Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Category:Mid-engined vehicles[edit]

Category:Mid-engined vehicles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Anonima Lombarda Fabbrica Automobili articles' titles[edit]

Good day everyone. I'd like to have some opinions and possibly reach consensus on how to consistently title articles about Anonima Lombarda Fabbrica Automobili vehicles. As I see it there are three options:


Personally I'm for solution number 3 (ALFA), for the following reasons:

  • Conciseness
  • Accessibility: acronyms crammed with periods are complex to type, especially on mobile devices.
  • Common usage: even in period people simply wrote ALFA or Alfa, just as they did with FIAT/Fiat.

Naturally this is only concerning the article titles, not the content.—Cloverleaf II (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh goodie... I love votes. I'll pick option three as well. Periods for acronyms are a bit old fashioned in my view. OSX (talkcontributions) 12:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Also option three is consistent with other brands like SEAT, BMW, GMC, MG, SAAB, TVR, HSV, FPV, etc. OSX (talkcontributions) 12:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I pick 3 as well, only because of the FIAT reference (and would have you shot run over by a 4 HP for putting up Option 2!) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I too vote option 3, although I do like the look of the periods for aesthetical reasons.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm also for option 3. As was mentioned, it's just easier to type. I also agree this applies to titles, not content. Springee (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I have performed the page moves as per option three given the above unanimous support. OSX (talkcontributions) 04:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Why you changed these as its very clear the company name was officially spelled as A.L.F.A, just need to see Alfa webpage, even car names are spelled there with periods , cant be compared to SAAB or BMW those names have never been written with periods. And if you do these changes please fix all pages, also main Alfa Romeo page , In my opinion this change is wrong anyway. Is this thing even votable?, what says WIkipedia policy? -->Typ932 T·C 19:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I simply followed the instructions of the discussion above. I note that you never participated until after the changes had been made. The official name for the Volkswagen Up is Volkswagen up! but we do not use to the manufacturer's name, but rather the "common" English language compliant name. OSX (talkcontributions) 02:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Blame me, not OSX! I started the whole thing, because I don't think it is clear at all how the name was spelled. We have cursive Alfa scripts, this famous ad prefers A.L.F.A though the badge in the centre has no dots (badges always read ALFA), it's ALFA on the chassis number plaque of the 24 HP too (which looks like this), and A.L.F.A. on the new museum's panels. Proof of this confusion is that out of four Anonima Lombarda articles, three used two different spellings of the acronym, and the fourth bypassed the problem being titled Alfa Romeo... Bringing up the issue here seemed to me the best way to reach a modicum of consistency. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Now when its changed should the main Alfa page also fixed? there is written A.L.F.A in many times? >Typ932 T·C 05:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Riley Pathfinder[edit]

An 'anonymous' IP editor with one of those user-names that is just a long string of numbers and letters has deleted the supplementary infobox on the Pathfinder article relating to the Riley 'Big-Four' engine. I seem to recall some discussion about these secondary i/boxes a while back but can't seem to find it or recall the outcome of the discussion. No reason has been given for the deletion (no edit summary). Anyone able to advise what the position is/should be. Thanks, Eagleash (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Update; I've replaced the secondary box, for now. If someone else wishes to remove it again, then fine. Eagleash (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Japanese car template deletion[edit]

FYI, two templates have been nominated for deletion, Template:Japanese Supercars, 1957–present and Template:Japanese Supercars -- (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

List of automobiles notable for negative reception[edit]

