sounds like fair use to me with the low-res images being posted. I'd be happier with these than the clearly-copyrighted PR images also being used. --SFoskett 20:49, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, my reading of fair use says that the PR images are a lot less likely to get us into trouble. PR images are released free to the press to publicise products. Since they are being used for exactly that purpose, to describe the products, it would be hard for someone to argue that they were being infringed upon. —Morven 22:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I concede that press photos are probably OK under fair use. However, I feel that really-free contributed photos are still preferrable. User:Rajwa has been contributing many press photos, which I applaud as a valuable contribution. However, some existing free pictures have been replaced by press photos. See Cadillac SRX and Chrysler Pacifica for example. I feel that, as a policy, we should prefer free photos to PR photos unless the free shot is really bad... Thoughts? --SFoskett 15:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
The reason I've been "upgrading" photos here and there is, (at least to me) obvious. A blurry (as the Pacifica shot was) low-res photograph of a car forlornly sitting on a used car lot versus a properly lit, professionally photographed high resolution photo that has clearly been formally released by the copyright holder for "fair use" within the media is preferable to me both in aesthetic terms as well as being inherently more "educational" given the higher level of detail afforded. I composed my own image tag that I thought expressed the reasoning of intent for use of press kit photos, but have recently discovered that I could have used the pre-made {{Promotional}} tag instead. Given the implicit wikki-approval that the {{Promotional}} boilerplate tag provides, I can't begin to imagine what the perceived difference in "free-ness" to which you refer to actually constitutes. I'll admit the bad photos give the Wikipedia a certain home-spun ad-hoc charm, but as a referance source for the ages, the higher quality of the professional images better serves current and future Wikipedia users.Rawja 21:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand and agree that the PR photos are artistically superior. However, Wikipedia's policy is "always use a more free alternative if one is available". See Wikipedia:Fair use for a thorough discussion. I will not object to replacing the really ugly images, but I suggest that we should try to use GFDL images if possible. --SFoskett 01:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

History of the automobile

Now there's a topic that needed writing... History of the automobile is open for business. I expect that we'll try to keep this article concise, and will open new ones for each era, decade, or even year, as time goes by. --SFoskett 17:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Supercar (car classification)

We need to work on Supercar (car classification). The article is POV and opinionated. I rewrote it (see [4]) but another user immediately reverted it rather than discuss the contents. Can some others here please take a stab at improving this article? I don't want to get into an edit war. --SFoskett 13:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mosler

I've put in some effort writing articles on the Consulier GTP and Mosler MT900. It was hard to track details down on these cars, especially the Mosler Intruder and Mosler Raptor... Any thoughts would be welcome. --SFoskett 14:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Autoguidewiki.com linkbomb

I've got some concerns about recent edits by Special:Contributions/Castletower. To summarize, this person has over 200 edits solely to automotive pages, all of which consist of adding links to the aforementioned site. Examples: [5] [6] [7]

I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are about adding links across whole swaths of pages—and I mean this in the general sense, not just in this specific case. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate, for a number of reasons:

  • First and foremost, the Wikipedia is not a link repository for every other Wiki (or any other site) out there.
  • Placing these links across many pages creates the impression of consistency (and to a lesser extent, endorsement) that simply doesn't exist.
  • These are harder to maintain than, for example, Interwiki language links, which have specific software support. I'm concerned that these will get stale.
  • We all know that there are other sources of information than the Wikipedia and, in most cases, there are more detailed and more specific pages elsewhere. This doesn't mean we need to link to all of them. If it is something genuinely useful, I say add it on a case-by-case basis, but these autoguidewiki pages are almost uniformly shorter than their Wikipedia counterparts.

I really don't think that linkbombs across multiple pages add significant value. If each auto page was linkbombed with links from three or four different auto wikis (and I'm sure more than that exist), the response would probably be pretty negative.

Additionally, I've got minor concerns about the autoguidewiki.com links:

  • The models don't line up, or are too specific. Ex: BMW 3 Series vs BMW 325Ci, and Audi A6 vs Audi A6 3.2 Quattro.
  • And as a minor nit, the heading style is inconsistent ("Other Links" and "External Links" vs. the fairly standard "External links")

These last points are fixable, but only if the appropriateness of these links isn't in question.

My feeling is that these need to be, at the very least, evaluated on a page-by-page basis. More reasonably, I'd rather pull them all and work them back in if it's warranted.

Thoughts? --Milkmandan July 1, 2005 15:04 (UTC)

I have no problem with any external link that adds significant content to the topic. If one of these was as informative as Cars From Italy or AstonMartins.Com, I would be happy. But I don't see that any of the pages I've looked at add much of value. And I'm always concerned when a user simply adds external links instead of adding content. I disapprove of these edits. --SFoskett July 1, 2005 18:43 (UTC)
The websites that SFoskett has mentioned above only pertain to small groups of cars. I approve of the AutioGuideWiki links, not only to promote wiki awareness, but also to add content to the articles. — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 5 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)
  • From the creators of Autoguidewiki.com

Hello,

My name is Robert Eaton. I am the webmaster in charge of the Autoguidewiki.com site. I just wanted link our articles to your site for more detailed information. I understand your concerns over our content not "adding" much "new" to your content. But we are in the development stages, a baby wiki so to say. We do not wish to "compete with your content", this is just a fun site for us, and we value the WikiPedia Communities feelings.

