Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 20 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 30

Rollbar

FYI Rollbar is requested to be renamed to make way for disambiguation. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Where can I find vehicle lifetime expectancy?

Hell all, I have a general question I was hoping to pose to the group. Where can I find RSs that give information on the average life expectancy of different vehicles? In other words, if I want to know the average lifetime mileage a typical SUV will get versus a compact, where can I get that data? I took a quick look myself. I thought the information would be easy to track down, but it seems frustratingly illusive. Any ideas? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find much either. Are these of any help: [1], [2]? OSX (talkcontributions) 01:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Lifetime expectancy depends too much on the owner/driver. Is it being driven carefully or roughly? Is it serviced regularly or only when something breaks? Is the SUV driven off-road? Is the compact driven by a little old lady to church every Sunday or used for traffic light drags every day. Which makes life expectancy a meaningless number for Wikipedia. But as a general rule, most cars last for the same number of years when subject to the same conditions. Possible exception would be an ultra cheap econo-box (ie made from stiffened tin foil) compared to an over engineered luxo-mobile (eg Lexus, top end Mercedes). You get what you pay for - sometimes:  Stepho  (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Try Consumer Reports - this link has reliability history for 2000-2009 cars. --Vossanova o< 20:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This page details How to Double Your Car's Life Expectancy http://www.frugalfun.com/cartips.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NichlausRN (talkcontribs) 10:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Vehicle ID requested

Children of All Nations Day, A-Y-P, 1909.jpg

Can anyone identify the car in this photo? If so, please edit accordingly at Commons:File:Children of All Nations Day, A-Y-P, 1909.jpg. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 02:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Orpington (automobile)

I've come across a reference to a marque of car called the Orpington, named after the town where it was made. Manufacturers were Messrs. Smith & Milroy, who were agents for Overland. The cars apparently used Model T Ford parts and 1½ litre Coventry Simplex engines. One known to have been registered KN9585. These cars were built during the 1920s. (Source: Jewell, Brian (1984). Down the line to Hastings. Southborough: The Baton Press. p. 57. ISBN 0 85936 223 X.) Are there any members of this WP who are able to create an article on this marque? Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

1991 Continental R

Sirs, you may want to update your site on the Continental R from the Geneva Motor show. I have all the documentation on Chassis # 42002 as I sold it and it was not bought on site. It was purchased by Prince Jeffri, the Sultan's brother as a gift for the Hari Raya celebrations coming out of Ramadan. The car was airfriegted from Manchester Aiport under secrecy on a 747 specially chartered to get it to Singapore and then taken to Brunei in a C130 and presented to the Sultan by his brother. I was the GM for RR and Bentley at the time in Hong Kong. I sold 58 RR and Bentley to Brunei in 18 months for the Royal Family through Singapore. The last count I heard that he owned was 450 units and has a Farrari collection better than Enzo's. I have every single Chassis # and all the documentation. But 42002 was the show car and was sold for 2,000,000 Pounds Sterling. Finished in Vermilian Red with Parchment interior piped red. We had to keep this so secret for all these years.

Russell M. Blythe,Esq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.17.207 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Concern about ZAP (motor company) article

I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the quality of ZAP (motor company) which is being frequently edited by Rickybear2009 (talk · contribs) - a single purpose editor who it seems to me may have a conflict of interest. Most of his edits have been to expand the article with relatively trivial content sourced largely from the company's own press releases. I'd appreciate some of the experienced editors in this project taking a look with a view to pruning and/or improving. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Cars of... articles

With articles like Cars in Mexico shouldn't we add a few more ones, e.g. United Kingdom, Brazil, Lithuania, Sweden, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.? These articles look quite good, make it an interesting bit of motoring history. (have to rush, logged in from shared terminal) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.219.185 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sports Junior did it exist?

There is a very brief article entitled Sports Junior which claims it was an English car made in 1920-21. I can find no mention of this make in any of the standard reference books and suspect it never existed or was a model by another manufacturer. The article has a reference to David Burgess Wise's "The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Automobiles" which I don't have. Before I propose the article for deletion can anyone either check the reference of confirm the car's existence. Malcolma (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC).

I'm pretty sure I do own that book, but I won't be home for three weeks. I will check it then unless someone else gets there first. I suppose there's no damage to allowing this little stub to remain until then?
 ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have that book but Google Books found a match for "Sports junior" in an older version of the book. Unfortunately, there is no preview, so I can't check it further.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22sports+junior%22+%22The+Illustrated+encyclopedia+of+the+world%27s+automobiles%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
 Stepho  (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

McLaren M6

Hello all! I am somewhat surprised to see absolutely no mention anywhere on Wikipedia of this beast:

http://carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=9691

Can we please try and write an article for it, and include it in the road cars section of the McLaren template that you'll find at the bottom of the F1's article?--86.18.235.20 (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia community. As a new member of our community, your first job is to write an article about the McLaren M6. Don't worry about mistakes, one of us will make corrections as needed.  Stepho  (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments needed at Talk:Ford E-Series

An increasingly-petulant newbie is insistent that people need to be informed of the fact that European vans are underpowered compared to American vans, and seems to think that the E-Series article is the place for the information. As far as I know there's never been a desire to turn articles into magazine comparison tests. Maybe van would be a good place to have that information, but I'd appreciate additional comments on why Ford E-Series isn't. He implies he's not biased but his POV is clear considering how uptight he got. It seems this might be stemming from this user getting his panties in a bunch over similar comparative content in another article (see Talk:Mercedes-Benz Sprinter#Bias where he is accusing me of hypocrisy and being a "moderator"). --Sable232 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WP only has to give the power+torque figures (ie the basic facts) for each car. The reader is then free to compare the figures in multiple articles. Like you said, we don't do magazine comparisons ourselves. The only time we would mention a comparison is when a specific model had different engines installed in different markets (eg The first generation Toyota Crown had a 1900 cc engine in the US while Japan only had a 1500 cc engine).  Stepho  (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Information in infoboxes

Is it just me or is there waaaayyy too much clutter in the infoboxes lately? As an example I could refer you to the 83-92 VW Jetta, where no less than 27 engine options are listed, making it a huge scrolling, illegible nightmare containing information that is also presented in a much more useful table within the main text. Also fairly silly are the often long list of assembly plants, some of which I myself am guilty of having added to: Citroën GS. I also question whether conversions should be included in the infobox: The Ford Granadas list eight bodystyles, four of which were outside conversions (limos, hearses).