I created a new article List of automobiles notable for negative reception. I would appreciate any help I could get copyediting and wikifying it. For example for some reasons the citations are not formatting correctly. Karrmann (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous issues with this article. This first is that there is no objective standard for inclusion of cars to this list. The automobiles mentioned are only U.S. domestic market and not representative of a global view. This "list" is also nothing more than a collection of negative opinions that were voiced much after each car's introductions and market receptions. Most of the references provided are not based on rigorous study, but are mainly collections of attitudes or editorials, such as the random musings and sweeping generalizations by some authors without them providing any data or credible sources for their statements. Moreover, many of the cars of this list earned high marks for their pioneering technology and innovations, but some of these advances were too early for the mass market to accept. Another example is the record of exhaustive tests that were conducted years ago for many of the cars on this list that provided the basis for them achieving recognitions such as "car of the year" or other awards. Some of the references in this list note the "recanting" of these awards, without providing any rigorous tests or analysis. These new disavowals do not actually change the history of the models. However, using current editorial "recanting" of these awards in sources that are mostly sophomoric attempts at humor at the expense of vehicles that were unconventional for their era. Such is the case of honors for cars with unconventional styling or technology, and that the objective superiority of such models would be somehow invalidated in hindsight. Many of the cars on this "list" did conform to traditional American assumptions, yet they were highly successful in foreign markets. This could lead to proliferation of "list of notable for negative reception in ______ market" for every nation. In summary, this article is not "notable" for inclusion in a fact-based encyclopedia. Thank you, CZmarlin (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The list is based mostly on American tastes (Wikipedia aims to a worldwide perspective) and is extremely "revisionist" as is based on current opinions on cars and not in how they were considered back in their time. A significative number of the cars listed had positive or mixed reviews. However, supposed "experts", writing almost exclusively on blogs, posted "witty" articles to attack the cars they didn't like. This list is pretty subjective and it should go away from Wikipedia. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Contributors to the WikiProject Automobiles should be aware of the effort to "define" the inclusion of models to a new article entitled List of automobiles notable for negative reception. The initial author, Karrmann, has characterized my referenced contributions and edits as "vandalizing this page," concluded that I "decided to take a personal vendetta against it," as well as placed me on notice to take me to "arbitration," in addition to some sort of action against any new article that I contribute. This is apparently because only the cars that Karrmann decided to include on this list remain, regardless of cited information about other examples. In any case, inclusion of such an article is bound to have numerous issues in an encyclopedia. One problem is not considering a global viewpoint. An example would be models that were successful in their domestic markets, but may have had negative reception among U.S. consumers. Furthermore, there are numerous publications and books offering "revisionist" opinions about cars many years after their actual production and marketing. Another problem are the repetitive mentions of certain cars without any research or background study that are written mainly to enlist entertainment or humor at the expense of an "easy" target. An example are the numerous statements by entertainer/experts "slamming" vehicles they do not like and using subjective terms (such as declaring the worst car of the year) rather than using any facts or statistics. Moreover, Karrmann is now requesting confirmation of the idea that inclusion of models to this list have a threshold of three sources panning the car. No effort would be made as to the validity or analysis used to include the particular models by these sources. In the majority of cases, these sources would include arbitrary lists with zero objective analysis. Therefore, it will make it possible to include almost every model ever made! These sources typically do not use quantifiable measures, such as the manufacturer's production expectations and the model's actual sales in the marketplace. Using such a quantifiable definition - when consumers do not buy them - could be a good metric of the cars with notable negative receptions. Furthermore, almost all the vehicles with major recalls would also qualify of negative receptions. There are many other problems with such a list of automobiles in a fact-based encyclopedia. Once again, I welcome thoughtful input. Thanks - CZmarlin (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Minicar RSV for deletion - can it be rescued?[edit]

I've just prodded Minicar RSV. I don't see sources to merit it passing GNG, but as it does "sound cool", I am notifying members of this WP - maybe you can rescue it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Intermediate Shaft Bearing[edit]

Dear automobile experts: This old draft will soon be deleted as stale under db-g13 unless someone takes an interest in it. There are plenty of books which talk about this topic; most are repair manuals explaining how to fix it. There are also news reports about mechanical problems in Porsches because of it. Is this a notable topic that should be its own article? If not it could be redirected to Porsche Boxster, although this article doesn't actually explain what it is.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Task forces[edit]

Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question but I wanted to see if the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Task Forces was implemented in the template. I don't think it is but I'm just going through the unassessed ones at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


The usage and primary topic of Caravan is under discussion, see talk:travel trailer -- (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussion[edit]