Robert Eaton


The above was the comment of user:Castletower, the person who added these links. Castle, I would appreciate a response to some of the criticism above. --SFoskett July 5, 2005 14:45 (UTC)


  • Actually, I think that was my comment. CastleTower is working with me. All I am saying is... lets be friends WikiPedia. We are 110% committed to being WikiPedia Friendly and finding avenues for our Wiki site to be of some value to the WikiPedia Project. How? I do not know yet, but would really, truely appreciate feedback, suggestions, advice or any comments concerning how we can improve our relationship between Wiki sites. user:Wikimanager P.S. I love you.


  • We are amatures at wiki. lol, I learn something new everyday. We would love for you to visit our site and help guide us, help us understand wiki better, without trashing up wikipedia with arguements over external links. If you wish, we can move the conversation over to autoguidewiki, we will start a autoguidewiki/wikipedia page for these conversations. or viceversa. The we can document how 2 wikis can exist in harmony. user:Wikimanager See: AutoguideWikiPedia Project
    • I am still rather dubious as to the value of adding these links. Car pages get a lot of online 'hits' and thus their maintainers are always trying to improve their google rankings via Wikipedia. I don't see them adding much info to what's already present in our articles. —Morven July 5, 2005 18:46 (UTC)
The comments by Castletower and Wikimanager above don't address my concern that we A) tolerate, or B) support the addition of links across all of our pages. autoguidewiki.com is not the only automotive Wiki out there, and I really don't want every one of them dumping links across these articles. Even if they do provide more information than we do, that's not really the point. Wikipedia is not a link store, a directory for other Wikis, or a search engine. --Milkmandan 16:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I really do not see the value of the Autoguide Wiki links in general. Most contain far less content than the article they are linked to. Plus, as far as I can tell, autoguide exists solely to create similar content to the Automobiles Project pages - that is, if autoguide was expanded to be what it looks like it wants to be, it will be entirely duplicative of what we want Wikipedia to be! Add this to the adversizing on those pages, and I suspect that autoguide is merely link farming on Wikipedia in hopes of future revenue/site traffic. I further bridle at the sheer number of links to a single site.

Therefore, I move that we remove all links to autoguide wiki unless it can be shown that each link in question provides unique and valuable content. --SFoskett 19:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ok... that's cool. We are sorry for the inconvience we have created for the community. Wikimanager

Sequence of units

I am not sure if we have an explicit policy on sequence of units. Several of us seem to agree that raw data values should come before converted values. But the horsepower values are more complicated. There are difficulties with terms e.g. do we say 'PS', 'hp DIN', 'hp ISO' or something else? In this case, I am only asking for thoughts about how we decide on the sequence of the 3 possible units.

For example, the Porsche Cayman article said

  • 295 hp (220 kW) -- this was an incorrect kilowatt value

This was subsequently changed to

  • 217 kW (291 hp) the kilowatt value was correct but it was not the hp value quoted on the English Porsche website.

I checked the official German website for Porsche and replaced it with their sequence and values:

  • 217 kW (295 PS) -- I did not search for a US hp value

This was then changed to:

  • 295 PS (291 hp/217 kW)

My suggestion is that we should use the sequence in the home website for the car. Thus the German website for Porsche, BMW, Mercedez and the Italian website for Ferrari etc.

With this guideline in mind, I changed the Porsche article to:

  • 217 kW (295 PS, 291 hp SAE)

What do others think? Bobblewik  (talk) 3 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)

The units question is, admittedly, a really complicated one. I'll avoid tangents and address only the sequence here: the most reasonable standard is, in my mind, to use the sequence most appropriate for the auto manufacturer's home market. Websites are probably my second choice, only because they tend to reflect the current webmaster's mood more than any actual policy. The reason I choose home market is because that's what the naming policy specifies.
On a related note, does the Wiki markup support numerical conversions in templates? This power thing is handled really inconsistently, and being able to put a {{power_sae|291}} would be better than a lot of the alternatives—and would allow this type of inline completion to be standardized without regard for what needs to be included. Changing the template to hold all values would be immensely simpler than changing all of the pages. --Milkmandan July 4, 2005 08:13 (UTC)

Triple units are currently forbidden by Manual of Style

We have aviation and car articles where triple units are used, for example (kW, PS, hp SAE) or (km/h, knots, mi/h). We appear to accept this convention. However, an editor amended the Manual of Style to say multiple equivalents including metric are cumbersome and shall be avoided. Thus we have opposing conventions.

Please feel free to join the discussion and raise the issues of aviation and car articles. Bobblewik  (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguity in power units misleads editors/reader to think power is different?