Are there any rules for infoboxes? If not, I'd like to propose some:

  • If there are ten or more engine options, they are to be listed as a range, eg:
1.3-1.8 litre petrol I4
1.6-1.8 litre diesel I4
1.6 litre turbodiesel I4,
rather than enumerating every single iteration.
  • Only bodystyles manufactured by the original producer are to be included in the infobox. Subsidiary derivations (such as the Santana-built, never sold in Japan Suzuki Jimny Canvas Top) may be included if of some relevance and if they do not confuse or clutter the infobox, which is there to give a brief idea of the car in question.
  • On cars which were available in a huge number of bodystyles and with facelifts confusing matters, either give a range of dimensions or those of the two or three most important iterations:
4,346–4,528 mm (171.1–178.3 in)
or
sedan: 4,346 mm (171.1 in)
wagon: 4,495 mm (177.0 in)

As a rule of thumb, if the infobox is longer than the main body of the article, then perhaps the editors' focus should be relocated. I welcome the pointing out of any mental lapses I may have committed.
 ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Where there exists a very large range of different options - eg ten different engines, some available in US, others in Europe, and others in Brazil - then there is surely a scope for setting up a separate table in the entry itself rather than trying to cram everything into an info box. That is an approach that is already taken sometimes. (EG SEAT Ibiza. I don't hold this out as the perfect table. Table design is actually quite a tricky business. But it is an example of how you can get more info in a table than anyone should wish to get into an info box.)
Obviously with cars like the Golf you make the problem easier to address, as between us we have, by having different pages for different generations of the car. Otherwise the pages simply become too big, and those of us living in countries burdened by third world infrastructures have to overdose on coffee while we wait for the page to download.
The special bodies that are listed in the column with the mainstream one for the Ford Granada seems to reflect the impressive determination of a single individual to include the hearses and stretched limos etc. Looks to me a bit batty, but that implies disrespect and of course one should not diss contributors simply because one disagrees with something they do. Thus wikipedia. I don't think it's currently a more general problem. Obviously we can all think of examples where listing all the body style permutations in this way would lead to a much longer column still in the info box - many mainstream mass market US models for the last fifty years, and virtually every middle-class and above car that sold in numbers in Europe during the 1920s/30s when most buyers bought their chassis for a car maker and the body from a (n often different) body maker. Again, the fact that information is difficult to present is not a reason to leave it out. But if someone has the inclination, sourced knowledge, and patience to list all the permutations of Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Impala offered for the 1970 model year, then a separate table is the place to do it. Not the info box.
Well, these are my opinions to your thoughts. Thanks for raising the issue. Questions of what to put in info boxes and how seem to crop up every so often and it doesn't do to be too prescriptive, because if you try it (1) it doesn't work and (2) you annoy and alienate contributors who would otherwise provide good inputs but who don't agree with some consensus imposed by three not necessarily representative but e-noisy contributors from outre mer. But on the points you raise, I agree there is scope for trying to get a consensus on what to do when info boxes become loaded with levels of detail for which the basic design is simply not appropriate. Regards Charles01 (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the infobox should be used only official body styles made by manufacturer or made by their approval and sold by the manufacturer not some independet companies. All extra info should be in main text. --Typ932 T·C 09:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The majority of those engines listed are just the same engine size and type duplicated because of power output and emissions variations.
Previously, there seemed to be an unwritten understanding that power figures were not to be used in infoboxes, partially for this reason. A table is a far more effective and clear way to display that level of detail. --Sable232 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I pretty much agree with the thoughts above - infoboxes are summaries, not detailed lists. Only factory produced bodies should be listed - which usually excludes hearses. Sizes and weights should be reduced to ranges and never listed for each variant. Countries should never be mentioned in the infobox (ie '1.8 L (Japan), 2.2 L (US)' is bad, just list 1.8L, 2.2 L' and put the market details in the main text. All engines should be listed, engine size being the must important, followed by engine name (preferably with a link to the engine page) and possibly followed by turbo/diesel. Showing engine power is overkill - and tends to change yearly and by market anyway. For multi-generation vehicles, the generational infoboxes can be as above but the main infobox should have very few details (ie production years, manufacturer, definitely not engines, weights, sizes).  Stepho  (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been banging on about this for ages, and would love to see such a standard adopted. The example given (VW Jetta) is ridiculous, and a demonstration of how for some people "encyclopedia" means "mirror of stats contained in MSN Autos or Edmunds.com". In fact, I'd like to see a lot of the stats removed entirely from the infobox, just to discourage such trivia accumulation. It may be verifiable that the 1997 Honda Accord has a wheelbase of 2715 mm, but is it notable? I can verify the height and weight of Tony Blair, but there's no compulsion to include that info in his infobox. Likewise, why do we include "parent company"? While it might be relevant to the company which manufactures the car, it's not directly relevant to each vehicle.
My approach is fairly straightforward: if it's mentioned in the prose text, where it can be referenced to a citeable source, then we can summarize it in the infobox. If it doesn't appear in the prose text, why is it appearing in the summary?
I actually think the SEAT Ibiza table is still a bit much. Including power runs into the problem that it varies across markets. For example, the Mitsubishi i's 660 cc turbo is 64 hp in Japan per their local regulations, but detuned to 57 hp for the UK market to get it under a local vehicle tax threshold which is based on CO2 emissions. I think all we need to do is include a range of engine sizes, a range of power outputs, and I'd love it if we made any such tables collapsible as well.
"As a rule of thumb, if the infobox is longer than the main body of the article, then perhaps the editors' focus should be relocated." Quoted for truth. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree on the opinions above, the infobox should only contain sizes of engines, not every type codes, power levels etc. only basic data is enough. The Seat IBiza table could be reduced by removing that trim data, we should get rid of pointless option,color, etc data , lately I have been went thru many "articles" which are just long list of stuff. probably just copy pasted from source --Typ932 T·C 13:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to my above proposal regarding fuel economy/performance figures, I would like to propose the following changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Units:

  • Engines: infoboxes should state output expressed in liters (cu in for older cars in some countries), the engine name/code in italics, the engine type, and then in parentheses, the type of forced induction (if applicable) and fuel type. Engine outputs and other data should be excluded. For example:
  • 2.0 L Delta I4 (gasoline)
  • 2.0 L Delta I4 (supercharged gasoline)
  • 3.0 L Zeta V6 (turbocharged diesel)
  • Note: the terms "gasoline" and "petrol" can be used interchangeably, depending on the market.
  • Transmissions: infoboxes should state the number of forward-facing gears, the transmission name/code in italics, and the transmission type. For example:
  • 1-speed Alpha cont. variable
  • 5-speed Beta manual
  • 6-speed Gamma automatic
  • Dimensions: infoboxes should express dimensions as a range and should not be listed for every level of trim. Different body styles can be separated. For example:
  • Sedan: 4,567 mm (179.8 in)—4,577 mm (180.2 in)
  • Wagon: 4,645 mm (182.9 in)—4,662 mm (183.5 in)

Note: all detailed data should be incorporated into a separate table.

