Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Opinions invited on the Jaguar I-Pace[edit]

Is the British Jaguar I-Pace an SUV as Jaguar[1] and the British press[2][3] are describing it, or a mid-size liftback as User:Michge[4] describes it? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a liftback by any stretch of the imagination. It would need a longer trunk for that. I might be to willing to call it a hatchback, it's not much taller and has the proportions, but I see no source for that. The sources all call it a SUV, it's going to be marketed as a SUV, I see no reason to refer to it in the article as other than SUV. --Pc13 (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
This question wasn't asked in a neutral fashion. That said, the non-neutral request doesn't change my opinion. Basically if RS's call it an SUV we follow the sources. Springee (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

With no apparent support here for the change, I've changed it back. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Following RSs is well and good, but common sense shouldn't be thrown out the window. In my opinion, this is a mid-size cross-over SUV / liftback, if ever I've seen one. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Talbot[edit]

File:Talbot Automobile Logo.png Does anyone know when Talbot began to use this logo or maybe even a logo with just the big T? Eddaido (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This October 1979 (see bottom) brochure is the oldest one Google images will give me. For what it's worth. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Would it be near enough for WP? Eddaido (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Depends on what you want to establish, right ? — I think it convincingly proves this logo design was used as early as that — It followed the PSA Group purchase of Chrysler Europe for a single dollar in 1978, so it couldn't have been much earlier either. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Reboot — Request / proposal for expansion / completion of the infobox Automobile[edit]

This is a reboot of a request / proposal that I made on the talk page of Infobox automobile on 22 February 2018.

Worldwide sales of SUVs grew from 5 million units in 2000 to 20 million in 2015 and are forecast to hit 42 million units by 2031, See: SUVs Become the Largest and Fastest-Growing Automotive Segment in 2015 — so I originally proposed including three new parameters in the infobox automobile:

  • Approach angle
  • Departure angle
  • Ground clearance

Subsequently — as the discussion unfolded — three things became clear:
1). Many more relevant parameters exist in the infobox Motorcycle, and / or in the infobox Weapon, but not available for cars and trucks,
2). Ground clearance, for example, currently is available in infobox Weapon, and
3). Other editors additionally requested parameter "track(s)".

To clarify the current status quo, I made below table — only the blue ( ! ) parameters are entirely new — all other are already available in at least one of the other two templates.