There is a quote of an increase in power from 170 to 172 hp in Hyundai Tiburon. I think that the power is exactly the same (see the kilowatt values). This is the sort of problem we face throughout Wikipedia with ambiguity in power units. Fortunately, the source value is first and this helped me to identify the error. Can people check those figures please? Bobblewik 11:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Chevrolet-badged Daewoos

This was bound to come up. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while, but I notice the Daewoo Lacetti now redirects to Chevrolet Lacetti. I thought there was an understanding here that we would use the names of the country of origin to avoid nation bias, in this case, one toward Europe. What are others' views? Stombs 02:52, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. --Pc13 08:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Pc13. I have shifted Chevrolet Lacetti, Chevrolet Aveo and Chevrolet Evanda accordingly. If anyone spots any others, please shift them to their Daewoo equivalents and change copy to suit. Stombs 13:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
While your reasoning has valid points, copy and paste is not a proper way to move articles because the edit history is lost in process. Please use WP:RM if you can't move the pages yourself, as suggested by the Move tool: "Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move". --DmitryKo 14:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC).
I admit I did a lousy job of shifting, because I have not been here for a while. However, your comments on my discussion page are even less acceptable. Before striking out at another editor and calling his edits wrong, you should check your facts. I will apply now at Requested moves as you suggest. If there are any problems with aligning the three Chevrolet pages to the rest of Wikipedia's automobile pages, please voice them.Stombs 12:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Technically they are GM DAT vehicles, overwhelmingly GM's property, and while GM is a North American manufacturer, the reality of it is that Daewoo only exists in a small market, primarily Korea and Vietnam. In fact, there are so many locations outside of those two countries that build the aforementioned cars either as assembled units or kits (even in the Ukraine) that it is a disservice to refer to these vehicles by their least utilised marque (second to Suzuki in the United States). The use of the Chevrolet nomeclature on wikipedia makes the most sense given that it is by and far the most dominant marque under which the majority of these cars in all of their various guises is being sold.

Improvement drive

The article on Transportation is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.--Fenice 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Origin Naming Convention and Chevys to Daewoos

It has been proposed, in the course of a badly fractured discussion, that cars should be identified according to their brand in their country of origin. This would have the effect of moving Chevrolet Lacetti -> Daewoo Lacetti, Chevrolet Aveo -> Daewoo Kalos, Chevrolet Nubira -> Daewoo Nubira and probably others. This has been discussed on this page and on Talk:Chevrolet Lacetti, Talk:Chevrolet Aveo, Talk:Chevrolet Nubira.

These three moves had been listed on WP:RM, however looking at them as a closing administator I have found them to have been poorly announced at the respective talk pages and to have gathered inconsistent results. Because of this, I have decided to refactor this discussion to a centralized location and attempt make it clear the several issues being discussed. Dragons flight 02:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention

If you wish accept or reject the proposed national origin naming convention for automobiles, add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support the national origin naming convention. This is the most logical, least ambiguous, and least confusing choice. BlankVerse 05:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. This usually used to work... until the companies already got global with their designs but haven't switched to global names yet. See the Discussion below. --DmitryKo 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Move

Even if the naming convention is rejected, certain cars may still be moved by consensus. For each car, add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Chevrolet Lacetti -> Daewoo Lacetti

  • Support move. BlankVerse 05:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. The current scheme seems the most logical to me. But if someone proposes the move, he must already have thought about the complexities of this particular case, right? --DmitryKo 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Chevrolet Nubira -> Daewoo Nubira

  • Support move. BlankVerse 05:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Same as above. --DmitryKo 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Chevrolet Aveo -> Daewoo Kalos

  • Support move. BlankVerse 05:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Same as above. --DmitryKo 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I think the proposed move could only create more confusion, because badge engineering and renaming of GM Daewoo vehicles is very extensive.

For example, the new Chevrolet Aveo model T250 is to be sold under this name everywhere in the world, but in the S.Korea only it's known as the Daewoo Gentra. Tthe previous Chevrolet Aveo model T250 is named the Chevrolet Kalos in Western Europe and the Daewoo Kalos in S.Korea. Sp, where the Chevrolet Aveo should be redirected to? Then, the Chevrolet Kalos has a European-only 3-door version that's not sold on the local market. How to deal about this? And I'm against using some fake artifical names like GM Daewoo Lacetti. Likewise, the Nubira name is not used on the Korean market anymore, so there's only the Daewoo Lacetti sedan (J200) - the later hatchback version of model J200 is not even sold there. Now how to redirect the Chevrolet Lacetti hatchback (model J200) (aka Suzuki Reno, Chevrolet Optra5 etc) - should it be redirected to Daewoo Lacetti (J200) sedan?