Please comment in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/ --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

article name: Tricycle or Autorickshaw?[edit]

The naming of Tricycle Autorickshaws is under discussion, see talk:Auto rickshaw (Philippines) -- (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Pontiac move request[edit]

At Talk:Pontiac I have made a move request contending that the car brand is not the primary topic for this term. Your input will be appreciated.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Honda Civic Si info[edit]

I know the 2006-2011 Civic Si has 197 horse power. Also it only comes with a 6-speed manual. Where does it clarify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

At the top of most pages there is a search box. Type in 'Honda Civic Si'. By the time you type 'Honda Civ' it should have made some suggestions. In that article you can see the table of contents with '2006–2011'. In that section there is an infobox on the right hand side that shows the choices of engines (including 197 hp) and the choices of transmission (only 6 speed manual). Also remember that these are global options that may not always be available to you locally.  Stepho  talk  07:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Singapore based IP[edit]

An editor with a Singapore IP address is currently making many edits of Project articles and has done for some days and with different addresses. The edits are probably well-intentioned and made in good faith but usually if not always have unintended consequences leaving red stuff behind like here. What is to be done? Eddaido (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen him changing a lot of the articles that I edit. Mostly he adds way too many links that violate WP:OVERLINK. Replacing FR layout also seems to be a favourite. I've left hints in the edit summary when I revert and sometimes as comments inside the article but he doesn't seem to notice these. I think he isn't trying to screw things up but is simply working out of ignorance. Unfortunately he has plenty of energy to keep doing the exact same edit again and again on the same article, even after multiple reverts. I don't really want to scare away somebody who actually wants to help. I think polite persistence in reverting will have to do.  Stepho  talk  08:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
There's been a similar problem on F1 project related pages. Constantly reverting edits and trying to engage via talk-pages (adopting a cautious approach) has not worked. We were advised by Admin to compile a list of all IPs used and take it to ANI, which eventually we were forced to do. The editor concerned is now on his third range block after several episodes of edit-warring, 'vandalism' and sundry other offences. Eagleash (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Do any of you know if can be considered a reliable source? NealeFamily (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Too commercial, their main focus is to sell you a car. Use only if the info is not obtainable elsewhere and is not controversial.  Stepho  talk  06:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo Giulia (952) edits[edit]

Greetings, regretfully Typ932 has decided to engage in an edit war over his preference to have 2 engine tables; one that he purports to be European engine range, and the other the North American range. That is the main issue, but there is more to it. With every "undo", Typ932 is causing the loss of significant detail added in the mean time, which is fully and reliably referenced.

What's the view on having multiple engine range tables for the same car? I have tried (unsuccessfully given the edit warring approach instead taken by Typ932) to point out the fact that the engine range is the SAME and the difference is simply due to the well known fact that the USA adopts the SAE standard whereas Europe adopts the DIN standard. The difference in acceleration times is also self-evident: Europe's 0-100km/h times will always be marginally slower than the US' 0-60mph standard. Other issues include Type932 claiming that the name for a 2.0 Turbo petrol powered model is "2.0 MultiAir", when the name of that model (unlike the top-of-the-range Quadrifoglio) has not even made official; moreover, that engine uses a "MultiAir2" system anyway and not the older "MultiAir".

Minor issues have included Typ932's preference for "PS" to quote engine outputs instead of (kw or hp) - this was conceded because it is trivial; and his reference to the LA Auto Show presentation without referencing - this too was conceded only because it is where the 2.0 Turbo petrol engine was announced, otherwise nothing would make the LA Auto Show any more important than others inevitable Auto Shows that have occurred or will occur. The rest are unwarranted edits (reverts) that, in the process are resulting in loss of fully referenced and reliable information, as mentioned above. Importantly, Typ932's edits and references are retained anyway, so it's not as though his contributions are completely ignored - just enhanced.

p.s. Curiously, I just noted that by looking at the article's history on 13 October 2015, Typ932 himself has relied on "DIN" to quote the car's weight to argue against another editor's changes; and now he claims ignorance on this point.

Views on this please?