I hereby renew my request / proposal to expand the available parameters in the infobox Automobile, because I feel it is currently unnecessarily concise and restrictive. And of course the parameters should be understood to be optional. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way: * 2). @ current parameter 'Propulsion' in infobox auto is optional for non-wheeled vehicles only. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether we should be reacting to you above or below the sample table. Feel free to paste this somewhere else if I guessed wrong about that. As far as what is available as an infobox line is concerned, the point to stress is that you don't need to use all the lines every time. You almost certainly shouldn't wish to. But that is not a reason to exclude a line simply because one has never set up an entry on a car where it was sufficiently important/interesting to include. We should not be in the business of trying to second-guess what will be relevant in entries we never had the knowledge/imagination/sources to set up ourselves.
On a specific thought I just had, I am a little troubled about Approach angle and Departure angle simply because in my corner of the planet (where the roads are terrible and getting worse, but townscapes and much of the countryside are rather flat) one never - or hardly ever - comes across the terms. Maybe if I'd ever been tempted by an SUV I wouldn't think that. But maybe the terms should be linked to a definition? Success Charles01 (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your post. I think it's most transparent to keep the discussion above the table — pun intended   :-)      And indeed — the optional nature of any additional parameters cannot be stressed enough, I think.
To summarize – should we read your post as a position ? If so, how would you describe it ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Q: "should we read your post as a position?"
A: I do not understand the question. But if you are canvassing votes, then I would describe my position as a vote for "do it / doe het". Please / aub.
Charles01 (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
♠I'd strongly favor adding these as optional, & I'm frankly surprised track (or tread) isn't standard now. It's in many (all?) the specs I've ever seen published. (It might need linking out, too, for those unfamiliar with it.)
♠I'd also favor adding some of the "missing" items, including turning radius, fuel capacity, & maybe others; I'm less sure about transmission, bore & stroke, & such, because they're very model- or option-dependent.
♠Linking to the articles for approach/departure angle would be good, & that's not an uncommon thing for infoboxes, so it shouldn't create problems. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I am, broadly speaking, in favor of adding more fields to the infobox.
The production number (XYZ,ABC units) should have been included a long time ago. It might make sense to position it between the model years and assembly field.
Adding more engine related fields wouldn't be helpful in my opinion. Cars with a lot of engine options already have a lengthy infobox. In addition Template:Infobox engine exists and covers those details. A change as to how engines should be added to the infobox might be better, e.g. when the article has a table that lists all engines or something similar just have the cliff notes version in the infobox. Aka Petrol engines: 4L–6.7L V8 (XYZhp–XZZhp).
Opposed to the idea of the unit_cost field. There is no good way to list prices that are relevant to the average reader because of region differences, different taxes, differing equipment levels and so on.
Seats could be useful, especially for models with an optional third row as with many SUV and minivans.
2A04:4540:904:F00:4423:4D70:A45:1A62 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The proposed engine fields belong in the corresponding engine article, to avoid clutter and duplication (especially when the car article and the engine article don't agree).
The production numbers field promises to be a minefield. Is it total number produced so far (a maintenance headache to update every month), list of subtotals per market, list of subtotals per year, list of subtotals per model/grade, etc. This is the job of the Sales section.  Stepho  talk  22:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Sales section is equally a minefield. The production number for the infobox should perhaps only be added after production of a model, or generation of a model, has ended. The number should be of total production, all markets (RHD & LHD), all variants. A subtotal should only be allowed for notable sub models. As an example Ford made a total of 123456 F-150 (12th gen), of those 789 were a Raptor. Strict guidelines are needed so not every special edition gets added and causes clutter.
Totally agree that the proposed engine fields should not be added to the infobox. I thought this was adequately expressed with the sentence, apologies if it was not clear enough. 2A04:4540:906:5200:1893:877C:ECAB:8A44 (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the infoboxes side-by-side, it can show how the automobile infobox may have some room to grow. However, when it comes to some of the specific information (bore/stroke/ignition/compression ratio), I feel that this information is best accommodated by the engine-related infobox; we can click on a link to those specific articles to find that information. For the parameters about cost, I would say no, as automobile articles generally do not focus on pricing unless it is highly notable. Suspension, steering, and brake types might be parameters worth including alongside engine and transmission, though. As far as seating capacity, I would say yes (this infobox is used for many types of vehicles besides cars), along with payload capacity (while N/A for car articles, this would be a parameter relevant to other types of vehicles). Most of all, having a footnotes/ref parameter could make source-editing the infobox a LOT easier... --SteveCof00 (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Notability of Pricing / cost factors should not be underestimated — it was one of the crucial factors that made the Ford Model T the Car of the 20th Century, and cost-cutting was equally crucial in historic design decisions, like the omission of a front stabilizer bar on the "Unsafe at Any Speed" Chevrolet Corvair, and the Ford Pinto's explosive fuel system vulnerabilities, etc. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anybody suggests pricing or cost should be omitted from the article entire, just from the infobox, which is not meant to make reading the article unnecessary. It's supposed to be useful for someone who wants to "hit the highlights", AIUI, in much the same way the C&D spec page (frex) does. A parameter for "available engines" should be mandatory (if it's not already...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a parameter for listing engines/linking them to related articles about them (the proper convention is to link the engine article to the vehicle article through that part of the infobox). As far as listing costs go, that is more of an unwritten rule, since WP is read globally, along with many automobile articles written about vehicles out of production. However, I can agree with the point with the notability of cost and design...that is best handled in article space, though. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It isn't always preferable to use a separate infobox for the engine, let alone devote a separate article to it. As things stand right now, an editor is barred the option to simply present the engine highlights in the vehicle's infobox, if they think this will provide the most favorable article layout / structure for it .. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Passengers and by row somehow. Something like 2, 2+2 or 2+3 (automobile), 2+2+3 (minivan), 2+3+2 (SUV). Using "+" might have problems with some old advertising.
Side note: I just heard "approach angle" on some TV ad in the last few days. Not a Jeep but I don't remember who. Sammy D III (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Parameter Infobox
Automobile Motorcycle Weapon – (Selection)
| name = yes yes yes
| image = yes yes yes
| image_size = YES – but undocumented yes
| alt = missing yes yes
| caption = yes yes yes
| aka = yes yes
| manufacturer = yes yes yes
| parent_company missing yes
| origin = (country) missing yes
| production = (date(s)) yes yes yes
| model_years = yes
| number = (production) missing yes
| unit_cost = (introduction and max sticker ?) missing yes
| variants = missing yes
| assembly = yes yes
| designer = yes yes
| design_date = missing yes
| class = yes yes similar: "type"
| spec_label = (to specify a representative model) missing yes
| body_style = yes
| layout = yes
| passengers = (seats) missing yes
| platform = yes
| related = yes yes
| engine = yes yes yes
| bore_stroke = missing yes
| compression = missing yes
| top_speed = missing yes yes
| power = missing yes yes
| pw_ratio = missing yes
| torque = missing yes
| ignition = missing yes
| transmission = yes yes yes
| frame = missing yes
| suspension = missing yes yes
| steering = missing yes
| brakes = missing yes
| tires = missing yes
| propulsion = * 2) yes missing
| wheelbase = yes yes
| track(s) = (requested by another editor) missing
| length = yes yes yes
| width = yes yes yes
| height = yes yes yes
| clearance = (ground) missing yes
| approach_angle = missing
| departure_angle = missing
| weight = yes yes — dry and wet yes
| dry_weight = missing yes
| wet_weight = missing yes
| payload_capacity = missing yes
| fuel_capacity = missing yes yes
| oil_capacity = missing yes
| fuel_consumption = missing yes
| turning_radius = missing yes
| (vehicle) range = missing yes yes
| predecessor = yes yes
| successor = yes yes
| spelling = yes yes
| footnotes / ref = missing yes yes