I suggest leaving the articles as is (that is Europe-centric) until there's a satisfactory solution. See also Talk:Chevrolet Nubira#Daewoo or Chevrolet?. --DmitryKo 19:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. In that case, the secondary names should have their own articles as well, to explain the differences - should the original one get too big. In that case, there would be articles for Daewoo Kalos, Daewoo Gentra, Chevrolet Kalos, Chevrolet Aveo and Holden Barina, for example. --Pc13 22:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
That's what I'm talking about - there would be a lot of 2-line dictionary definition stubs that will never grow. I'd prefer to have articles on cars, not car names - look at the Opel Corsa which is heavily badge engineered as well (I don't like the current name of the article though). --DmitryKo 15:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let's list the confusion, then:
- Daewoo Matiz --> Daewoo/Chevy Matiz (EU) / Chevy Spark (Asia)
- Daewoo Kalos --> Daewoo/Chevy Kalos (EU) / Chevy Aveo MKI (US/Russia) / Pontiac Wave (Canada) / Holden Viva (Aust.)
- Daewoo Gentra --> Chevy Aveo (EU) / Chevy Aveo MKII (US/Russia) / Holden Barina MKV (Aust.)
- Daewoo Nubira --> Daewoo Nubira MKI (EU) (replaced by Lacetti)
- Daewoo Lacetti --> Daewoo/Chevy Nubira MKII (EU) / Chevy Lacetti (UK/Asia) / Suzuki Forenza (US) / Chevy Optra (Canada/Japan) / Holden Viva (Aust.)
- Daewoo Lacetti 5 --> Chevy Lacetti (EU/Asia) / Suzuki Reno (US) / Chevy Optra5 (Canada/Japan) / Holden Viva (Aust.)
- Daewoo Tacuma - Daewoo/Chevy Rezzo (Central EU) / Daewoo/Chevy Tacuma (South EU) / Chevy Vivant (others)
- Daewoo Magnus --> Daewoo/Chevy Evanda (EU) / Suzuki Verona (US) / Chevy Epica (Canada)
Confusion exists with the Lacetti/Nubira and Kalos/Gentra/Aveo. --Pc13 17:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If this reaches a consensus, please copy/paste to a subpage of WP:NC to make it a Naming Conventino. Radiant_>|< 14:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree on calling the Gentra the Holden Barina. The fourth-generation Barina is actually a Kalos re-engineered for Australian conditions, not the Gentra that debuted at Shanghai. In addition, the Holden JF Viva is really the sedan, hatchback, and wagon versions of the Lacetti/Nubira/Optra/Forenza/Reno, which like the Barina is re-engineered for Australian conditions. Both of them will be offered in the 2006 model year, although the Viva webpage is up and running on Holden's website [8]. The reason why Holden is offering the New Barina and the Viva is because sales of the Commodore have fallen because of high energy prices. In addition, to Holden, it's cheaper to import a Kalos-based Barina than an Opel Corsa-based Barina simply because of price. In addition, Holden owns a bit of GMDAT. To call the Gentra the Barina is absurd, in my opinion, when the New Barina is really the Kalos. --DanCBJMS, 23:05 EDT, Tuesday, 11 October, 2005; 03:05 GMT, Wednesday, 12 October, 2005

    • The above confusion alone is why the original, home-market situation should be adopted as the "base", and export markets may be added to that page. In cases of the Holden Barina, where the nameplate has been on a Suzuki, Opel and Daewoo, then it can have its own page. We have used this convention successfully for other cars (e.g. Nissan Sunny, Ssangyong Chairman, Volkswagen Golf), so I still fail to see why this one marque must be an exception.
The notion of "because one continent has it this way" doesn't wash with me, especially given the convention long agreed on this page. Now the move is done, I say we work on them, and move on. Stombs 11:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Descision

Pages moved to Daewoo versions as requested and double redirects fixed. Take care! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Flickr photos of old lorries

Found lots of photos of old British lorries and cars under cc-by-2.0 at http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/by-2.0/tags/lorry/ - I have got the Sentinels but thought someone'd be interested in the rest of them. Dunc| 16:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Use of platform page for core information

I was in the process of re-doing the Volvo V70 page when I started thinking about what to with the similar S60 and S80 pages. As these car share the same platform, doesn't it make sense to have the platform page containing ALL info, with the models based on that platform re-directing there instead? I.e. using the V70 as a template, make that generic for S60 and S80, then merge with the platform page? Obviously, this approach wouldn't work for all platforms, e.g. the Ford Mondeo and Jaguar X-Type are quite different, but when the S60 is merely the saloon form of V70 it seems daft having two distinct pages to maintain! Any thoughts? --Pete Richardson 14:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The Volvo S80 is a different car from S60/V70, so I think the S80 deserves an own page.

Similar question with the Volvo 300 series and 400 series. Where Volvo 340, 343, 345 and 360 are bunched together at one page, while Volvo 440, 460 and 480 got one each. Although that makes a little sense, since the 300 models were more similar to each other than the 400 models. Especially I think the Volvo 480 deserves its own page. --Boivie 14:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Boivie, and the 460 page should be merged into a 400 series page. Stombs 02:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

New user

Hi there, I am one of the users who posted from 82.42.151.164 as an anon IP contributor. I will be making some useful contributions, like on the Ford Focus talk page.

Leave a message on my talk page if you want to talk about cars or anything in general with me. --Astwell1986 11:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Use of manufacturer photos

Can someone give a clear explanation of image policy as it pertains manufacturer's promotional photos? I can't figure it out. For example, the tag on this

File:Tbird 1980.jpg
{{replacethisimage}}

seems to indicate it's OK as fair use, but this 100px has an additional tag that says it's really not OK and can be used only temporarily at best. ???? RivGuySC 16:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

They're both OK. The Charger photo's additional tag notes that it should be possible to obtain a photo using a free licence, i.e. it should be possible to get someone out there to find a '73 Charger and take a picture of it so that Wikipedia won't need to use the copyrighted photo at all. --93JC 00:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
But the exact same thing can be said about the '80 T-bird. I don't see the distinction. RivGuySC 02:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no distinction. The person who uploaded the '80 Thunderbird photo didn't bother to mark it with a "fairusereplace" tag, that's all. Check it now. ;) --93JC 16:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

VW Golf vs. Volkswagen Golf

At talk:Volkswagen, there is a diskussion about naming VW model pages. I'd appreciate some input from other automobile interested wikipedians. --Boivie 12:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussions moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Layouts

Overview heading

It's unclear to me for what the "Overview" heading is. I suggest deleting it and promoting the succeeding three headings up one level. —Vespristiano 03:11, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

Yeah that's valid. We need an article with a lot more information than this one to really play with the layouts. What do you think of the box at the side? I know a lot of the articles within series (e.g. planes, ships) have boxes like this, so it would be good to have one for cars but I think it can be improved a lot. akaDruid 13:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I do like the box at the side. —Vespristiano 01:49, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

Data box

I really like the data box (cars are perfect for this format) and it would be a good place to include vital stats like max HP & torque, 0-60 (might be controversial, considering testing procedures), wheelbase, final drive, etc. but there are so many variables in a car it could easily turn into information overload. However, as a car enthusiast I think most of this data is rather important, and I would like to find a way to include it.

