As the result of a CCI, there are many auto photos both here and at Commons which may not be in the public domain as claimed. While they will be nominated at Possibly Unfree Files, if you can provide either proof that the photo is in the public domain or write a rationale for its non-free use, your help would be appreciated at the list. We hope (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a saying in the UK that "I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire". The idea that any vestige of a problematic editor like BS Bob remains on Wikipedia is not an appealing one and I would welcome every one of his image uploads being removed. He clearly didn't get being a valued member of the Wikipedia community, never entered into the spirit of it, and that's what led to his demise. This is a far, far better place without him, his contributions and his images. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I prefer to think of him as "overly enthusiastic". He never quite got the shared nature of WP and that articles can't go on for a million words but he did try to improve the Vega articles as he thought they should be. My understanding is that most of his images are either of his own cars (fine in moderation) or scans from magazines and brochures (not allowed). Stepho talk23:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I am more than happy to keep any of BSB's own photos here. The scans are more problematic, but if the licenses check out (and if he did the scanning) I can't see what the problem. I'll take any crazy persons photos, provided they were theirs to give away in the first place. Mr.choppers | ✎ 07:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I just added two redirects. It seems to have 2 names, 67 X and 70 X or 70-X. Emails have been sent to the builders, Esso Canada (sponsors), and Schmitt cars that have some very nice images of one they sold recently. Only two of the original four are said to exist. The builder may have the vin numbers still which may help track them down. I have one vin number now. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Not OR. I would just like an image or two to enhance the section. It has since been re-directed to Toronado. I found a legal image for another strange mod from the same era. Canada doesn't have the pre-1977 rule so any scans from the period would have copyright still, I assume. The ultimate plan would be four images, one of each, and possibly a history of their fates.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thia discussion, do we want numerous pages for each version of the Falcon GT - more a fan sort of approach. Wouldn't mind if a few of you could join the debate and exprss your views. NealeFamily (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Template:Infobox automobile, British English
The template seems to think that in Britain imperial measurements even extended to measuring engines in cubic inches. How do I steer around that please? Looked everywhere for any sort of cones or stuff. Eddaido (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The template only has one bit of code that handles British English spelling. If you set "sp=uk" then it displays "Kerb weight" instead of "Curb weight". --Biker Biker (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Is not the issue that US engines were measured in cubic inches when we were all a little younger? Some of us are still around to remember that time, as are many of the US automobiles and the contemporary sources on them. I understand that in Australia "going metric" was a one-time event, at least in relative terms. Some states prefer the incremental approach. In the UK if I talk of fuel consumption in l/100 km I get blank looks, though it is some years since you were able to buy fuel here in God’s own (so roughly 25% bigger than Uncle Sam's?) gallons. I don't know if there is - or needs to be (in which case, please...) - a template to steer us round the different approaches to measuring engine size. I certainly become perplexed trying to use the fuel consumption template, though it seems to work when I use it correctly: is that within the scope of this discussion? probably not. But on engine size, is there a need to request a new conversion template from a template guru? Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Proper gallons are indeed 25% bigger - derived from the fact that a US pint is 16 fl.oz. as opposed the proper pint which is 20 fl.oz. Their pints are smaller because they can't hold their beer, and that too is why their beer looks and tastes like monkey piss. Anyway, we digress. For US cars I think there is some merit in converting cc's into cu. in. given the long history in US-manufactured vehicles (on land and in the air) of quoting piston engine sizes in cubic inches. For vehicles manufactured outside of the US or made by foreign companies I see little value in using that conversion but have absolutely no objection to it being used if it aids the understanding of readers. It doesn't detract from the content IMO and it certainly is no effort to add an extra unit of measure into the conversion template. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