HP to kW and kW to hp (mainly for when specs of Australian vehicles are listed), ensuring accuracy in article[edit]

What is the correct kW/hp or hp/kW for car engines??

I've seen some sources online saying

1kW = 1.3hp

1kW = 1.341hp

1hp - 0.74kW

1hp = 0.7476kW

and at Toyota_Celica#Fifth_generation_(T180;_1989–1993) I saw this:

77 kW / 103 hp

What is the correct calculation for hp-to-kW and kW-to-hp, especially for articles on vehicles sold in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa where kW is widely used?

This is mainly for vehicles like Ford Laser, Ford Sierra, Toyota Tazz, Holden Commodore and Holden Astra which I want to ensure have correct hp/kW conversions, due to the measures used (South African motoring publications quote kW for most of their reviews, I've never seen them use hp).

I want to ensure things are accurate, but have no idea! --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem is "horse power" has more than one definition. I'm not talking about different ways to measure it (SAE Gross, Net etc). I mean the first Hp, as defined by James Watt was 745.66272W=1hp, (he defined it at 1hp = 550 lb*ft/s). The Gernmans had to mess it up by coming up with their own version 1=75kp*m/s=735.5W. At least they offered a hint and called it PS (horse strength) vs Hp. 1PS=0.986 Hp. So if you use PS then you should use 735.5 but if you want to use Hp then use 745.7. Springee (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right that HP, BHP, and PS are not the same. If you convert kW to HP it's a different answer than PS. HP and BHP are measured in critically different ways. BHP is an idealized measurement, typically at the crankshaft.

The best practice is this: {{cvt|1|kW}}. This is your answer: 1 kW (1.3 hp). Or 77 kW (103 hp). As long as you rely on {{Convert}}, and in most cases accept the defaults (engine displacement being the main exception), you'll be fine. The Convert template represents the consensus of tens of thousands of editors; it's used on over 900,000 pages. The default conversion target and default significant figures are generally reliable, and when they're wrong, it's usually best to raise it at Talk:Convert to fix it or find out why it's right. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Dennis, {{convert}} and {{cvt}} are the best way. Give it the number you have as kW, hp, bhp or PS and let it figure out the rest. Add the |order= parameter to display them in a different order. Interesting combos can be done like {{cvt|200|PS|kW hp}} to give 200 PS (150 kW; 200 hp).  Stepho  talk  21:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the convert template works. It has one idiosyncracy to be aware of: a figure ending in "0" will produce odd results if you don't add the "0" sigfig: {{convert|200|kW|hp|0}} (& I"d add "abbrev", too: {{cvt|200|kW|hp|0|abbr=on}} or you may get odd plurals where they aren't appropriate). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Template talk:Convert might be a more appropriate place to raise concerns, as Talk:Convert redirects to the talk page for football conversions. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