I think we should also remove the following fields:

  • parent_company (per DeLarge)
  • production_start and production_end (seems superfluous to "production")
  • electric_range (subjective, just like fuel economy)

We should possibly add a "brand" parameter. For example:

  • Brand: Buick
  • Manufacturer: General Motors

OSX (talkcontributions) 14:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I second that, albeit with one small modification: I would prefer to write the engine size in cc's. This mainly applies to smaller cars, as both the 356 cc Suzuki Fronte and its 443 cc replacement would be called "0.4 L". Other cars thus affected would be the 1,298 vs 1,324 cc iterations of Suzuki Cultus, and I'm sure that there are plenty of other examples. I guess I don't think that the space saved by using litres makes up for lost precision.  ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Many people do not understand cubic centimetres. Everyone understands litres in the displacement context though. I'd save cubic centimetres for a separate table, and if there is ever an issue with rounding the solution is simple: 0.36 L and 0.44 L. Keep the inbox simple; that information should be understandable to everyone. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about people not comprehending cc's, it seems that they'd have as hard of a time with litres. Be that as it may, using cc's for very small engines (550 cc, 0.8 L, 1.1 L) would work. Anyhow, we aren't really laying down rules here, are we? What I am looking for is enough consensus to feel that I am allowed to go through and clean up some infoboxes without stepping out of line. Best,  ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I dont see any problem using parent company, In my opinion its good data, using bare brand/manufacturer is much harder because that data is much harder to find which is brand and which is legal entity, anyway I think we should make more clear what should be used in the current field "manufacturer" sometimes there is the actual assembly factory and sometimes the company that has "ordered" the work, In my opinion manufacturer is always the company/brand has that ordered these cars from factory or makes them by themselves, the actual company that manufacturers/makes them should be included in assembly field. The production_start/stop was added only because adding that data to the production field would end too long line, thats why they were separated to two different fields. --Typ932 T·C 08:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the infobox should provide only a summary, and doesn't need to be exhaustive. If there are too many possibilities to list, they should be summarized. The proposal to include engine/transmission codes/codenames is going a little far, IMHO; this might be too much detail, and is sometimes hard to determine. Letdorf (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC).
I endorse OSX's proposals. Some guidelines should be added to Template:Infobox automobile/doc and discussed at Template talk:Infobox automobile. I am also fine with removing the fields OSX suggested. A "brand" parameter should not be necessary as it is part of the page name the vast majority of the time. Liters/litres should be used first when most often used by reliable sources which review/advertise the car. There can be exceptions, such as cu in for old American cars or cc for kei cars, where the media uses those units more often. --Vossanova o< 16:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I see only one field which could be removed and that is fuel capacity, that does not tell much, the production field could maybe fixed somehow that we could get rid of _start and _stop fields, its now very often wrongly used. The manufacturer and assembly fields should also be made much clearer as I wrote above. I dont see the factory as manufacturer its only the place where the car is assembled --Typ932 T·C 15:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Note that 'production_start' and 'production_end' are alternatives to the 'production' field. An editor should choose one or the other, but not both. By having fields with '_start' and '_end' in the names it helps prevent casual editors mistaking the 'production' field as a place to put assembly location or total sales numbers. Can you point me to any instances of them being used wrongly.
Most articles that I watch treat the 'assembly' field as the locations (usually towns) that a vehicle is built in. This includes final assembly of export packs by third parties in foreign countries.  Stepho  (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I have today fixed about 2-3 wrong use of production field used on SEAT articles --Typ932 T·C 16:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So far we've agreed not to include the "brand" field so I will withdraw that proposal. No one seems to have objected to the removal of the "electric_range" / "fuel_economy" fields either. I will proceed to remove these fields unless there is an objection.

For engine displacement, we should use litres for all engines except: low displacement engines of less than 1.0 litre which can be expressed in cubic centimetres, and older cars produced when the "original market" still utilised cubic inches (e.g. pre-1970s U.S. and Australia).

Letdorf stated that, including engine/transmission codes is going too far. I disagree. Those codes allow us to link to the individual engine/transmission pages and most of these codes are only a few characters long.

