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.
 

The rot has set in[edit]

Good faith hard-working editors are changing this project's articles (sometimes articles receiving hundreds of hits each day) introducing straightforward errors of fact (and other confusions).

No one seems to mind.

This (anyone can change it!) was why Wikipedia was laughed at in its early years. I am not prepared to nominate articles or editors but I will point out that a similar deterioration in the quality of automobile illustrations has recently been . . noted. Regretfully, Eddaido (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Dude, what? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You will have to be more specific if you want something to happen. Differences of opinion and style can be glossed over but errors of fact should be pointed out and dealt with.  Stepho  talk  05:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes Stepho, that's right, all I can do is place this alert. My guess would be that because the project has, shall I say matured, there is less participation and sense of involvement and less sense of personal responsibility. There's a lot of WikiProject Automobiles text out there. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Less since when? Matured since when? The problem is that you're not getting your way on an article somewhere? That's new how? When I look at the edit wars you got into over car articles in 2009 and in 2015 and in 2019, I can't tell the difference. To me it's the same old same old. We all win some and we lose some. Sometimes we play together nicely, sometimes not so much. Can you be specific? If you can't be specific, then please don't do this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey dude, read the correspondence above. Eddaido (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Which correspondence? The answers to the questions I put to you are not there. You say quality has "recently" declined but I really can't guess what you mean by "recent". Your account has been active for a decade and I can't find any era in that period that stands out as all that much better than now. I don't know which correspondence you mean above. There are several, but you're not a participant in any of them. Why don't you just state in plain terms what it is that you mean? If you're going to answer then answer. Why are you being so coy? Is it for the fun of it? But if you're going to go on playing games, then please don't bother to reply. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Oops, I can be specific, Dennis Bratland, your personal activity on Wikipedia has declined since 2016, in fact 2018 is less than half 2012. Eddaido (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, fuck off now. You're wasting everyone's time. Go sleep it off. Take a break. Whatever it is, it's a personal problem and it doesn't belong here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, dude, the subject is this project and not, originally, your involvement. Eddaido (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment, Eddaido, I'm not sure I understand the concern. I think an example would be helpful here. Your criticism of Dennis specifically based on number of edits seems very unfair. Number of edits doesn't reflect quality of edit and we have to remember that sometimes real life events impact editor's ability to contribute. Eddaido, this is a case where you may be right but you haven't effectively communicated the concern. Dennis, while I get the frustration I think that was outside the bounds of CIVIL. Springee (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me try a paraphrase. There is no longer the interest in this Project there was 7, 5 or even 3 years ago. Mistakes are creeping in and not being fixed the way they were.
I am unwilling to even try to cope but I can, as I have done above, bring it to the attention of the Project's members.
I hope that sufficiently clarifies my message. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so its a general "volunteers aren't working hard enough" thing. Since we are volunteers, we owe nothing to WP and it cannot demand anything from us. If Dennis, or you or me or any other contributor decides to slow down then that is their choice. If everyone is also slowing down then WP has a problem that can only be solved with a recruitment campaign. Me personally, I make it a point to thank new-ish editors for anything good that they do so that they are encouraged to do more. If they do something with good intent but make mistakes then I patiently spend some time teaching them with lots of encouraging words. Honey vs vinegar. That's about all we can really do without going into heroics. But wait around - lately I've noticed a few new editors (some as IP addresses) that are actually doing some nice work and fixing up many old oversights (eg: grammar, missing metric conversions, references).  Stepho  talk  05:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, no. It was not intended to be a criticism of anyone.
Everyone seems to be utterly determined to see it that way.
I am pointing out that the inherent danger in allowing anyone to edit is no longer better than counterbalanced by a bunch of enthusiastic fact checkers. It used to be like that, its my opinion its not that way now— for the reasons I've outlined. I hope I'm wrong. Eddaido (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
There will also be vandalism but to me it seems about the same as it has always been. Some of our regulars have become burnt out but there are also new ones to take their place. It ebbs and wanes in the short term but the long term average of breakage and repair seems about the same.  Stepho  talk  07:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Eddaido "I will point out that a similar deterioration in the quality of automobile illustrations has recently been" I assumed this has something do with users like me. I like to think all my edits are in good faith and not simply a vanity project and I can ensure you they are not, but I guess that up for you to decide. When it comes to hard-working I do travel around the country to catch the latest vehicles coming into the market such as car shows and dealerships etc as well as ones that might make a good replacement for a existing image on here. I'm not particularly interested in getting involved of what is going on above but I just thought it was important to put my 2c in the section possibly related to me. --Vauxford (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Vauxford Thank you for your contribution. Eddaido (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hofele-Design[edit]