Per Horsepower, 1 hp = 745.7 watts, and 1 PS = 735.5 watts. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background[edit]

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal transporter requested move notice[edit]

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Personal transporter#Requested move 7 June 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Confusing spread of information for electric vehicles[edit]

I think the layout of information relating to hybrid and electric cars is unclear and could be made more readable, with less information being repeated. Many of these articles as marked as requiring attention and I think this is in part because the purpose of the pages can be interpreted in different ways. This is something that I want to clarify with the WikiProject, so that I and others can start improving the quality of these pages. These are:

  • Electric Vehicle, which gives an overview of all types of vehicle that incorporate electrical power. This does not require modification, but could be updated to better reflect any changes to other pages.
  • Hybrid Electric Vehicle, which says it covers all hybrid electric vehicles, but most of the article talks exclusively about automobiles, focusing on legislation and market. I would suggest that this article should remain balanced with other vehicles such as boats and trains. There is probably enough content to make a page on hybrid cars.
  • Battery electric vehicle, which covers vehicles that only store energy in a battery, no ICE. This article gives a good overview of the different types of vehicles.
  • Plug-in hybrid, which focuses on cars. This article is considered too long. Some of the environmental and subsidies information could be collated into one page, as this is mentioned on most pages.
  • Plug-in electric vehicle, which covers battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. Talks about the advantages and disadvantages which are similar to those covered in electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid.
  • Electric Car covers cars that run exclusively on electric power and is a sub-category of battery electric vehicles. This is a good quality article that does not require modification.
  • Hybrid vehicle drivetrain, covers the way that a hybrid system may be implemented. This article is listed as having issues, and I believe should extend to mention the hybrid system architectures used on trains and ships.
  • Mild Hybrid, which is a short article that discusses cars with this configuration, although there is not a separate page for full hybrid.
  • Hybrid Vehicle, which covers hybrid systems that are not electric, as well as summarising the hybrid electric vehicle page and the hybrid vehicle drivetrain page.
  • Electric vehicle battery, which focuses on the batteries used in hybrid and full-electric cars on the drivetrain. I believe this should also cover the batteries in all Battery electric vehicles.
  • Automotive battery, which just covers the batteries used for starting, lighting and ignition. However, I think one might visit this page and expect to learn about all of the batteries that can be found in an automobile. Also, 48 Volt systems are coming in the future. Whilst at the moment they sit along side the 12 V 'Automotive battery' to provide a mild hybrid, eventually the 12 V battery will be phased out[1]. These 48 V batteries do not fit into the high voltage definition of electric vehicle battery either.
  • Environmental aspects of the electric car, which discusses the pros and cons of EVs over ICEs. Something that is covered on many of the pages above, so could instead be collated here.

As I hope this makes clear, there are a lot of articles on the topic, all of which have varying awareness of others. I'd appreciate community feedback as to which of these should be treated more as part of the Transport WikiProject, covering trains etc. in equal measure to cars, and which should just be about cars. I'd also appreciate help in removing the ambiguity as to the purpose of each page, then they can be bought up to a good standard quicker. Drumncars1996 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There's also Alternative fuel vehicle, which despite its name also describes electric vehicles (electricity isn't fuel!). --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Mayersohn, Norman (8 Feb 2018). "To Power the Future, Carmakers Flip on 48-Volt Systems". New York Times. Retrieved 12 June 2018. 

Plymouth page renaming discussion[edit]

There is a discussion at [5] which editors may wish to comment on Lyndaship (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Autozine[edit]

Should Autozine be considered a reliable source? Link to the site - http://www.autozine.org/home.html# NealeFamily (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

His about page at http://www.autozine.org/About_AutoZine/Author.html says it all. "AutoZine is my personal car website established on September 1997. Throughout the years, AutoZine has been non-commercial at all - no sponsorship, no advertisement thus no income. In other words, I do it just for fun." In other words, it has no editorial oversight and we rely only on his personal goodwill and diligence. He seems to be pretty good at gathering facts but unfortunately we can't use him as a reference. In many ways its similar to my own website - many interesting facts (and we have both lived in Hong Kong) but still not a true reference.  Stepho  talk  11:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Stepho-wrs. It matches my conclusion based on a couple of comments in earlier discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_21#DSG trannies Autozine does little more than rewrite press materials and journalist reviews to suit the webmaster's point of view and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_27#Possible Wiki hoax on Bentley 4½ Litre which implies the site is unreliable In 2009 the claim appears at Autozine.org. I see it on a few other blogs but nothing reliable.. I actually like the sites contents and comments but as it draws from more reliable sources, it would be better to use them. The Autozine author refers to