I still do not understand why we need two fields for "production" when a simple date range (i.e. 1996–2001) does the same job with less. I think it is okay to include the number of cars produced underneath the range as well if the information is obtainable. Then there is a third section for model years for cars sold in the U.S. Like Typ932 said, maybe we should go back to using just "production" to keep it down to two sections: production and model years. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The two field production was created because if you add exact dates, it breaks the line. Maybe some other solution can be found for that? --Typ932 T·C 07:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's the archive for the last major discussion for production_start/_end Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 18#generation years and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 18#First problems noticed.
A benefit of using these fields is that the SEAT abuse of putting sales figures in the production field (eg SEAT 600)is avoided - but only as long as the old and new fields are not allowed to be used together (doc says to choose one style only) . Typ932, your 'fix' is just as broken as the original because sales data was not meant to be in the production field at all.
If having the production dates displayed on 2 lines bothers you, I could alter the template so that it combines the 2 _start/_end fields into a single display line with a dash. Also be aware that the _start/_end fields were meant to supersede the old production field. It would be better if the template ignored the old production field if the newer production_start/_end field is present.
Model years were allowed as a means of appeasing gung-ho American editors (no offence to the nice ones). E.g. for a car that was made from Aug 1975 to Oct 1977, it got real tedious changing the production field back to 1975-1977 because every second yank want to make it '76-'77. So we gave them a model years field for them to play in where they don't bother us any more.  Stepho  (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If our goal is to reduce clutter in the infobox, then I would just include years and leave the exact date(s) for the prose. OSX (talkcontributions) 10:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Stepho-wrs's comment illustrates precisely why we DON'T just use years, because that started the confusion in the first place. I assume I'm one of the uptight American pricks being referred to who compromised that since editors outside of the U.S. and Canada insisted that the production field exist in all cases no matter what because of their intense hatred of model years, that the exact months would be used where applicable so it was clear at first glance that it was the calendar year being used. I've been leaning towards just using the months in the infobox, leaving the exact day to the prose (as was done on Oldsmobile Aurora. --Sable232 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
After reading the earlier discussion, there was an awful lot of opposition to the addition of production start/end in the first place.
Keep the infobox as a summary. Production: 1999–2003, Model years: 2000–2003. Then relegate the rest of the information to the article body, "Production started on 3 March 1999, with the car making its North American sales debut on April 23 as a 2000 model. Production ended on 7 September 2003." OSX (talkcontributions) 10:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep that should be the infobox idea, to give just fast basic data, more detailed info should be in main article. --Typ932 T·C 11:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have incorporated some of the generally agreed upon conventions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Units and Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Infoboxes. OSX (talkcontributions) 14:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Suzuki Jimny
Overview
ManufacturerSuzuki
Production1998–present
Powertrain
EngineJB23: 658 cc K6A I3
JB33: 1.3 L G13BB I4
JB43: 1.3 L M13A I4
JB53: 1.5 L Renault K9K turbodiesel I4
Suzuki Jimny
Overview
ManufacturerSuzuki
Production1998–present
Powertrain
EngineJB23: 658 cc K6A I3
JB33: 1,298 cc G13BB I4
JB43: 1,328 cc M13A I4
JB53: 1,461 cc Renault K9K turbodiesel I4
Thanks OSX.
One last argument in favor of using cc's (when not ci's), besides the increased accuracy: "1,714 cc" looks alright in an infobox, whereas using litres is much better in the text. If there is a tech table in the text, then by all means put less information in the box, but not when the infobox is the only area with tech. Also, something like the two engines used in the Suzuki Jimny (G13BB vs M13A) would look a mite confusing if they were both just listed as "1.3 L" engines. I would argue that cc's or litres is up to the editor and the situation, and that the second table is the better option.
I also wish that everyone who edits was familiar with the old feminist concept of unmarked categories. One doesn't have to write "SOHC gasoline four-stroke inline 4" when a simple "I4" would suffice, since "SOHC gasoline four-stroke" can more or less be expected. Not a huge problem, but it happens here and there.
Lastly, it feels as if we have succeeded in building some support and cause for us going through and parsing down infoboxes where necessary in the Automobile Wikiproject. I would like to remind everyone to be careful however, not to remove any information without first relocating it to the main text or a datatable. Best!  ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the guidelines so that one can choose litres OR cubic centimetres. Mr.choppers, with regards to your Suzuki Jimny example, the engine code should italicised: G13BB not G13BB. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with keeping engine information to displacement/type/cylinders (e.g. 351 cu in (5.8 L) Windsor V8) and transmissions to the same level of detail (e.g. 4-speed E4OD automatic). There are a handful of articles where someone added in a collapse box with detailed engine specs, I expect those should be removed as well? I agree with everyone else on not adding brand and removing electric range.
The "production start/end" fields were, if I recall, to be used when only one was available. However, it may be better to just leave that off if only one is known and leave "production" for the date range, but condense it to month and year only since the exact date isn't really needed in the infobox and it's what usually drops it to two lines. --Sable232 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you are referring to a handful of Jeep-related pages. If those are what you're referring to, then yes, a separate table is more appropriate. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Mr Choppers, we have consensus that infoboxes need to be parred down but we're still debating the exact method. Not sure if I understood you right but its still a little early to go editing articles for this straight away.
As Sable said, a fantastic benefit of putting in months for production dates is that is automatically disambiguates whether this is a calendar year or a US style model year. I've had so much trouble stopping yanks changing it to model year - even when a separate model year field exists.
I fully support the idea of a single start date and a single end date instead of the current silliness of listing start and stop dates for each market and body style.
As for the SEAT abuse, we could change the template so that the production field is displayed as 'Production years' - hopefully this will make less people use it for sales figures and assembly locations. It could be argued that we should add a sales numbers field if the SEAT people make a fuss - but I'm not going to champion adding a field in the middle of a trimming discussion.
I'd be very reluctant to give up the list of engines. They are such a big part of what defines many cars. Most articles I've seen don't have engine lists that are too long. But I do see many that have huge long lists for length and weight by body shape and market that can be parred down to a min-max range.
Transmissions should be parred down to '3/4/5 speed manual' and '3/4 speed automatic' - possibly with the numbers being links to each corresponding transmission articles if the editor is really, really keen.
Both of the Jimmy infoboxes above look fine to me (apart from wanting a month on the production date).  Stepho  (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Changing "Production" to "Production years" would result in the latter requiring two lines in the left column of the infobox. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I have also just removed the "electric range" and "fuel capacity" fields from Template:Infobox automobile. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, removing these fields has the effect of breaking refs on a variety of pages. Please see Category:Pages with broken reference names - Salamurai (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Which can be easily fixed because a bot will come around and mark those pages and place them into Category:Pages with broken reference names. OSX (talkcontributions) 06:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't work that way. Breaking the ref automatically puts them in the cat. AnomieBot sometimes will repair later, but not always. - Salamurai (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, a temporary error message on the handful of pages with references in the "production" and "parent company" fields can be easily fixed. I'll even volunteer to do it myself—all of it. OSX (talkcontributions) 15:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Our two remaining issues pertain to the "Parent company" and "Production start/end" fields. Let's have quick poll to see who supports/opposes what so we can work out what to do next. Please provide a reason to support your vote. I don't think we should necessarily tally up the votes to determine the result, but I am just a little confused with rationale for retention by the opposing side. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Parent company