Would some members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article? It's starting to get an overly promotional feel to it and take the look of a sort of online directory/catalog for the company's automobiles. Image use seems a bit excessive in comparison the the amount of text content about the history of the company, etc. Since may of the images are being uploaded with claims of OTRS permission, there might be some COI or even undisclosed paid editing going on as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Automobile engineering[edit]

Is this a useful addition to articles covered by this project? Eddaido (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if it is useful, but Automotive Engineering would be better English, and possibly even exists. Greglocock (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see what it gives that a category doesn't already give.  Stepho  talk  12:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
In its current state it isn't useful at all. While there's a possibility that it could be expanded, I don't see what it would accomplish. --Sable232 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Marketers at work on Dainese[edit]

Dainese could use a couple more passes to clean up come COI edits by a small swarm of publicists or marketers. Could check to see if the frequently cited press releases can be replaced by independent sources. I've gone through it a bit but it's not done. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Does this company produce something to automobiles? yes Im lazy to read that article... -->Typ932 T·C 22:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Helmets, racing suits? They say they're a big deal in auto racing. Probably just marketing hype. I guess they've done more in equestrian and mountain bike gear than F1 and so on. So... --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

ISIRI standards[edit]

There are four dozen stub articles on various Iranian motor vehicle standards (see Category:ISIRI standards and Template:ISIRI). The articles only give a single-sentence overview of what the standard covers and references to other jurisdictions' related ones.

I propose merging all of them into List of ISIRI standards. There is not enough content for the articles to stand on their own, in my opinion, and the list article can easily cover what little information there presently is. --Sable232 (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Toyota Hilux[edit]

Please see talkpage discussion when you have time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Shelby GLHS and Dodge Omni 024[edit]

What are your thoughts on merging the Shelby GLHS and/or Dodge Omni 024 article(s) into the article from which they are derived? In my opinion, the majority of the content is best suited for relocation into the "Variants" section of the Dodge Omni article. I see this this to be particularly true in the case of the Omni 024, which, being a stub, to me hasn't enough information to justify being a separate article. I am aware that a section of the GLHS article refers to a variant of the Dodge Charger, and for that I would think it best to relocate that content into the article for the original model, as it too isn't long at all. Quattrovalvole

Using a limited production model as a normal example[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Audi_R8_(Type_4S)#Your_recent_edits

Sorry to bother again, but I want to see what other users think using limited production models as a base example. --Vauxford (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

If it is not significantly visually different, I can't see a reason not to. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Typically they'll have lower ride heights, maybe a different stance, lower profile tires and bigger wheels. Those would be quite misleading on some boring cars. Greglocock (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Something like a Focus RS 500 would certainly be a bad choice to illustrate the Focus page. Toasted Meter (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't mean to sound impatience but could we reach a consensus soon? Seeing this question could address any future edits users does on the automobile articles as well. --Vauxford (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
As Greglocock, if the models are visually distinct then the infobox should use the more common model as the representative image (but pragmatically relax this restriction if the only standard image are really crap and the only nice images are close-ish to the standard model).
But if they a visually similar then use whichever photo is clearer. The idea is that the infobox image allows you to recognise the car family from the infobox image, not getting bogged down about which particular variant it is.  Stepho  talk  22:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit clash)

I'm not but if I were really keen to know exactly what an Audi R8 (Type 4S) looked like and I found an uncaptioned photo on the page about Audi R8 (Type 4S) I'd just accept that was an image of the correct car.

But, if i then dug deeper in the image's info and found it was of a limited production version I would be left up in the air as to what a "real" Audi R8 (Type 4S) looked like. That is unless I was told in the caption that its appearance was no different from the standard version. I would assume there was no good photo of the standard version available.

