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.

Buick Verano[edit]

Hi everyone. My edit ([1]) was repeatedly rv by another editor.---Now wiki (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The revert was correct, although the reverter should have left a reason in his/her/its edit summary. WP deals in facts. From your reference, "Buick will no longer offer its entry-level Verano sedan after the 2017 model year, reports Automotive News, citing two unnamed sources." Information that only comes from unnamed sources must be treated as rumour or speculation, not fact. WP:CRYSTALBALL covers this.  Stepho  talk  03:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Guess you consider the Panama Paper pure fiction since it came from an anonymous source.---Now wiki (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess it is a matter of opinion. Should Wikipedia accept speculation from "reliable" speculators? Or blanket ban this practice? OSX (talkcontributions) 13:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Normally, I would say take it out until there is official confirmation. But the fact that multiple reliable sources are reporting this might be noteworthy in itself. Although, "in North America" should be added as the 2nd gen Verano (formerly Excelle GT) is already on sale in China. --Vossanova o< 14:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget the global perspective. Just because a car is cancelled from the US market doesn't mean that the car won't exist. http://www.buick.com.cn/verano/ Boivie (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
It is pretty confusing. Isn't the first gen. Verano selling in China as the Excelle GT?---Now wiki (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Has Buick announced the cancellation of the Verrano?
If yes; ammend the article accordingly.
If no; do not change the article. Speculation and gossip have no place in wikipedia. If the gossiper is a GM employee then it is official gossip, but still not fact.
Has Buick speculated over the future of the Verano?
If yes; do not change the article. There is always speculation. Does not mean it will amount to anything. It's why we have a policy about WP:SPECULATION.
If no; do not change the article. There is no reason to. --Falcadore (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Automobile Drag Coefficient[edit]

On 24 March 2012, the Cd for the Citroen SM was altered from 0.33 to 0.26. Although sleek looking, this seems very low for a car of that age. My own understanding was always that it was in the lower 0.3s, I've seen 0.336 mentioned. Was there any verification with the 2012 alteration? If not, I'd suggest it might be wrong.SPCT2000 (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)SPCT2000

Feel free to fix it - as long as you have a reliable reference to back it up with.  Stepho  talk  15:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Split the article?[edit]

For the article regarding Buick Verano, can it be split into 2 articles? like what happened with the Honda NSX articles? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Given both generations are quite short why do you see the need to split? Generally this is only done when the articles become too large. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Never mind then. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes[edit]

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 22:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Back again on thoughts of splitting an article.[edit]

Im thinking of doing it for Toyota Supra, given that each generation is different. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact they are different doesn't seem a good reason for splitting to me, there're a lot of automotive articles covering very different cars only linked through the name. If the article is divided, it should be done because it became too large to read, and I'm not that sure that's the case here. The article is certainly large, but it has a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced statements, so we'd end with a lot of of nearly-unsourced articles. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Any articles up for splitting then? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know but... Why splitting must be a priority? In my opinion, the priority should be improving the articles and then splitting them when they are acceptable but overly large. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think teh Supra article would be good to split up. The original article can keep the common stuff and the possible successor but the generations could be split out to Toyota Supra (A40), Toyota Supra (A60), Toyota Supra (A70) and Toyota Supra (A80). Just leave an overview of each generation in the original article.  Stepho  talk  15:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Why split should be good? I still disagree and hold up what I said before, as the fact the current article is poorly sourced remains, and the size issue could be greatly reduced by removing all unsourced statements. Wikipedia policy states clearly caution should be taken when splitting. However, if there's a consensus from the splitting side, it can be done obviously. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Stepho-wrs:, @Urbanoc:, I propose split the article for the Audi R8. The section regarding the 1st generation is getting excessive and that the 2nd generation is greatly overshadowed by the 1st. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Those long articles would be good to split, they are quite hard to read , I think Supra and that Audi for example -->Typ932 T·C 06:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the Audi R8. As for the Supra, it seems several editors have a consensus to split up, so it can be splitted also. However, no one addressed my basic concerns, and I think "too large" is not a good reason for splitting in the Supra case and is a weak argument, as many of the sections making it large are unreferenced, so I uphold my minority opposition. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Admittadly, the Supra information, especially regarding the specifications, are referenced. They are really detailed to be pulled from somewhere randomly. Thus, I will not do anything. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Personally any splitting of the Toyota Supra (A40) and Toyota Supra (A60) vehicles should only be as redirects to Toyota Celica#A40 and Toyota Celica#A60 as they are by definition both Celicas and are not significantly different from their base models.
Further, as the relevant Celica generations do not have their own pages the Supra DEFINATELY should not. Your basically giving sporting models WP:UNDUE attention when compared to the originating models. --Falcadore (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
If it is not a big deal, I will implement consensus to split the R8. As for the Supra, i'll forget I asked. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Falcadore, I agree with you about the Celica article - we should split that too. I'm non-committal about whether each generation should have separate or merged Supra and/or Celica articles.  Stepho  talk  18:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I think there're more valid arguments to create separate articles for the Celica than for the Supra. The Celica article is somewhat better sourced and it basically covers seven different cars. The Supra models may be covered in each corresponding Celica generation, so the models covered with detail within the Supra article would be reduced and the "too large" argument would be null. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh y eah and the change of the drivetrain in the 80's is a big change. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