  • Support removal: parent company is an extra bit of information that is not necessary. Is it the parent company of the brand or the manufacturer? GM cars are the only examples that I can think of (there would be more) that actually correctly make use of this field. Clicking on the "manufacturer" link should tell the reader if there is a parent company. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose we dont need to click to see who owns the company/brand, also it easier to see if there is parent changes during the production period. --Typ932 T·C 16:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • small oppose - Personally I'd rather see a production number in the infobox. But I guess there are people out there who read these articles and are unaware that GM owns Buick and VW owns Şkoda: while I find this field unnecessary, there are those who need it.  ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: I do think it has some benefit, however it does seem somewhat prone to misuse- while GM divisions once had the autonomy where they could be considered the manufacturer, that isn't the case today. I think someone tried getting an agreement on what constitutes "manufacturer" and nothing ever came of it because it's a matter of viewpoint in many cases. But, consider this- A Saab 9-5 is Saab-designed and built in Saab's factory in Sweden, so the manufacturer would be Saab, with GM as the parent company. A Saab 9-7X is by every measure a Chevy Blazer and built in GM's Moraine plant, so that article should probably state GM as the manufacturer. Keeping the parent company field might keep a little bit of consistency between cases like that, but in the grand scheme of things maybe that isn't particularly important. --Sable232 (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Rather than having two fields, could we list both in the manufacturer field? Manufacturer: Holden (General Motors), Škoda (Volkswagen Group). OSX (talkcontributions) 01:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like it could work. --Sable232 (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, full support for that idea.  ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
with long ones it will split into two lines, so that doesnt reduce infobox lenght much for example Saab Automobile Saab Spyker Automobiles. If we need to do something just remove parent. Is there some reason we need to get rid of it? If we remove it we could change also so that manufacturer would come as brand. --Typ932 T·C 06:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The main reason for the removal of "parent company" is to reduce clutter (and hence the reason for these conventions). I am not sure about changing "manufacturer" to "brand", when I suggested the addition of a "brand" field earlier everyone objected. OSX (talkcontributions) 07:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this needs some more time to get more opinions/suggestions, but I would like to get rid of this kind of manufacturers field like in Toyota Corolla, in my opinion it should say only Toyota and those factories should be placed in assembly field. Now we have very differently written infoboxes --Typ932 T·C 08:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, and I support that change. So it would be listed like this:
Brand: Toyota
Assembly: Fremont, California, U.S. (by NUMMI), Cambridge, Ontario, Canada (by TMMC)
OSX (talkcontributions) 08:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
yes something like that, because at the moment this is used very differently in many articles. Maybe we could just rename manufacturer to brand and use assembly field like above example. --Typ932 T·C 13:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice, except that what should we do with something like this one: Citroën GS? Ten assembly plants so far, and I'm sure that more could be scrounged up. I would just move all CKD assembly to a list in the main article, but I foresee battles with various nationalists who insist on listing the Faeroe Islands (or whathaveyou) in every single place possible. Is "assembly" possibly too wide-open?  ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it could be stay like it is now, but should clarified maybe somehow , its sometimes also hard to find the info which is CKD assembly and what is not, maybe add CKD in parenthessis or something, I find it intresting to see where these cars are actually made. There is also one or two editors who dont study these enough and adds wrong data, there has been cases where local dealer is put on assembly field. Those are sometimes very hard to verify because unknown language.--Typ932 T·C 14:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"Brand" just duplicates the title of the article and the name above the infobox. I see no reason to have it stated yet again. --Sable232 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Having "manufacturer" means that with the Toyota example, you have not only Toyota listed, but other companies that produced the car, such as NUMMI, TMMC, UAAI, et cetera. Ideally, having just "Toyota" is all that we want, but by definition the "manufacturer" includes everyone who makes the car. Replacing "manufacturer" with "brand" will result in zero change for the vast majority of pages. It will also stop the edit wars like those involving the changing of the manufacturer from Buick to General Motors and back as this would be displayed as Brand: Buick (General Motors) rather than Manufacturer: General Motors. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Under that logic, then we should remove "Manufacturer" and leave "Parent company." "Brand" is a pointless infobox field because, in general, it states the same thing as the page title, the title above the infobox, and the second word of the article. --Sable232 (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we just remove both manufacturer and parent company, would there be any negative effects?, it would cause some job to move manufacturer places to assembly and would need one link to main text to point the parent company, anything else?--Typ932 T·C 07:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we should remove it completely. The work can be done by a bot. The only time that it would be required to move manufacturing entities to assembly are in cases like CKD kits and venture projects like NUMMI. In fact, I'd be happy to restrict assembly to the locations, then discuss the entities that produce the cars in the text. So essentially, the only change the would be necessary would be for a bot to rename "manufacturer" to "brand". OSX (talkcontributions) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
So remove of parent_company field and rename manufacturer field as brand? --Typ932 T·C 09:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Correct. OSX (talkcontributions) 10:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok do we have concensus here? so that it could be done... :) --Typ932 T·C 10:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose renaming "manufacturer" to "brand." Could someone please explain why we need to duplicate something that is stated three times in the first inch of the page? --Sable232 (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Its already there, we dont duplicate anything, would you like it to be removed then? or do you have other solution what should be done ?--Typ932 T·C 13:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Typ932 is right. For 99 percent of pages nothing will change. The only difference it will make is that for the minority of articles that currently list the entity/entities that manufacture a car that are not the "brand" will be removed (i.e. NUMMI). And as I've said above, you eliminate edit wars involving the changing of the manufacturer from Buick to General Motors and back as this would be displayed as Brand: Buick (General Motors) rather than Manufacturer: General Motors. Ditto for Lexus, Brand: Lexus (Toyota). OSX (talkcontributions) 22:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Then why not just remove it altogether? --Sable232 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Could some other editors please give their opinion on the matter? In summary, this discussion concerns the deletion the "parent_company" field and renaming "manufacturer" as "brand". OSX (talkcontributions) 07:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - see DeLarge's argument. Letdorf (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

Besides Sable232, is anyone else opposed to removing the parent_company field and renaming the manufacturer field as brand? OSX (talkcontributions) 01:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think not , see this also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_automobile renaming would solve this kind of problems --Typ932 T·C 06:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone care to explain what benefit there is to making this field useless in 100% of cases rather than 80%, instead of just removing it altogether? --Sable232 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The benefit is we get rid of the (often) long lists of entities that produce a car. As explained above, a Toyota Corolla is a vehicle designed by Toyota not NUMMI, TMMC, or UAAI. Those separate companies/subsidiaries just produce or in the past produced the Corolla, and thus are best left to be mentioned in the assembly field.
I feel that the owner of the intellectual property (Toyota) is more important than the company that turns this intellectual property into a tangible product. To use architecture as an example, it is the architect that gets the main credit for a building, not the company that builds it.
Another example, a software developer gets the credit for their work, not the company that creates the disc and prints the packaging for retail. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Those are reasonable points, and I agree. However, removal of the field altogether will solve the problem just as well. --Sable232 (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't support its removal. I'll leave it a little longer for others to make any further comments, but with all other opinions in favour of the change I think that is probably going to be the fairest solution.
If any other editors feel compelled to make a comment on the issue that would be of great help. OSX (talkcontributions) 09:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just thought of a potential dilemma: what do we do with badge engineered cars? If we list the brand for the Toyota Corolla as "Toyota", then that might invite others to include "Chevrolet" as well because the Corolla was sold as the Chevrolet Prizm at one stage. Another case of contention are most Daewoo vehicles of late; these have been sold under the brands of Daewoo, Buick, Chevrolet, Holden, Pontiac, and Suzuki.