We might be able to move power figures (and possibly reduce data duplication) to a different page by making a seperate page for every engine that is used in more than 1 car (i.e. BMW's e32 740i and e34 540i both use an identical M60 engine). Gearboxes are also resued fairly often. We first need to figure out how much info to provide. I don't know how many people would care about this stuff, but I do, and the data is often hard to find. PlatinumX 10:09, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First up, welcome aboard! Second, you are are right, there is a whole load more data to go on the table. I would say that performance figures, dimensions and sales area are all relevant enough to be included. I'm going to update the example to show more stuff as I think of it, please do feel add/remove/change anything you want, so we can see your ideas. akaDruid 15:06, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've added some more to the table, and changed the example to use the VW Golf. We need to decide on a colour for the heading, as each of the article series has different colours, and also I think it would be good to have a boilderplate text for each manufacturer at the bottom. I'll work on this idea. akaDruid 16:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Infobox has more about the tables... I propose dark green (kinda british racing green?) for automobiles. any ideas?
Thank you for the warm welcome! You've done an excellent job with the table - I added a few margins and called it done. Dark green works for me - I never thought about a "universal color" for cars and probably couldn't think of another that would be better.
I just realized that there could be some confusion caused by the change in lengths and weights between the VW mk.1 and mk.2 for instance. We could use data from the most recent model (and make it clear that's what we mean), or we could average out or approximate the differences in the chassis (probably not a good idea). We could even make pages for ever generation of a car and move the data there, but that might be overkill or unencyclopedic, although I would have no problem with it.
I have also changed Kerb to Curb - if you object perhaps we can find a region neutral word, which might also help people who do not know what curb weight is. Unladen weight?
I have no real objections to Curb, I hadn't thought about multiple spellings. We'll go with green for the colour, and I'll update the Wikipedia:Infobox page with the choice. There's a page for custom messages somewhere too, I'll find a link for that in a bit, cos we should put new msgs like the VW on that. I have no issues with pages for each mark of the vehicle, but I think we should hold off making them until they are needed. For example, if the page gets too large too complex, then it is time to make a distinction. For normal use, I would say that all values we have info for can be entered, e.g. 1000kg (Mk.1) 1220kg (Mk.2) etc. I'll add some example to the layout page in case that doesn't make sense. akaDruid 15:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable - it turns out I have already made a series page BMW E34 and its already getting huge. We may even need to break it down even more, like [BMW E34 540i], [BMW E39 540i], etc. but I would kind of like to avoid this as it will create about a billion car pages. Its best to think about how the readers will be using this information. Some will just want general information and a short history of a series, which we can provied i.e. BMW 5-Series. Then, some enthusiasts may want more technical information, which they can find in the model specific areas, i.e BMW E34. Someone looking to buy a specific model of car may even be able to find details on avaliable options, potential problems, and other cars to consider on a model specific, year specific page i.e BMW E34 540i. All said, we really should be working from the top down. I'll stop jumping ahead to write about my car :) for the higher model and series tables, your listing solutions looks good. PlatinumX 00:55, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Creating pages for one model doesn't force anyone to do the same for every model, so go where your imagination takes you. As long as subpages covering the individual sub-models are needed, and properly linked from the main model page, then there is no reason not to have them. For some vehicles, there will never be enough information to have detailed sub-pages, but for others, there is just too much to fit on a single page. akaDruid 13:28, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've just been checking out the 5-series articles, they are looking pretty sweet already. Just a note of caution - we're gonna kick ourselves if we start pasting infoboxes in everywhere and then want to change something, and end up with 500 pages to update! It's probably best to keep the infoboxes to a couple of pages first so we can try them out, and work out what we've forgotten. Then we'll list the infobox on Wikipedia:Infobox and start putting it into the bulk of the other articles. akaDruid 13:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Plus I forgot to say, if you've got a 5-series, could you upload a picture of it? It would be good to have one on the article. akaDruid 13:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Also, what units for length, HP (kw?) should we use? We could put both, or use metric for European autos and imperial for American cars, or just stick to SI units (hard for us Americans - we are getting a feel for the distance, but noone has heard of a kilowatt except for on thier utility bill). PlatinumX 21:54, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think we could useboth measurements where applicable, e.g. 180hp(30kw) or 1100mm(6'3")? That way it's clear to everyone. Don't worry if you don't know what the conversion is or anything, just enter what you do know, e.g. 180hp(??kw), cos people seem to love fixing little things like that. I do it myself quite often. That's what I find to be the beauty of the system, how the articles grow and improve. akaDruid 15:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Also, In making pages for engines, what nameing convention should we use? [BMW M54 engine], [BMW M54 (engine)], [BMW M54] or somthing else? -- PlatinumX 04:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not sure really. There is a naming conventions page, or maybe we should ask on the village pump? Has anyone made any pages on specific engines yet? I would be tempted to use [BMW M54] until we run into any conflicts, then use [BMW M54 (engine)] where appropriate. Run with that for now if you wanted to get started. Unless your conscience bothers you :) akaDruid 15:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Have we come to any consensus on the data box layout yet? I've added the standard layout to the Ford Mondeo page and I'm keen to put it on some of my other pet pages? An example layout for engines (specifc or series) would be great if anyone has time to do it? I've created stubs for Duratec and Duratorq but not sure where to take them yet. Cheers! --Pete Richardson 12:49, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Update: I've gone ahead and fitted the Duratec page with an example layout, what do you guys think? --Pete Richardson 15:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nice, I like it. Maybe add it to the /Layouts page so people can copy it from there? akaDruid 11:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I've been absent from this space. (I didn't know I had to set my Wikipedia account to watch the "Layouts" sub-page in addition to the main project page.)