At this point I would like to apologize for Canadian beer imported in to the US tasting like monkey piss as well. I think there is some kind of rule or law that says we have to water it down before export, so please don't blame our breweries.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Wait On, major misunderstanding there by everybody (else)! (speaking as a resident of God's One True own country) I found the (new to me) British English,Vehicles designed and marketed using Imperial measurements template with the name above on it. When I entered the number of cubic centimetres in the engine box it converted them into an ocean liner sized engine also in c.c.s. I solved it by taking a template / equation? (there has to be a way to distinguish these things) from something else and using that. Doubters have a look at this page: Template:Infobox_automobile and scroll down a bit and read "engine = 16 cm3 (1 cu in)" _ See? it converts the wrong way, multipies by 160 because the wrong equation(?) has been used —from cu in to c.c when what is wanted is from c.c. (the then customary description for the cubic capacity of an engine) to cu in. I'll live, I think the template-builders are wonderful people. Thanks for all the attention I got, Best wishes Eddaido (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The {{Infobox_automobile}} template has an 'engine' field that simply displays whatever you put in it and does no actual conversion on its own. If you put 'engine=two hogsheads' then it will display exactly 'two hogsheads'. However, the documentation page also has the {{convert}} template used within the infobox template. The 'convert' template can be used to convert between L, cc and cu.in. in any direction. The idea is that the number and units you put into the template comes from your reference source. In purely US specific articles (eg Ford Mustang), the display order should be imperial followed by metric. In all other articles (including cars like Toyota Camry, sold in both US and other countries) then display order should be metric followed by imperial. If your source doesn't match the desired display order then you can flip the display order by using '|disp=flip'. Examples using a 5.7 L / 350 cu.in engine (note that sources often round generously, so exact cc and cu.in are better then tenths of litres):
Purely US only article
Everyone else
reference is in L
{{convert|5.7|L|cuin|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}}
348 cu in (5.7 L)
{{convert|5.7|L|cuin|0|abbr=on}}
5.7 L (348 cu in)
reference is in cc
{{convert|5735|cc|cuin|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}}
350 cu in (5,735 cc)
{{convert|5735|cc|cuin|0|abbr=on}}
5,735 cc (350 cu in)
reference is in cu.in
{{convert|350|cuin|cc|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}}
5,735 cc (350 cu in)
{{convert|350|cuin|cc|0|abbr=on}}
350 cu in (5,735 cc)
Note that the 'convert' template's first few params are input value (eg 5700), followed by the input units (eg converting from cc), optionally followed by the output unit (eg convert to cuin, template will choose for you if you skip this parameter), followed by many options (see {{convert}}). Normally it will display the input value/unit (eg 5700cc) followed by the conversion (eg 351 cuin). You can swap the display order by using '|disp=flip'. Stepho talk02:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the correct name on the above talk page to which I have added this: I am really delighted to see this discussion because it brings up a matter which bothers me a lot, and often, on which WikiProject Automobiles seems hopelessly unclear when writing about — say Austin or MG. The following things are all different (list from off the top of my head):
there is 1. the founder a living person or persons
there is 2. the product or series of products
there is 3. the business that is making those products/ cars of a particular brand
there is 4, the legal entity that owns that business—almost always an incorporated entity such as a limited liability company perhaps once upon a time the founder him or herself e.g. Ford, Morris etc
there are 5. more legal entities further up the chain that may own all or most of 4.
(I suspect this list is not complete)
Wikipedia tells a reader Austin went "defunct" (a special Wiki word I think) when BMC started. This is patent nonsense - just sloppy thinking! By the same logic Jaguar should be "defunct" and the current article on the subject of current Jaguar cars should be about Tata. Imagine what all the articles about Aston Martin would be like!