For now, maybe we should go back to the original proposal of just removing "parent_company" and combining it with "manufacturer". OSX (talkcontributions) 07:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Infoboxes to include guidlines for "Manufacturer" and "Assembly". Feel free to revert/change if you disagree. "Parent_company" has also been removed from {{infobox automobile}}. OSX (talkcontributions) 06:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Assembly location

I'm not sure I like the "country first" guideline being there (at least not yet). I didn't see that in the discussion and the status quo seems to be city, state/province (if applicable), country. Other than that it looks fine.--Sable232 (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

See this revision of Chevrolet Cruze. It is now a whole lot easier to see which countries the Cruze is produced in at a glance. For most readers, I would think they are most interested in the country of manufacture, and not the exact location. The exact city would only be of interest if you are familiar with the area. Listing "Thailand" is sufficient enough because stating the car was produced in the city of Rayong gives no additional useable information if you aren't familiar with Thai geography. However, it is still listed for those that are. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I prefer 'city, country'. 'City, province/state, country' often causes the country to be wrapped to the next line - which is very confusing. And it is very rare for a single country to have a factory from the same manufacturer in two cities with the same name in different state/provinces. We can make the city link to the correct city for anybody who wants to know exactly where it is. Alternatives such as 'province, country' or 'factory name, country' (eg 'NUMMI, US') would do equally well depending on the article and information available. In short, single choice of city/province/state/factory followed by country.  Stepho  (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's time we increase the width of the infobox to 300px from 250px? Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Design and usage suggests a standard width of 300 pixels, and I think it would solve a lot of the width/line overflow issues we currently have. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The increase would be welcome but I think 'city, state, country' will still overflow in many cases. We are also in danger of information overflow for the reader. Most will not care about every detail of the location, but a shorter location (as I outlined above) still gives them enough to find what they want through the link.  Stepho  (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn it already 25em | bodystyle = width:25em , also now the width is determined with the size of image, should we go with fixed image size in template, that we dont need to add 250px everytime? that would cause lots of work and isnt maybe possible to change .... --Typ932 T·C 19:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── A fixed/automatic width sounds great. However, I do not know how to implement it. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to widen the infobox we must then prohibit having left-aligned images on the same part of the page. The prose is tight enough as it is with a 1024-pixel browser window, someone with a smaller one probably would have a hard time reading it with a wider infobox if they don't already.
As for only using city and country: That works for a well-known city, but what about one that isn't, or one that isn't a unique name in its country? Saying "South Gate, USA" would be meaningless for most people on this continent since "city, state" is so common, and confusing since there's a city so named in both California and Maryland. --Sable232 (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
(indented comment a week later) Prohibiting left-aligned images on the same part of the page is something we should be doing already, since the overarching WP guidelines recommend against it (see WP:Layout#Images, and check the various WP:FAs which never have a left-aligned image in the lead where an infobox also exists). An example of how bad it can look can be seen here. More and more people use netbooks and smartphones to browse Wikipedia, and many existing PC users don't maximise the browser window, hence why we need to ensure that layouts don't fall to pieces at smaller resolutions. --DeLarge (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Already catered for in my suggestion. Assuming you mean the city in California, your example could be put as either 'South Gate, USA' or 'California, USA', depending on which seems better to you at the time.  Stepho  (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I support using less text for the various places of assembly. If one really cared which South Gate was referred to, the link should provide the correct city. Wider infobox, sure, but I really believe that much of the info contained therein is often better presented in a table in the text.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
State only is worse. In the 1980s the Olds Cutlass Supreme was built at three different plants located in Michigan. Really, how often does it exceed one line with city, state, country? Most of the time it doesn't (in fact, I don't know of any off-hand). --Sable232 (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion gave three choices: city,country or state,country or factory,country. If state doesn't work for a particular case then one of the other choices could be used.
Most with city,state,country do fit on one line but the few exceptions are jarring enough to cause confusion. Here's a couple of examples found in about a minute of searching: Chevrolet Corvette and Toyota Corolla (E110). And even if they do happen to fit on one line, cutting down the visual clutter surely must be good (as long as the link takes you somewhere that provides the missing part).  Stepho  (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Chevrolet Cruze
Overview
AssemblyAustralia: Elizabeth, South Australia
China: Shenyang, Liaoning
India: Halol, Gujarat
Russia: Saint Petersburg
South Korea: Bupyeong-gu, Incheon
Thailand: Rayong, Rayong Province
United States: Lordstown, Ohio
Chevrolet Cruze
Overview
AssemblyBupyeong-gu, Incheon, South Korea
Elizabeth, South Australia, Australia
Halol, Gujarat, India
Lordstown, Ohio, United States
Shenyang, Liaoning, China
Saint Petersburg, Russia
Rayong, Rayong Province, Thailand

Increasing the width to 300 pixels would all but eliminate these overflow issues. Why do we have to reinvent the wheel just to stop the odd example of line overflow from occurring? At 300 pixels, it will be rare.

Cutting down visual clutter is also achieved by listing the country first and leaving it unlinked (it stands out from the masses of blue links that usually preponderate the infobox). From a quick glance, most people are going to have no clue where Elizabeth, Halol, Lordstown, Shenyang, or Rayong are. Let's hope they know where Saint Petersburg is though. Listing the country first (and leaving it unlinked) makes it stand out much better. One can now see from a glance that the Chevrolet Cruze assembly sites are: Australia, China, India, Russia, South Korea, Thailand, and the United States. That information will satisfy the majority. However, those familiar with the local geography of any of the above countries will be seeking more information.

Americans will likely find "United States" listed on its own far too vague. Likewise, Thai readers will feel the same about "Thailand", but will likely be satisfied with just "United States". I feel the revised formatting makes its easier for those seeking basic assembly data, but at the same time makes it no more difficult for readers seeking more precise locations. OSX (talkcontributions) 07:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - but with countries only to be listed if the car in question has been built in more than one. I still reckon that listing state/province is rarely necessary and tends to clutter things up. "Lordstown, Ohio" for sure, but "Rayong, Rayong Province" is surely redundant. Also, most states/provinces have handy abbreviations (OH for Ohio, SA for South Australia), the use of which would make things easier for those of us who may otherwise confuse things (for years I thought that Omaha was a state...) and also eliminates overflow. Those readers who care what particular province is involved are likely to be familiar with the abbreviations used.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I support listing country first. However, if a vehicle was built in multiple plants in the same country, is there a way to indent the subsequent ones, rather than duplicate the country? Mr. Choppers' suggestion works if there's only one country, but there's a lot of American cars from the past that were built in several U.S. factories and one or two in Canada.
On abbreviations: I'd support it where possible. Probably best not to do so with countries, of course. Personally I'd prefer to use longer abbreviations and not postal codes (i.e. Dearborn, Mich. or Oshawa, Ont.), but that's simply personal preference.
Perhaps we should hold off on increasing the infobox width for now and see what we can accomplish without it. (There's a fair amount of whitespace in some places at 300px.) --Sable232 (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
At Toyota Camry (XV40) two of the assembly locations listed are both in the U.S., so I separated them as follows:
United States: Georgetown, Kentucky; Lafayette, Indiana. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Production start/end