I probably should contribute my humble opinions on some issues, even though some may now be irrelevant.

  • As for how much information to include in articles: I consider myself an "inclusionist", so I feel that any information relevant to a specific car does belong in that car's article.
  • I support the idea of "infoboxes" for manufacturers.
  • I have no problem with making separate articles for each generation of an automobile model.
  • I feel it's important to not ever average out any data and then present it as fact: to do so would be misleading.

Vespristiano 02:12, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

I mostly with Vespristiano (blimely, that's a big name to type!), although we have to be careful to ensure that the important information is presented first and clarity is always maintained. I saw someone deposit a full spec sheet for the VW Passat recently. Full marks for effort but it wasn't very readable so the important facts were lost. What's important? I guess anything which a lay person tends to understand about a car: engines, bodystyle, build years etc. Heavily technical details and trivia come way down the list.
I don't agree with having separate articles for generations though. I can see the value of it but it makes it harder to refer to improvements across versions. My 2pence worth. --Pete Richardson 08:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree: no matter how much information is presented, the most important information should be as accessible as possible. As for separate articles for each generation, the problem of "[referring] to improvements across versions" is one I hadn't realized. For that very reason, perhaps separate pages are an overall bad idea. —Vespristiano 22:18, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)
My opinion is that we should start with a single page for each model, with differences and specific details for each generation under seperate headings, as in the current VW Golf. Once any of those headings reaches an excessive size, then a new article can be created, and the section of the main article adapted to read something along the lines of '==Mk.4 Golf==; See [[VW Golf Mk.4]] for more infomation; :The Mk.4 was produced until 2003 blah blah etc summery'. Much along the lines of how the country articles are now: United Kingdom contains a brief history and a link to History of the UK or whatever. Hope you understand what I mean (not sure it makes sense lol). We need to do something with regard to presentation and navigation, some articles are getting difficult to read. For example 3rd generation of the BMW 5-Series has floods of information on the BMW E34 page but no link from the main BMW 5-Series page. I'll have a look at tidying that up as a reference. No offence btw to PlatinumX who put a lot of hard work into those pages :) akaDruid 11:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the idea to make sections of car pages for generations, and then separate articles with more detail. —Vespristiano 21:24, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

I really like the style of this table from another article. Could we adapt it for our use and thus make our data box look even better?

Brigham Young University

Motto Enter to learn, go forth to serve
Established month day, 1875

Vespristiano 22:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spelling Error

Note for anyone who has used the example layout: there was a spelling error where "companents" in the data box should be "components". Please correct any articles that you have used this layout with. Thanks. --Pete Richardson 13:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Car classifications

For the Class: section on the data table, I think we should have a standard of choices to choose from. Car classification would be great, but it's currently a bit disorganized and possibly incomplete. There are many ways of classifying a car. Is 'sedan' a class or a body style (which we should also standardize)? Should we go by purpose (i.e. sports car, offroader) even if the distinctions can be fuzzy? Is the Toyota Prius an economy car, a compact car, or a hatchback? Even the EPA regulations seem a little lacking (but at least they're consistent). Just a bit to think about :) PlatinumX 23:15, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Hopefully once Car classification stabilises a little we will have a better list. I'm off there to have a look now :) akaDruid 10:18, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Custom Element

I've created a custom element for VW, so you can put {{msg:VW}} into the text, and it will come out as at the bottom of the example (only with the page you are on not linked). What do people think? akaDruid 17:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sedan disambiguation

Please modify your template to disambiguate sedan to sedan (car). Thanks. RedWolf 04:52, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

It's done. This template is 'work in progress' anyway, and not finalised, so anyone may modify or improve it. akaDruid 09:29, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"The Automobile series"

I fail to see the point of the final line of the infobox. We've discussed it before in random pages, but we have to decide here. The final "This article is part of the automobile series" line serves no purpose - we can all tell it's an automobile. Either we add a separate series for each marque (I like this idea) or we just kill that line. Thoughts? --SFoskett 02:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have added marques on all Lincoln articles where the bottom line now reads: "This article is part of the Lincoln automobile Series. This way users have an easy link back to the manufacturer's page. You're right though just adding automobile is uneccesary. Gerdbrendel 19:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence case