anyone? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Celica article should be split before any such work is done on Supra article. --Falcadore (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure either the Celica or Supra pages are really long enough to warrant a split. The need for smaller articles is not what it used to be 10 years ago when dial-up connections were still in use. Splitting a page requires additional maintenance and somebody to watch it. Content on articles split up also does not get as many views as readers tend not to universally read the main articles. Some of the articles that have been split are good candidates to be re-merged. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
You have good points there, I admit. Maybe we're rushing things a bit with all this "splitting" spree when there's no really such an urgency to doing so. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
True true, we should just tone it down a bit. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

other articles[edit]

Lexus IS[edit]

i was looking at this and the article struck me as odd. the 2nd article has an independent article but the 1st and 3rd do not?? the information makes the whole article a little uncomfortable to read. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This is because there is far greater content allocated to the second generation than the others. There is nothing uncomfortable about this. Who is to maintain all these extra and unnecessary pages? OSX (talkcontributions) 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Lexus LS[edit]

how about this article? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Your insistence on splitting everything seems very ideological. Each section of the Lexus LS page is relatively compact. Due to another editor wanting to explore the 2006 onwards model in greater detail, a dedicated page was created for it. Only when individual sections become unwieldy would we consider a split. The first, second, and third generation cars do not warrant a split. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Škoda[edit]

There is an edit warring going on at Template:Škoda, in which user Etonmessisthebest insists that there should a "Sister Marques & Companies" first group in the template (while this template is not present in all "sister" marques articles and this group of links is present already in Template:Volkswagen Group, I see no point in duplicating it). Also, he insists on including a large photograph of the logo in the template, while I prefer not to for a cleaner look. He has been constantly reverting his changes, against the WP:BRD policy, although there are discussion topics open on these two matters on the talk page and he achieved no consensus for them. You are invited to express your opinion. Thank you, BaboneCar (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Presenting the new article Audi R8 (first generation)[edit]

Created TheDwellerCamp (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Mmm to be honest, I think it miss the point. The Audi R8 article still has a lot of content about the first-generation car and that kind of invalidates the purpose of splitted articles, which is to make them easier to read and navigate. I think a good example of what should be included in the first generation section is something like the Ford Focus article (even if it's far from perfect), a summary of the car characteristics, without giving too much detail on topics such as variants, awards, engine specs, marketing, etc. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Urbanoc:, how is the main page now? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, much better. Good work! --Urbanoc (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
also did the dame treatment to the second generation. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Greenhouse (automotive) to Greenhouse (car): WP:BOLD[edit]

I notice the above change has been made by user:No such user . Should not the other items have been changed to automotive to match to it. My understanding is that recently automobile is preferred to car. Am I wrong? Eddaido (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I moved a dozen articles yesterday to (car) disambiguation. This is more or less the complete list, along with Ponton (car). I apologize for being (over)bold, having read Talk:Pillar_(car)#Requested_move_27_May_2015 I was under impression that (car) was the preferred disambiguation, so I only wanted to move one or two, and I ended up with a dozen. Still, they hadn't been consistent even before (using "automobile", "automotive", "vehicle" etc. as disambiguators), so at least we're no worse off. No such user (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Ferrari 330 TRI/LM article[edit]

Can I get any second opinion regarding my hook for the Ferrari 330 TRI/LM article as a reviewer does not think it is particularly "hook worthy" and "most cars get driven around after their first owner sells it after all" especially if that's a Le Mans winner and the last front engined car to do so.