  • Support removal: these two fields seem superfluous to "production" and having both to replace one seems counterintuitive. I can't see how having dates being too long, and thus taking up two lines is reason enough to separate them. Simple year-only or even month/year dates are suffice for infoboxes. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support in my opinion bare year is enough, the exact production dates are quite often even hard to find. --Typ932 T·C 16:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support removal. I think that when year and date production dates are available they should be listed, no real reason not to.  ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Reducing the regular production field to just month and year will keep the information all on one line (in all cases, I tested a September-September range and it was fine) so these don't have much of a benefit. --Sable232 (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support removal. As I said at the time these fields were introduced, they're unnecessary. For years, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution has had production dates listed to the month (as referenced from the Mitsubishi Lancer Register), on a single line. The field serves equally well for both calendar and model years, as long as US editors are willing to accommodate international readers by prefixing date ranges with a wikilinked [[model year|MY]], e.g. MY1997–2003. A great opportunity to adhere to the KISS principle, no? --DeLarge (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above responses, I've removed "production_start" and "production_end" from Template:Infobox automobile. I used Google to find the articles that used "production_start" and "production_end" and replaced those fields with "production". I may have missed some occurrences if Google did not pick them up, so please fix those that were missed if they are found. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to add to the documentation how is presented situation when production has started this year so 2010- or 2010-present, most common style seems to be 2010- as 2010 is the present. Now both styles seems to be in use --Typ932 T·C 08:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, 2010– is preferable to 2010–present while we are still in 2010. Also, vehicles yet to enter production should state "2010 (to commence)". OSX (talkcontributions) 09:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge Hyundai Elantra LPI Hybrid with Hyundai Elantra

Please see: Talk:Hyundai Elantra — Merger of Elantra LPI Hybrid. OSX (talkcontributions) 08:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Engine output test codes

For vehicles sold globally, power/torque ratings often differ beyond the usual metric/imperial differences. In North America, the SAE standard is widely used, with ECE used in Europe/Australia.

To use an example, the Chevrolet Cruze (1.8 litre petrol) is rated as follows:

Europe/Australia:

  • 104 kW (139 hp)
  • 176 N⋅m (130 lb⋅ft)

North America:

  • 101 kW (135 hp)
  • 167 N⋅m (123 lb⋅ft)

Other markets (such as Japan) would quite likely use different tests again to obtain output measurements (JIS in the case of Japan).

Besides the ISO standard which does not really seem to be in widespread use, is there a particular form of power measurement that we should use over another, or should we include multiple readings for the different markets? Or should the "original market" convention be applied here to keep it simple? OSX (talkcontributions) 01:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, I see more edit wars in the future :( Each country differs over the standards used (SAE vs ECE), fuel used (and including confusion caused by measuring by RON or MON), differing engine specs (cam specs, fuel maps, chip tuning, variable valve lift fitted or not, etc) and of course good old outright factory lying (buyers want a big kW number but insurance companies will lift premiums if you go more than XXX kW). Add in older cars using gross or net and running the test without power robbing features such fans, alternators or water pumps. And of course, the factory tweaks the engine a little each year, so the numbers vary each year. So its either a summary value (approx 105 kW, or 101-104 kW) or a list showing every country by every year by every option (automatics often being a different spec to manuals). Sigh :(  Stepho  (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, so far I've just tried to ignore this one. I've already gotten into some edit wars with myself over several articles. I like the use of tables, where including the various outputs in parallel is comparatively easy, while using the dominant market figures in the body text (ECE for VWs, for instance). Where none is easily discernible or someone's toes may feel stepped on, I guess we could resort to a range of numbers. But, as you say, this is not a fun one to try to resolve.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Isnt the conversion template taking care of SAE vs ECE, I have always though that it handles these.... but different markets can still have some differencies in real powers..there is also some markets which have tailored models for specific countries even inside European countries... --Typ932 T·C 15:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The conversion template only converts between imperial and metric. It makes no allowances for SAE vs ECE, net vs gross, honesty vs factory lying, different quality fuel used, different camshaft specs used, etc. I think a range in the infobox is good enough in most cases. Notable differences can be called out in the text.  Stepho  (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
How you can convert between those without taking note about sae or ece... so how is the conversion made for example from 100 hp to XXX PS?, if ist not taking those then we should ask such templates to be made. Also is kilowats now being used in North America as standard in magazines/brochures? --Typ932 T·C 06:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
If the original source quotes kilowatts derived from the ECE standard, then {{convert}} will ouput the figure as horsepower using the ECE standard. Likewise, horsepower ratings obtained using the SAE standard would be converted to SAE kilowatts. The actual definition of a kilowatt or horsepower does not change, regardless of whether the SAE, ECE, ISO, or JIS tests are used. These tests only affect how many kilowatts/horsepower are counted (for example, gross or net output).
In other words, while the Cruze sold in the U.S. has 101 kW, and the version sold in Europe is 104 kW it is quite possible that they both produce identical amounts of power, but because different tests are used, the actual net figure varies slightly. OSX (talkcontributions) 06:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
But isnt there hp used in U.S.? I dont know why you want to use kilowats in US cars, as the SI system is not adopted there, we should use the original numbers to avoid these problems. --Typ932 T·C 14:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
For articles that deal with vehicles that are designed and engineered primarily by Ford/GM/Chrysler in the U.S. (i.e not Daewoo-based Chevrolets (Aveo), or European Fords (Fiesta)), then horsepower is used, with kilowatts in parentheses. For just about everything else, we state kilowatts first, and then place horsepower in parentheses. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

But its kinda wrong to convert from hp to kilowatss as there is no such thing as SAE kW or then we should express it somehow to avoid misunderstood, why everything needs to be so hard...first we need to know if they are measured with SAE hp or SI kilowatss in the first place and then ask conversion formula to get "ECE" kilowats, anybody got any good solution for this whole case?? --Typ932 T·C 03:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a standard and well defined conversion between HP and kW that is as valid as converting between inches and mm. The problem at hand would be more like comparing length where some include bumpers while others don't (ie not quite measuring the car in the same manner), and also some countries having huge safety bumpers (ie the car itself is different). The units used have no bearing on it - just list it in both metric and 'other' :) But the original question was how to handle slight variation in the figure for different countries, different years and different models.  Stepho  (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

DAF 600 engine

The engine in a DAF 600 is a FLAT TWIN- not an inline twin as mentioned in the specification table —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.139.69 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to correct the article.  Stepho  (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese vehicles

I took these in Hainan, China, and am not sure what to do with them. Is there an article that needs them? Does anyone know what they are? I don't know about engines, but I can say that they don't go: "but, but, but, but, but", but instead they go more like: "dug, dug, dug, dug, dug, dug".