I propose that the layout box uses sentence case to match section headings. Thus 'Body styles' instead of 'Body Styles'. Bobblewik  (talk) 15:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seconded, with the note that proper nouns (like vehicle names) still get capitalized. --SFoskett 16:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Spaces in units of measure

I propose that there is a space between the unit of measure and the unit symbol. Thus '4804 mm' instead of '4804mm'. Bobblewik  (talk) 15:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I propose non-breaking spaces instead. --SFoskett 16:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
That is fine by me. Bobblewik  (talk) 16:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Style for number ranges

I propose that we make more use of the term 'to' rather than '-' for number ranges. Thus '4731 to 4804 mm' instead of '4731-4804 mm'. One reason is that characters that look like '-' also look like minus. Bobblewik  (talk) 15:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We have begun using ndash (–) instead. I prefer it to a textual "to". --SFoskett 16:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed the use of ndash (–). It still looks similar to a minus. In most instances the reader can use context to resolve ambiguity, but it may not always be resolvable without prior knowledge or pleasant. What if you were talking about temperatures from minus 10 to minus 20 degrees Celsius? Bobblewik  (talk) 16:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blue boxes

Gerdbrendel (talk · contribs) has been adding "blue boxes" surrounding the engine information. What do folks think of these? I personally don't like them - they overemphasize the engine stuff and (currently) force ugly line wraps. But of course this is WikiProject Automobiles, not WikiProject Sfoskett (sadly! LOL) so I'd like other opinions. See Chevrolet Tahoe for example. --SFoskett 18:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that some users may not like the boxes, but I would like to explain why I came up with them. I noticed that the infoboxes on some car pages were extremely long because thay listed the engine specs for every single generation of the vehicle. On other pages such as the Lincoln Town Car the egine specs were not at all mentioned in the infobox but instead were part of the text. The Town Car is where I started the Blue Boxes to differenciate the Engine Specs and make the text appear shorter, and thus more appealing to users. So please also view the Lincoln Town Car article as it is the birthplace of the blue box. I sincerely hope we can settle our creative differences by also keeping in that these blue boxes are more than just pretty or ugly since they serve a higher purpose than that of esthetics. The Blue boxes make articles appeat better organized, easier to read and by shortening the text more appealing to users. If you can't get over their look please consider that I'd gladly change their color. On the Lincoln LS article for example I have created lightgrey boxes. Please view both the Lincoln Town Car and Lincoln LS before making up your mind. Thank you very much. Gerdbrendel 19:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing like these that I can see in any other area of Wikipedia. Most other areas seem to use infoboxes, for example, but just include information like this in tables in the text.
I agree that it is important to find a consistent place for vehicle statistics, since it is likely that this will proliferate as time goes on. However, engine information is just one area. I suspect that trim lines and transmission, for example, will soon also be included.
I would like to suggest that we use class=wikitable tables rather than blue or gray boxes. Here is a suggestion:
Years Model Engine type Displacement Power Torque
Late 2006– S 450 M113 V8 4.6 L 340 PS (335 hp/250 kW)  
2006– S 550 M113 V8 5.5 L 388 PS (383 hp/285 kW) 391 ft·lbf (530 N·m)
Early 2006– S 600 M275 twin-turbo V12 5.5 L 517 PS (510 hp/380 kW)  
Late 2006– S 63 AMG M113 V8 6.2 L 510 PS (503 hp/375 kW)  
2006– S 65 AMG M275 twin-turbo V12 6.0 L 612 PS (604 hp/450 kW)  
What do you think? Clearer and easier to read than anything we've done before... --SFoskett 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I've seen this table also on the Lexus LS page and have used something similar before. I agree they include more information than my blue boxes that is esaier to read. This way the infoboxes stay short and tech specs are have their seperate place, preventing the article from becoming So, since they do waht my blue boxes were supposed to do, I have no problem with class=wikitable tables replacing my blue boxes, I favor the idea. The only problem is that before creating the Blue Box, I used a regular table to list all egnines, then another user suggested I use something else or merge my generation specific tables into one huge-gigantic infobox. As a compromise I created a table that didn't look like a table. But since your suggestion is a bit different plus it being disscussed here, it shouldn't have a problem prevailing on the car articles. Great, Thank you Gerdbrendel 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox automobile

Lincoln Town Car
2000LincolnTownCar.jpg
Overview
Manufacturer Ford Motor Company
Production 1981–present
Body and chassis
Class Full-size luxury car
Body style 4-door sedan
Platform FR Panther
Related Mercury Grand Marquis
Chronology
Predecessor Lincoln Continental

There is a new effort afoot to create a variable Template:Infobox automobile. Please feel free to contribute. I have added it to Hyundai Azera as a test. --SFoskett 21:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there should most defenitely should be a standard infobox. But again my worry is lenght. I think engine, transmission, and dimensions should be mentioned in the table you proposed above. This new table would be put in for each generation, breaking up the text and curbing execcsive infobox lenght. I don't know whether or not the platform should be mentioned in the boxes mentioned above or the infobox

Here's my infobox proposal (Town Car as example):