Let's have your opinion on Template:Did you know nominations/Ferrari 330 TRI/LM, thanks. Donnie Park (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK is an exemplar of all that is worst about the Wikipedia editing model. I have nothing to do with it.
  • It selects from new and largely unreviewed articles. These are unlikely to yet be in their best state.
  • DYK is carried out by people who have had the least contact with the subject before and they actively avoid the involvement of those likely to know anything about it. As a result, DYK are frequently inane and all too often simply wrong.
I see no way in which DYK benefits an article, so I avoid it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I like the original hook, BTW. This time the inane part seems to be with the "most cars get driven around after their first owner sells it " comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Cars discontinued in (year) categories[edit]

User:99.198.31.233 has been adding non-existent "Cars discontinued in (year)" categories to many car articles, such as these. For example, Category:Cars discontinued in 2007. Is there any interest in adding these discontinued categories? I don't see much precedence, other than "disestablished" categories for companies, events, etc., but not products. If not, I will revert these changes. --Vossanova o< 20:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the categories. --Vossanova o< 17:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Saturn S-Series[edit]

Saturn S-Series has a Third generation section which, for a reference, has a Saturn fan forum thread discussing this very Wikipedia change. This puts up red flags as WP:OR. From what I'm seeing, the 2000 sedan/2001 coupe changes were a new front end, interior redesign, and minor engine changes, which are considered a mid-cycle refresh or "facelift" for most other cars. I appreciate the details and photos these people added to the article, but this seems to be the biased opinion of one or more Saturn owners/fans rather than consensus from automotive media. Any other agreement one way or the other? --Vossanova o< 15:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be just a facelift. Even the text says "In 2000, the second generation was facelifted for the final time before the S-Series was discontinued in 2002". Third generation ought to be merged in with the second iteration. OSX (talkcontributions) 05:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Volvo Cars nationality[edit]

I want to bring to the project's attention a series of edits by multiple IPs in the Volvo Cars article. They are indicating different locations, but I strongly suspect it's in fact the same person behind all them. At first, he/she kept changing "Swedish" to "Sino-Swedish" without an edit summary and in a very disruptive way. Recently, he/she did include an edit summary, but the reason he/she gave to keep adding "Sino-" was the lack of "autonomy" of the company. I don't know what he/she means with that, as no corporation is completely "autonomous", they must comply with shareholders' ruling anyways. The consensus with non-ambiguous situations like this was always to use the legal base to determine nationality. I think we must keep consistency with similar automotive company articles across Wikipedia. If you agree, I request editors to add Volvo Cars to their watchlist. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently doing work with Volvo, so I shouldn't edit the article directly but I will add my 2 cents here. Volvo Cars is owned by a Chinese company (Geely) but Volvo still registers its headquarters in Sweden. Similar to how Holden is an Australian company even though it is owned by an American company General Motors.  Stepho  talk  03:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and I think that's the point. If we say Volvo Cars isn't Swedish, then we'd have to change a lot of articles. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Car classification[edit]

An editor has expressed concerns over the examples and overall quality of the article car classification and, according to what he/she said, he/she plans to bring major changes to it. Please comment at the article's talk page. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Tiresome. Will check.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