The reports I wrote were based on the findings from different magazines, plus my own technical analysis, background information and opinion. I regularly read 10 or more magazines a month, so integrating them usually result in a more comprehensive view than just an individual magazine.

. Hopefully this will prove informative to Typ932 and Drachentötbär who were getting into a fairly terse debate. NealeFamily (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no proofs its unreliable site, its more reliable than user Drachentötbär added references, I have nothing more to say this thing, all is already said many times, but these two users keep insising it unreliable and only prrof they have its a blog (when it isnt actually). They keep removing it with no reason or adding worse references or adding tags unreliable. That site is more reliable than many other automotive sites. I dont know the reason they have attacked against that site, because there isnt any reason for that . If these two editors dont like that site, they should not remove or add worse referecnes or add unreliable tags to articles. If they have so much energy they could then add more reliable refs. This is just silly, really hard to understand why they dont learn when said what to do , they are like small kids. -->Typ932 T·C 13:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Any personal site is unreliable for Wikipedia purposes, no matter how well it's regarded by an editor. An enthusiast pretending to be a motoring journalist is still nothing more than an enthusiast. That's it really. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Did you actually read what I wrote? they should not remove or add worse references or add unreliable tags to articles. If they have so much energy they could then add more reliable refs. basic idea in wikipedia editing is make articles better not worse, good reference is better than reference at all or "professional journalist" made unreliable reference , and not all personal sites are unreliable if you read wikipedia policy . "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. -->Typ932 T·C 19:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
They were clear on why they were doing what they were doing. I don't see the problem. You can disagree with them, but no-one has supported your point of view up to this point. Drachentötbär was in fact making the effort of replacing a poor source with better ones where possible. WP:RS makes clear a motoring magazine (even if somewhat biased) is always preferable to a non-RS like a personal site. RS makes clear "self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", which means Autozine was being improperly used. There is more leniency for experts, but the Autozine webmaster admits he's not one. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes I disagree if they add unreliable references (ref with wrong info) instead reference which has right info (see this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfa_Romeo_Giulia_TZ&type=revision&diff=846186544&oldid=845574347= ) (and this is the right info (same info as in autozine) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfa_Romeo_Giulia_TZ&type=revision&diff=846228873&oldid=846186544). They are so keen to replace these that they add bad references. Do you really think that someone here really supports these bad refs? -->Typ932 T·C 19:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
If you think that the new reference has the "wrong" info, you can search another RS with the correct data. But if you say Autozine is an any way better than the new source from a Wikipedia perspective, I can only say in response that idea is wrong. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
If the new reference has wrong info its worse than any type of reference with right info, its very simple to understand or is it?? . And if you noticed I replaced it with new ref with right info. There is really no idea to just replace autozine refs if you dont know what you are doing, it makes more harm than good -->Typ932 T·C 20:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Autozin, like any blog is generally a poor source. That doesn't mean it can't be used but that it's use should be very limited. I've been reading the guy's work for many years. Much of the material is subjective opinion presented as fact or is a generality being treated as an absolute truth. I'm not sure that Autozin should be included as a general "See also" for an article. It may be OK as a source for a non-controversial fact but not much else. I remember when many car forum discussions would cite Autozin. I suspect that was in large part because there aren't many good sources about technical automotive topics on the web. That the sort of thing that really lives in the world of specialty publishing/trade knowledge. Anyway, it shouldn't be blanket removed and we shouldn't replace it with low quality sources just to avoid Autozin. At the same time we really shouldn't rely on it as a source for anything that resembles expert opinion. Springee (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I conclude that Autozine is only worth using if there is nothing better, and even then, it is a use with care because the site does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. In particular WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:RSSELF. I think Springee's comments above nicely sum up the approach to take NealeFamily (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID providing external links to personal webpages like Autozine should be avoided and according to WP:SPS they are not acceptable as sources, there's no "acceptable if nothing better" or "acceptable for non-controversial facts". This would even apply if everything on the webpage was correct but Autozine is biased and the author even intentionally tells things which are not correct, like reporting 0-60 mph times from magazines which do not measure them, so even for an unacceptable source it's lacking in quality, not worth making an exception from the guidelines. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Drachentötbär. Because we are dealing with a living person can you back up your statement the author even intentionally tells things which are not correct with a reference. NealeFamily (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of pages (for example the Lamborghini Countach and Ferrari F40 pages) on this site which quote 0-60 mph times from Auto, Motor und Sport and Quattroroute who use kph and not mph. http://www.autozine.org/911/911_7.htm shows that he once tried to handle such times the exact way but he obviously decided against it on other pages. He also leaves other errors on his site he was notified about. It's his personal webpage, he's free to do whatever he wants there to make himself and others happy but it doesn't work as a source for Wikipedia.Drachentötbär (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Based on that - the inaccuracies, Autozine shouldn't be used as a reference as it fails WP:RS NealeFamily (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hummer H2‎[edit]