FYI I have revamped the Lincoln Town Car site. Gerdbrendel 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I gotta agree - I think the auto infobox should only include general information about the auto, not generation or model-specific things like length, etc... I intend to propose a generation-specific sub-box to add to the Automobile Infobox template.
Note that I just changed your Lincoln Town Car example (to the right) into the new Infobox automobile with no loss of data! --SFoskett 17:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The new infobox looks great and I'll put it to use on all Lincoln articles. I still beleive the table you proposed above would work for generations; I use it on the Lincoln sites for each gengeration's engines and dimensions (L/W/Wb), when that information is available. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 19:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Concept Model Infoboxes

HI, I have just created two articles for the Lincoln MK9 and Navicross concept models and have noticed that the standard infobox I use for cars in production doesn't really fit the concept cars. I think a new infobox should be created for Concept Cars Only that features a spaces for the year when they were presented as well as the Auto Show where they were presented. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds ok. Another option would be to add some optional fields to the standard infobox, but then most cars wouldn't use them. Shawnc 18:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox automobile engine}}

Casting about for information about aircraft conversions of automobile engines, I decided to be bold and create a new template for automobile engines. Information fields are based on the aircraft {{pistonspecs}}, and style is based on {{Infobox automobile}}. Example implementations can be seen at Subaru EA engine and Suzuki G engine. McNeight 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

References

Each car article should have a Reference section. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Info box placement

To conform with layout guidelines the infobox is best placed in the body of the article and an image used in the top right. Wikipedia:Infobox templates#Design and usage and Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Is" in place of "was" for discontinued models

I have noticed that a number of articles on discontinued cars start like this: "The second-generation Saab 900 (also referred to as the GM900 or NG900 among enthusiasts) was a compact executive car". Because the car still exists it can't be a "was" and should be an "is". Because all the car articles state the years a car was in production, there is no need to differentiate between "was" and "is" regarding the actual existence of the car - the car "is", but it "was" produced during certain years. So, "The second-generation Saab 900 (also referred to as the GM900 or NG900 among enthusiasts) is a compact executive car, which was produced from 1993 until 1998." SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a particular pet peeve of mine; I try to correct it whenever I see it. However, what's the protocol for cars still in production? I would be inclined to write them the same way regardless, as it's easier to update once the car is actually discontinued. Duncan1800 (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed To put it in simplest terms, cars don't go extinct. Through careful wording, "is" can be used correctly without sounding too awkward. --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussions moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Categorization

Outline

With the implementation of a categorization mechanism in Wikipedia, we need to think about how we want to categorize automobiles.

General recommendations are to set up a category tree and categorise articles within the deepest 'leaf' category used.

For automobile models, I think one category per major manufacturer? Say, [[Category:Ford automobiles]] or [[Category:Ford vehicles]]. Automobiles or vehicles? Those should all in turn link to a top level category.

For auto manufacterers, they should link to a [[Category:Automobile manufacturers]], I think.

Comments? —Morven 05:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I haven't heard of this "categorization mechanism" of which you write. Can I read about it somewhere? —Vespristiano 18:37, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories and m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using Categories for more info —Morven 19:35, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've started some work here without looking at thise page! Check out Category:Automobile manufacturers for some examples. I reckon lay them out like this, a subcategory for each manufacturer, with any articles related to them, including all the model articles, in one category. [[User:Akadruid|akaDruid (Talk)]] 10:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I like Category:Automobile manufacturers. Definitely all manufacturer articles should go there. However, I'm not so sure about the models. For one thing, manufacturer names aren't correct for categories: my understanding of 'good category names' is that they should work when fit into the phrase "List of <xs>". Thus, Category:Porsche is bad, Category:Porsche vehicles, Category:Porsche cars, or Category:Porsche automobiles are better. I'd been using "vehicles" since some manufacturers produce heavy trucks, buses etc. under those names too, and people don't tend to think of those as being 'cars' or even the broader term 'automobiles'. Let's decide what to do before we go much further.
As to the placing of, say, Category:Ford vehicles, they could indeed go under Category:Automobile manufacturers. —Morven 23:40, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've been categorizing using "Xxx vehicles" lately. I originally created Category:Mazda, but now I see that this was bad. I'll recategorize those... Also, I moved the vehicles categories under Automobiles instead of just Vehicles. It doesn't make sense to have Cadillac right next to lunar rover... --Sfoskett 14:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that we should have sub-categories of Category:Automobile manufacturers for each manufacturer and that, if we are only including models, Category:Xxx vehicles is the best option. However, we need to consider whether we want to include manufacturers' engines (eg. BMW M60) and things like VVT technologies (eg. VTEC). If so, should these be grouped into the same categories as the models or should they have their own categories (eg. Catagory:Xxx engines)? SamH 15:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think it's OK to have a Category for a manufacturer (like "Mazda"), with "Mazda vehicles" under it, and also "Mazda technologies" and "Mazda engines" and "Mazda seat coverings" or whatever you want. Only the root manufacturer Cat and "vehicles" Cat goes in "Automobiles" though. One more thing - we gotta make sure everyone is using the pipe sort thingy with the Category name so they look OK in the Category page. I've done a LOT of 'em today - Category:Ford vehicles, Category:General Motors vehicles, etc... I guess I'm obsessive? --Sfoskett 17:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

General issues with road vehicle categories

I have requested background on vehicle categorization at WP:TRANSPORT, but it seems that project is moribund, so I extend an invitation to participate to editors active here.- choster (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)