450 SEL 6.9[edit]

For some reason the Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 has been afforded a separate article from Mercedes-Benz W116, even though it is just a subvariant of the W116. Anyone care to weigh in?  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this really ought to be merged. OSX (talkcontributions) 07:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
More than half of the W116 article is about the 450SEl 6.9. To keep the balance there are 3 options:
  1. trim back the 6.9 information - which is almost a crime for an encyclopedia,
  2. expand the other variants - which is unlikely to happen from a volunteer editor base anytime soon,
  3. split the article into smaller articles for each variant, leaving a short summary in the parent article.
I think splitting is the better solution in order to maintain a balanced article, considering the 6.9 article is big enough to survive on its own.  Stepho  talk  03:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Some expanding of the W116 material is definitely overdue, but the 6.9 is nothing more than the top-of-the-line W116. It's even badged as a sub-model of the 450 SEL. The fact that some interested editors have been able to compile large amounts of information and trivia about the 6.9 does not make it, in my eyes, worthy of a free-standing article. I also think that the 6.9 content will receive more attention in its proper place than hidden away in a separate article.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I remember the 6.9 as a quite remarkable car - evidenced by the preponderance of guff about it in the article. While it may be technically accurate it is much more than a top of the line W116 to my mind. Eddaido (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Mercedes-Benz W116 is a far more important article, and it gets far more page views. Making the W116 article better and more comprehensive while ignoring the 6.9 article is a much better use of your time than struggling over what to do with an article few are reading anyway. When the W116 is perfect, or at least Good, then maybe come back and devote your time to thinking about what to do with the other one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Dennis Bratland, and also Eddaido. In my view, the 6.9, like its predecessor the Mercedes-Benz 300SEL 6.3, is worthy of a separate article. Both models are more than just a sub-variant or top of the line version of W109 or W116 (as applicable). Both were fitted with a different engine and with different suspensions from all other versions of the relevant chassis. These differences were not trivial: the Mercedes-Benz M100 engine (MB's first ever V8) that was fitted to both was shared only with the even rarer Mercedes-Benz 600, and whereas most 109s and 116 had spring suspensions, the 6.3 had air suspension, and the 6.9 was MB's first ever model with hydropneumatic suspension. These special engines and suspension systems combined to make the 6.3 and the 6.9 the fastest 4 door saloons of their day; the 6.9 also had a unique modified gearbox, a different braking system, a dry sump lubrication system (usually fitted only to race cars) and a different engine displacement from other M100s that made it the biggest post-WW2 displacement engine ever series-manufactured in Western Europe. By contrast, the 6.9's "successor", the 560 SEL, had the same suspension system as all other Mercedes-Benz W126 models, and the same Mercedes-Benz M117 engine as was fitted to many W126s and many other models (albeit with a variety of displacements) - in other words, the 560 SEL, unlike the 6.9, was just a sub-variant or top of the line version of the relevant chassis. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Why would the 6.9 need a separate article when both the W 116 (SWB) and V 116 (LWB) models share a page? The modern-day AMGs do not have separate articles, so what makes the 6.9 so special? Separate articles for single trim levels/versions are rarely desirable. Just becuase the car is notable does not mean it requires its own article (WP:NOPAGE). The fewer number of articles the better—Mercedes-Benz W116 is by no means a long page. There is also substantial content duplication between Mercedes-Benz W116 and Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9. OSX (talkcontributions) 02:43, 12 July 2016‎ (UTC)
Here's one I photographed (Mr.choppers)
There is very little difference between the W116 and the V116 - the latter just has a bit more legroom in the back seat. As for AMG: when AMG was independent, it simply tuned up existing MB models, and, as time went on, performed cosmetic upgrades as well. There was even an AMG version of the 6.3. Although AMG is now a division of MB, its function has remained much the same: eg the S65 is basically an S600 with a tuned up engine and cosmetic changes. So the S65 is, like the 560 SEL, just a sub-variant or top of the line version of the relevant MB chassis. There are other German-based tuners that perform similar upgrades, eg Carlsson and Brabus. English Wikipedia actually does have some articles about individual Brabus models, eg Brabus E V12, but note that that article is about an E class fitted with an MB V12 engine, and that MB doesn't fit V12s to its own E class cars (and note also that both the 6.3 and the 6.9 were more different from their "base model" counterparts than the E V12s are from their MB counterparts). I agree about the substantial content duplication - the W116 article content about the 6.9 needs to be reduced to a minimum. I also agree that the W116 article is not a long one, even with the duplicated content. But that simply reflects the fact that that article, like almost all of English Wikipedia's articles about automobile models, could do with substantial improvement. There is plenty of reliable source information available to enable someone to improve the W116 article to featured article status (like Holden Commodore (VE), to cite a very rare example of an FA automobile model article) - someone just needs to improve it. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Dennis: I agree that my energy is better spent improving the W116 entry. I was hoping that other editors would do the boring work for me. Bahnfrend, I do not think that any of us are in doubt about what the 6.9 is nor in its relevance nor in its impact. What I disagree on is having a separate entry for it - I feel that it obscures the car, since it doesn't follow the usual standards no one would find it. It was pure chance that I came upon the entry myself (which is also when I discovered the separate 300 SEL 6.3 page). I want the 6.9 content to be findable to everyone, and as such it ought to be at Mercedes-Benz W116 - an article name which by definition includes the 6.9, unless one would think that the V116 deserves a separate page.
Again: the reason I am opposed to a separate page for the 6.9 is because I absolutely adore the car. I believe that needlessly hiding it on a subpage is doing the car a disfavor. I am now going to read WP:NOPAGE and see if I can't find a nice official policy to quote. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It probably shouldn't have been created, but having a separate page in no way stops you from making Mercedes-Benz W116 into the article you think it should be. If you want to expand the 6.9 section to the point where it eclipses the 6.9 article, you should. The only reasons to delete or limit content from the W116 article should be based on the needs of making the W116 article the best it can be. If somebody complaints it's redundant, first, redundancy is totally fine, and second, that is a problem to be solved on the 6.9 article not the W116 article. This is precisely what I did on Kawasaki triple: I expanded it in all the ways I thought it should be expanded, and I didn't get distracted worrying about the many problems that existed on Kawasaki S1 Mach I and Kawasaki S2 Mach II and so on. The best way to cover the subject was in one article, and the main article is the most important. I might someday want to improve, or delete, the Kawasaki Mach II, III, and IV articles, but only after the Kawasaki triple article is in a state of utter perfection, and it's got a ways to go yet. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Atkinson cycle[edit]