A couple of IPs have been changing all the dates at Hummer H2‎. It looks quite suspicious to me, so maybe someone from this WikiProject can have a look and see if the changes made during the last couple of days should all be reverted. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That's why references are essential - otherwise its your word against his word. I followed the references and they agree on model years 2003-2009 and the equivalent calendar years 2002-2009. If somebody changes it to disagree with the references then either they are wrong or they need to add supporting references. If their changes are not supported by references then you are free to revert them.  Stepho  talk  17:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Many more changes were made than just the start and end dates of production. Other dates were changed and don't have references in the article to support one value or the other. So, was the article full of wrong dates before, or is it full of wrong dates now? Gnome de plume (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
We don't really know the correct value of some of those dates (implying that more references are needed). But since 103.18.8.187 changed referenced correct dates to incorrect dates then I would feel safe in bulk reverting whatever he did. 2600:1700:3f00:8020:3c09:a2eb:b878:f0c6 already reverted most of them, so I'd feel safer trusting his edits (although more references are still preferred). PS: 'Category:Cars introduced in 1999' was missed in the revert - should be 2002.  Stepho  talk  11:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

New Image for BMW F90 M5[edit]

Can someone please take a proper photo of the F90 M5? The photos at commons have poor angles and the photos of the car from IAA, 2017 are too smokey and poorly taken.U1Quattro (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

More dogmatic case-related renames.[edit]

The articles:

have all just been renamed as BMC A-series engine, etc. Undiscussed, naturally. Are we happy with these?

The wiki-dogma is obvious, yet policy is that title case is appropriate when proper names are involved. These are used as such, and they're sourced as such in works like David Vizard. Tuning the A-Series Engine. ISBN 1859606202.  (there is little more definitive on this engine than Vizard's books). Nor do we see US engines, like the Chrysler Hemi engine being renamed similarly. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems like books consistently capitalized series for the BMC A, but for the B and E, mostly they use lower case for series. Sources seem split on the Rover K, mostly not capitalizing. What if we just decided to leave it as it is, and perhaps even move protect them so that we don't have to bikeshed this topic again? For the A-Series, we could write a sentence in the article telling readers that it is formally capitalized, while in the others it's inconsistent. Just so nobody think Wikipedia has issued an official ruling favoring one or the other. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The book title 'Tuning the A-Series Engine' uses title-case, so it uses upper-case for both 'S' and 'E'. The original article title 'BMC A-Series engine' uses upper-case for the 'S' but not the 'E'. If we want to use upper-case for the 'S' then we should also use upper-case for the 'E' - but WP doesn't use title-case for article titles. Conversely, if we're going to use lower-case for the 'e' then we should be using lower-case for the 's'. Unless BMC officially use upper-case 'S' in their documentation in sentences - ie if it's part of the proper name for the engine series. To my knowledge, the official name is 'A', not 'A-Series' but I'm not a BMC expert.  Stepho  talk  22:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Have you read the book? It's not written in title case throughout! (but it does use "A-Series engine" throughout). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Nope, haven't read the book, I used only the information you provided. But I did say that if the official literature uses 'S' then so should we. Is it only that one book or do the majority of BMC books use 'S' in sentences? What does the factory literature use?  Stepho  talk  23:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)