Yes, I agree with Vauxford, the main image should not be a limited production version even if it looks identical - unless the reader is told that there is no distinction in appearance / you can't tell the difference. Eddaido (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems like there is a policy regarding this: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Images 5. The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other. However, the image must be representative; low-volume, obscure/unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image. Given that policy, the question remains whether or not the "standard" model looks different from the "RWS" and "Decennium" models. The answer of this question is somewhat subjective, especially, if there are many similarities between these models. But I'd say, there definitely is a notable difference. Especially the "Decennium" model's grille looks much bigger and more aggressive than the standard model's grille. Choosing the standard model photo seems more reasonable to me. In addition to that, the "photographical quality" of the standard model photo is better when compared to the other photos: Proper focal length, proper aperture, the viewing angle is not bad, whereas the viewing angles on the other photos are quite off due to short focal lengths of 35 and 40 mm respectively. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Well, despite the split opinion about this. U1Quattro already try to make my comment meaningless by replacing a image that was never discussed in the talkpage. Overall people seem to agree that the blue Audi is the best choice which is what I done. If U1Quattro does revert it, then I have no choice but go back to square one. --Vauxford (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Despite giving the impression that blue example was the best one to use, U1Quattro reverted it so we are back at the beginning, if he hasn't of used a image that was never discussed in the first place, this dispute would of been solved. --Vauxford (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
"The R8 Decennium is limited to 222 units" this isnt very reprsentavive version of this car, being made so few. -->Typ932 T·C 18:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Well that what being used as the main Infobox picture and why I think its a problem, if your brave enough, you can address that in the talkpage discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It the brute force method U1Quattro use to get his own way is what frustrates me, which I explained in detail on the R8 talkpage, I'm not getting work up solely over the picture it just how sly and forceful U1Quattro is with discussions. --Vauxford (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Cyberdriver[edit]

Cyberdriver currently redirects to a video game. Shouldn't this point to some driving automation article? -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Eh, it sounds stupid, and when I search it all I find are Watch Dogs videos, zero uses referring to anything else. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of "@" vs. "at"[edit]

I raised this at WP:MOS/Dates and numbers recently, but there was no clear conclusion and the changes have started again.

Does WP / MOS have any preference for "@" vs. "at" ? I note a large series of changes at present to replace it with the long form. [1] @TKOIII: Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Today I note this and [2], the implication being that @TKOIII: is planning to replace all of the uses outside of tables?

I, for one, prefer the @ form. It's long-established and well understood as "a term of art". I certainly see no reason to change the wording, just because one's in a table and one isn't. It might have begun as a typesetter's shorthand to save space, but nowadays it's a convention outside that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

ISO 1585 states: "ISO net power xxx kW at xxxx min−1 (ISO 1585)" (See ISO 1585:1992 page 20, 9.2.1). So, no @ in this standard. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley:, yes, though I have put on pause edits that change between @ and at in tables, I have continued to change @ to at in plain text as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations does express that @ should not be used in place of at in normal text. TKOIII (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
But ISO 1585 is a standard for testing, not typography. It's evidence of the use of one format, but not a proscription to use only that format. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
It is a standard for testing, and it includes "notation". (See table of contents, 9.2). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I dislike @, no reason of typography or "correctness" I just don't like how it looks. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The @ symbol is standard for engine rpm in power and torque. We should definitely use it in infoboxes and stats tables. Those get too crowded as it is and anything we can do for brevity is necessary. In prose, I'd allow either. The Telegraph says "at" in prose and "@" in the stats table. But @ in prose content is perfectly acceptable to. The last thing I'd want is some kind of rule on this requiring someone going around pushing this change into articles. It doesn't add or remove information, and doesn't harm or help readers. It's merely one of those fussy details used as an excuse for editors to fight in the name of consistency.