Myself and another editor are having a protracted disagreement over whether 'Atkinson cycle' is defined by the Atkinson thermodynamic cycle or by the internal linkages detailed in the original patent. Neither of us is able to convince the other. Please do not respond here but add your comments to talk:Atkinson cycle#Modern Atkinson Engine.  Stepho  talk  01:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

What general level of weight needed to include recall information on a manufacture page[edit]

I'm repeating a question I asked a few months back because it wasn't sufficiently answered. In short, how do we as a group decide if a recall or series of related recalls (or other similar issue) should be mentioned on a manufacture's page vs a model page? In 2015 a related discussion asked about including recalls on automotive pages [[2]]. The discussion used an example of a model page and offered common sense suggestions that were accepted by consensus. However, I think we can agree that a manufacture's page should have a higher bar. As an example, the first year of the US Ford Focus was plagued with recalls. Because the car was a big deal to Ford and due to the large number of recalls, the issue was mentioned by MSN and on the wiki page [[3]]. However, while having weight in context of the Focus, I think we would agree these recalls don't have sufficient weight to be covered on the Ford Motor Company page. Conversely, the Explorer-Firestone tire recall was significant enough to merit mention on both the model and manufacture page.

Question: What standard should we apply when considering recall or other similar information for inclusion on a manufacture's page? I don't have a hard and fast rule but I would generally say those that are associated (proven or otherwise) with deaths or wide spread injury, those which resulted in changes to regulations (the Firestone tire issue helped push the tire pressure monitor regulation), resulted in Congressional hearings or had some other notable impact should be included. I'm interested in the views of others in this area. Thanks. Springee (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that any recalls that adversely affect the company, beyond immediate sales blips and such. VW diesel engines, GM diesel engines, all obvious. If there were a huge number of lesser recalls - in themselves not noteworthy enough - that combine to say something about the overall performance of the company, then they should be included. How to tell? If non-automotive media directly concern themselves with such a situation, then presto. I feel that the standards should be similar to whether or not we include awards: It would be correct to include that Renault, for instance, has won the second most European Car of the Year awards, or that Nissan was the first Japanese manufacturer to receive it. But listing them all and so forth is not particularly fruitful. Personally I believe in judgement over policy, though. Oh, and see the Chrysler talk page for more on this fascinating topic...  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that when a series of recalls aggregate into something then they should be covered in that fashion. This is how the Focus recalls were included on that car's model page. It's not that any particular recall was significant but the MSN covered them in aggregate because it was, if I recall, the most recalled car of all time at the time. That said, I think we agree that those recalls didn't receive anywhere near the media coverage heaped on the Explorer-Firestone tire recall and shouldn't make it to the manufacture page. Springee (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Status quo. The convention we adopted in July 2015, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 39#Recalls-notability, is adequate for all automobile (and motorcycle) articles. There's no need for a separate rule for company pages and model pages. Adding on extra hoops to jump through, like Congressional hearings, or new regulations, is not needed. The mainstream media is our guide. When you start adding conditions so that you can ignore what the MSM tells us worth paying attention to, you're making due weight a reflection of who is editing. The same article with different editors would look totally different, depending on what kind of MSM coverage those particular editors choose to discount as "trivial". But if you accept dispassionately whatever the MSM tells you is important, articles will tend to turn out with the same content no matter who edits the or what those particular editors like or don't like.