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people call them Tuk tuks for that very reason. Cool shots, but I'm afraid I don't know who built these things. The Tuk tuk article doesn't have a Chinese section, I guess it could use one but I'm not the one who should write it. Nice sound effects btw.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That tuktuk article speaks about 3 wheelers, but some of these are with 4, really dont know what these are, never seen one... we would need some expert to recognize these--Typ932 T·C 15:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Tuk-tuks are essentially motorcycles with the single rear wheel replaced by a two wheeled rear axle and a body added. Tuk-tuks usually retain the 2 stroke motorcycle engine. The photos show a development of the two-wheel tractor. Notice the front wheel drive, front mounted single cylinder engine (usually diesel, hence the low down dug-dug sound) and the rudimentary body. The writing mentions Guangdong province (next door to Hong Kong) but my Chinese reading skills aren't up to translating the rest.  Stepho  (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I don't see Guangdong written anywhere. Maybe I'll give it some time and then paste an image into tractor. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Identify this car

1970s American two-door. Make/model/[if possible] year would be great so I can upload it. IFCAR (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a first-generation Chevrolet Monte Carlo, a hardtop in mostly original condition! The rectangular parking lights in the bumper identify it as a 1971 model year. In 1970 they were round units while for 1972, the lights were moved to flank the sides of the grille. CZmarlin (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I've added it to the Monte Carlo article. IFCAR (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed mass page move - AMC articles

Every AMC car article has had it's title changed to start with "American Motors" instead of "AMC". See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Automobile articles by quality log#September 12, 2010. This was done by a user who still believes parts of Wikipedia are his little pet project and that page moves shouldn't need to be discussed if he believes it needs to be that way.

I'd rather not do a mass revert in this case, so I'm opening this discussion. --Sable232 (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Im not so familiar with US cars, but isnt this kinda same as we would call for example BMW 320 as Bayerische Motoren Werke 320? --Typ932 T·C 19:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
American Motors Corporation (AMC) as the automaker and marketer of their various models themselves most often called them "AMC Hornet" or "AMC Pacer", not "American Motors Hornet" or "American Motors Pacer". The situation is a little more fuzzy when it comes to the Ambassador line, because it went through several transformations from 1927 until 1974 . It was called "Nash Ambassador, but in 1958 became "Ambassador V8 by Rambler", in 1960 simply "Rambler Ambassador", and after 1965 the name was simplified to "AMC Ambassador". In summary, I think that each article name about American Motors automobiles should follow the pattern of initials (AMC) and the specific model name (AMX, Hornet, Gremlin, Pacer, Matador, etc.) Just like the case Typ932 points out, not many people call a "BMW" car by the full company name. There are numerous print and video examples of this use by AMC, such as this AMC Concord ad on YouTube. Just my token contribution regarding this mass name change. CZmarlin (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It should be AMC. Definitely. Almost every thing ever printed on these cars lists them under "AMC", is it is the accepted nomenclatura. As for the Ambassador, it did use "AMC" and it would make a lot of sense to name it as we would its other family members. This namechange is quite silly, sounds like someone with waay too much time on their hands (unlike the rest of us important peoples).  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
"AMC" has been widely accepted up to now. There is no need to change them all without consensus as they were not "incorrect". --Vossanova o< 16:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The way the articles were named originally was correct: "AMC (insert model)" - there was no valid reason for the change. At least the articles about AMC cars that carried the "Rambler" name have not been changed .... could you imagine "American Motors Rambler American" as an article name?! In the case of the Ambassador line, there are two articles: the first is about the Nash Ambassador (to 1957), and then the second part article should be called "AMC Ambassador" as the model was produced through 1974 by AMC. ... CZmarlin (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. These were all my thoughts as well. The cars are badged "AMC," marketed "AMC," and most people on the street would say "AMC." The manufacturer is "American Motors," but we don't have articles titled "Ford Motor Company Taurus" (or "Ford Lincoln Mercury Sable").

I'll take care of reverting all the page moves. --Sable232 (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge Taurus SHO into appropriate articles?

Comments needed at Talk:Ford Taurus. Icanhasaccount (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Got one agreement, do we need more for consensus or are we go for launch? Icanhasaccount (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case you'll need more input and more time.
I've looked at it but I haven't decided one way or the other yet. --Sable232 (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopeless article?

Hey everyone, just droppin by to let you know that Audi S7 needs some serious work. Indefensible grammar, informal tone, highly non-standard organization, and lots of speculation are present within. Is anyone available to help? Icanhasaccount (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a rather pointless and speculative article. I'm behind you on whatever.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is a poor article at the moment. In addition, unless there exist official sources supporting the future launch of an S7 model, this article would appear to be contrary to the WP:CAR convention on unannounced vehicles. Letdorf (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
I've now cleaned it up a bit, however I'm still dubious whether it should exist at all. Letdorf (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for cleanup. As for official announcements, anyone available to check out those magazine articles? If they're just speculation, the article can definitely go. If they cite or quote VW Audi Group people and materials, does that count? It'll be interesting to see the debate over this one. Icanhasaccount has an account 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rover 200/400/25/45 articles

We have an unresolved issue regarding the articles about the Rover 200/400/25/45 series of models, which currently comprise Rover 200 Series / 400 Series, Rover 200 / 25 and Rover 400 / 45.

To give some background, there have been three generations of Rover 200 series (usually referred to by the codenames SD3, R8 and R3 respectively), the last of which was facelifted as the Rover 25. There have been two generations of Rover 400 series, the first sharing a platform with the R8 Rover 200, the second, identified by its codename HH-R, later being facelifted as the Rover 45. To complicate matters further, there was also an unrelated Rover 416i sold in Australia before the UK Rover 400 was launched, and MG-badged versions of the Rover 25 and 45 sold as the MG ZR and ZS respectively.

Until recently, there were two articles covering all above the Rover models, Rover 200 Series and Rover 400 Series. However, one editor decided that it would be preferable for the R8-platform Rover 200 and 400 to be covered by a single article, and Rover 200 Series / 400 Series was created, with content moved from the existing two articles. A discussion ensued (Talk:Rover 400 / 45#Page_title) which as yet has not been resolved. The issue is essentially whether it is better to group different models into a single WP article by model name, or by vehicle platform. My view is that existing common practise is for model name to take precedence over platform, and hence to group different generations of similar-named models into the same article, as per the previous two-article situation. Would anyone else like to offer their opinion on this? Regards, Letdorf (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

While not optional from a naming perspective, I prefer having articles deal with each platform rather than by name. It seems to be the more intellectually honest method. We could also put them all on one and the same page, but what could one name it? Rover 200/400/25/45 is a bit cumbersome. There are serious problems with any approach I can imagine.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
For regular reader its easier to find cars by name than platforms, we dont use any platform grouped car model articles here ? In my opinion we should have two articles the 200/25 and 400/45 articles only, the MG versions could be on same articles, the Australian 416 should be mentioned ( and placed at the Integra article) at the top of article as wlink using template {{about|xxxxx|for the 416 Rover Ti|Honda Integra}} --Typ932 T·C 17:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)