Infoboxes and stats tables get @. Everywhere else, editor's choice. No edit warring. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Depending on the typeface, "@" and "at" aren't always much different in terms of how much space they take up. However, the use of "@" in specifications tables is established in automotive journalism (and there's no telling how a reader's browser may render things anyway) so that style should be reflected here. In prose, I believe MOS:ABBR should be followed as I don't feel there's a good reason not to use "at" in prose - but as Dennis mentioned, this is not a big enough issue to make a "rule" out of. --Sable232 (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I would vote no preference. I hope someone doesn't go around changing @'s to "at"'s. I kind of prefer @ when used in stats because it's visually more distinct. However, if the discussion hadn't come up here I'm not sure I would have ever really noticed. Springee (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I feel like the @ symbol may be a bit counterintuitive, at least seen from a casual reader's perspective. After all, this is not an enthusiast encyclopedia. Whether or not the @ symbol is used in printed literature that can be described as "reliable sources", depends on the scope. In my experience, classical "engineering books" and "scientific books" (like those found on my literature page) rather don't incorporate the @ symbol. On the other hand, service and repair manuals (those not published by car manufacturers) often use it, which means that it is common at least to a certain degree. So I'd say using the @ symbol is not ideal, but not harmful either. Removing the @ symbol and replacing it with at or the other way around doesn't seem like a reasonable way of increasing the edit counter though. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Also no preference To a point, some things can be overthought. "@" has been on a computer keyboard longer than email has been in use, so there is practical use for it out there. While I would like to say that "@" should be best used for table stats and infoboxes and words are best for prose, I am most keen all of us not randomly changing things. Be careful on what font one sets in preferences and don't start an edit war out there... --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
'@' is a type of short-hand or jargon that not everybody understands. For the sake of 1 extra character, 'at' is understandable by a larger portion of our readers - especially those where English is not their first language. Why make it hard when the cost is so little?  Stepho  talk  00:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Using @ in main text looks stupid, IMO in main text all things should be written out in 1st instance. kg to kilograms etc and not using any these kind of markings. If you look car reviews from net I think its most often written as AT. -->Typ932 T·C 08:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
What do you think about it in tables? Toasted Meter (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Clearly it's a generation thing. Given that it's not really wikipedia's job to change the usage of the English (or any other) language, I think probably I will continue to write "at" when in doubt, if only because back in the dark ages when I went to school most of us had no idea what that "@" thing on the type writer keyboard was for (and most us didn't spend too much time looking at type writer keyboards in the first place). And for people who come to English as a second, third or fourth language, it does, as someone above already indicated, become particularly impolite - and gratuitously damaging to the understanding - if mother tongue speakers start changing the language in midflow. (From the other side of a nearby language barrier, please don't get me started on "Rechtschreibung".) But ... it really does feel pretty unimportant. Unless you believe in "rules for rules' sake" (which I don't), it is, surely, not mission critical either way. Charles01 (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Answering Toasted Meter (talk · contribs), I would prefer to use 'at' everywhere unless space was really, really cramped. Of course, if its that cramped then the table probably should be split anyway to allow mobile users to see it.  Stepho  talk  09:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Separate list for Acura vehicles?[edit]

Please see Talk:List of Honda automobiles#Should Acura have its own list? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out![edit]

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image on BMW 5 Series (E60)[edit]

Please see talkpage discussion when you have time, thanks. Talk:BMW 5 Series (E60)#Infobox image (here we go again) (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Since U1Quattro objected despite most agreed that the one on the infobox was perfectly fine please see the talkpage discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the assessment backlog is there[edit]

Just letting you guys know. Ominae (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

1930s identification request[edit]

Rolls Royce met oa Nell Langlais in bergachtig landschap op Madeira, Bestanddeelnr 190-0209.jpg

Can anyone identify this? It's 1934, on the island of Madeira.

I'm thinking maybe a Lancia Artena or a contemporary? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but my guess would be 1933 Astura or Dilambda. Strange steel wheels on it, bad roads in that locality? Eddaido (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
On the photo description and in the category it apparently a 1934 Rolls-Royce. --Vauxford (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
At full zoom the mascot looks different to the Spirit of Ecstasy, the radiator shell has a different shape (RR having a very straight temple shape) and the badge just below the mascot doesn't look like the double R logo. But I'm out of my area of expertise.  Stepho  talk  00:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Is that hood ornament or something from scenery? that ornament would be best way to find the brand. This seems very hard to identify, is it me only or is that radiator shaped differently at bottom part? -->Typ932 T·C 07:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a lot of bodywork variation in Lancias of this period, even to things like the radiator grille which were normally unchanged by coachbuilders. Did any of the heavier chassis, like the Dilambda, use 6-stud wheels? I can see some Dilambda File:2005-03-04 Motorshow Geneva 158.JPG where the grille has the same curve forwards at the foot, but not the same combinations of grille, bonnet sides and wings.
The roads looked like this: File:Auto's op een tocht in het binnenland van Madeira, Bestanddeelnr 190-0178.jpg. There are a number of related photos at Commons:Category:Photographs by Willem van de Poll in Madeira, but this is the only one I can see of this car. Van de Poll would always have found the biggest and best car to ride in though. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Rolls-Royce only built rolling chassis. The bodywork was done by external coachbuilders, and customers could choose whatever they want. If this is a Rolls-Royce, this is most likely a Phantom II (given the fact that the Phantom II was available as a left-hand drive version). But I am not 100 % sure. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a car that came past while he was taking the other photos (cars identified by Darwin = Madeira resident) and I now suggest the car might be a Belgian Minerva type AP. Eddaido (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I could go with that. Radiator bottom curve is odd, but the rest fits. Even the wheels look like a Minerva but with the removable hubcaps removed. If they were 6 studs that would be further confirmation (but I have nothing about Minervas on the shelves). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, I doubt that it just randomly drove past. His wife's in the back. As to his ability to blag nice cars, then see Commons:Category:Bentley 6½ Litre — GJ6649. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)