    Chrysler is the only article where this has ever been in dispute. And there has never been a problem of Chrysler sandbagged with mentions of 100 trivial recalls. Or 50, or 10. Or 5. Chrysler mentions zero recalls, and so far every single attempt to add even one recall has been reverted. Even recalls that meet the current convention, and even recalls that have been shown to impact the company as a whole, or set records, or have been included in MSM lists of most/worst/notorious recalls. If the marque/company articles on Chrysler or BMW or whatever do end up with what looks like a too-long list of recalls that all meet the above convention, and the rest of the article has been so improved that it is a GA candidate, then perhaps the numbers could be trimmed back in that article. But that is totally hypothetical, and per WP:BEANS, we don't need a new rule to protect us from going over a cliff we haven't even begun to approach. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How would "status quo", the 2015 conversation which I already linked in the opening question, address something like the Ford Focus recalls? I guess it could in a sense because the weight the media gave to the Explorer-Firestone recall was far greater than that given to the Focus recalls though both made it to the MSN and in sufficient coverage to pass the bar set in the 2015 discussion. The Chrysler article is the only case where this, thus far, has been in dispute but I think the issue can apply to any manufacture's page. Simply saying that the list of recalls is short isn't justification for including or excluding a particular recall. Earlier this year the only recall listed on the Chrysler page was a brake booster recall. I removed that recall as insignificant [[4]]. At the time that meant removing the whole recall section. Dennis seems to be arguing that removing that one recall was wrong because the article wasn't flooded with recalls. In that case should we add the Honda CR-V oil filter fire issue, covered by MSN, to the Honda page (it has zero recalls right now)? Regardless, I would suggest leaving the Chrysler specific arguments to that talk page. I made a comment on the Ford Motor Company talk page regarding similar edits [[5]]. The policy of WEIGHT doesn't say we should include a minor recall just because the article isn't currently flooded with other recall information. The problem with the 2015 discussion is if we read it as Dennis is suggesting that the "test of weight" is MSN coverage. I think we can all agree that given the far broader scope of a manufacture page the needed weight for inclusion should be greater. After that the question becomes how do we judge. Springee (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
My answer to your question is that recalls of the Ford Focus should be "mentioned in articles when they have received widespread attention in the MSM. This does not include single MSM articles mentioning them as they are announced." What is the problem?

What "Dennis seems to be arguing" is right there for anyone to read. Maybe I should add that given the choice between options listed at WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM vs the blunt instrument of WP:CANTFIX, this and this were not absolutely necessary. Especially given the ugly edit war and astoundingly long, and bitter, discussions that followed. Meanwhile Rome burned, so to speak: Chrysler was and still is a really poor article. It failed to mention -- at all -- the 1979 bailout, a critical event in Chrysler's history, and American financial history as a whole. Totally left out! Meanwhile the article falsely claimed Chrysler faced bankruptcy in 1955. Oops. The spirit of policies like WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is to put your energy into building an encyclopedia by building articles, not triggering angry edit wars over. You put a roof on your house before fighting over where to put the coffee table. Imagine how much bloodshed would have been averted if you had replaced the recall that didn't quite meet the convention with any one of several Chrysler recalls that do pass that bar? Or just tagged it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. The Focus recalls were mentioned by several MSN sources and are rightly included in the Focus article. If an editor decided to add the recall information to the Ford Mo Co article would you support them? The rest of your comment is Chrysler specific and should be discussed there. Springee (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, why wouldn't I? Something about the Ford Focus recalls is bothering you and I can't read your mind. What's the problem? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging editors involved in 2015 discussion and those involved in the recent Chrysler discussion. @CZmarlin:, @Damotclese:, @Markbassett:, @Historianbuff:, @Arthur Rubin:, @Collect:, @Greglocock:, @CtrlXctrlV:, @OSX:, @Charles01:, @Trekphiler:, @Dennis Brown:

I think that maybe we ought to mention that the reason we are discussing this again is because a few editors are trying to turn the Chrysler entry into a quadriplegic. If the discussion seems weird and heated, it's because most of it is taking place on another plane entirely. And I don't reckon that the Focus recalls currently ought to be on the FoMoCo page. However, if there are noteworthy articles that suggest that the company is plagued with recalls to the point that it is seriously impacting their profitability or long-term survival, then such recalls should be included.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)