We very happily muddle them all up and end up with disputes like this. Isn't it better something be done about better defining things? At least on the Jaguar talk page everyone seems to know they are discussing a corporate entity and that, it seems to me, round here is a significant advance :) Eddaido (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I've laid my thoughts out here on paper. I know they are imperfectly formed, I hope that makes them easier for others to develop / demolish.Eddaido (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
An outline guide on how to structure an article on (1) a marque (or brand), (2) a company that owns the marque and actually designs and builds the cars, and (3) the holding company (if relevant). This is causing time-wasting edit wars in numerous articles such as Porsche, Mini, Vauxhall and Jaguar. I would propose that we need to make sure any article pertaining to the marque or brand needs to make sense of its whole history, irrespective of who owns it. The company that owns the marque (past and present) will as in most existing cases outline the corporate history. In some of the more complex ownerships, the need for a holding company article will be obvious. We do urgently need some clarity on how we could resolve this so avoid pointless edit wars, and wasting 1000s of words in talk pages. For most readers I would imagine they would expect most detail to appear on the marque page, with clear links to the corporate entity that owns it. Warren (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The ancient VW Santana had stopped its production.
Since the car articles are generally getting better and better, and the commons photo collections are expanding quickly, would it be possible to add a field to the automobile generation infobox that would link to each generation in the commons (where applicable)? I think it would be nifty. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This has been tagged for 10 months as needing help: I've done a heck of a lot of work myself, but I know it still needs far, far more. Can someone help out please? There's engines missing, specs missing, cars missing, inconsistent prose and just generally a clusterfuck of mess. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
An editor is adding AKA names to various articles from a computer game. See Peugeot 206 for an example. I have reverted a few times as I don't think it is appropriate, and added a message to the editor's talk page, but he doesn't want to discuss. Other editors may have differing views, so I'll stand back for now. Warren (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I am attempting to get RAF Gaydon up to B-class and i have referenced everything apart from the Civilian use section which is mainly about British Leyland and beyond.
Would it be possible for someone to pop over and have a go at referencing the section please? Gavbadger (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
According to WP guidelines, a good caption is succinct and more than three lines of text may be distracting - see: WP:CAPTION. The problem caption has now been trimmed to just the name of the vehicle in the image. CZmarlin (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
A new "novelty car" article
A new article entitled "Novelty car" had been added. This is dubious topic for an encyclopedia, and is an undefined concept. It should be removed. Just my thoughts - CZmarlin (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The phrase novelty+car is real, but the meaning is in the eye of the beholder. One defintion is a new edition of a previously popular car, e.g. Camaro and Trans Am. Another is a sleeper (car). A third is a propeller-driven car. The Novelty car definition sounds more like Cult film, a bomb that develops a later cult following. It should be deleted as a meaningless turn of phrase, not a real class or type.
This description or classification is too subjective and according to WP guidelines "should be avoided" because it is just like "hypercar" or "exotic" -- see here.
Moreover, it would be difficult to justify how a particular automobile that sold over 670,000 units in its single generation and one body style could be a "bomb" (see AMC Gremlin). On the other hand, some vehicles have single digit production and almost zero impact on the automobile marketplace, but attract "cult-like" following among enthusiasts. See just about any "exotic" (and practically "novelty" cars that not suitable for normal transportation) that are manufactured by Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, etc. -- CZmarlin (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a hopeless article. I've personally never heard the term used, and I see the article has no references to support the name. I would hope this gets canned before too long. Warren (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
He sounds very important to the German auto industry over 58 years (according to his article), so i'd say yes. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)16:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Porsche Boxster
I'd be grateful for other editors to review recent contributions to the Porsche Boxster article; one PR style addition, and another on a contentious issue with a questionable ref. I think they need a fresh look rather than for me get into an edit war. Warren (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just noticed that although the Peugeot Boxer and Fiat Ducato have been merged, the Citroen Relay (or Jumper to some) hasn't and has its own stub article. Does anyone have a problem with me merging the Relay into the Ducato article? They're all the same van after all. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)09:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Folks, we have received a very interesting e-mail at OTRS that may shed some light on the fate of the remaining example of this Rolls Royce. The relevant text is (reproduced with permission):
I have just read the info, on your web page, regarding the above vehicle with much interest and excitement. Over the last few weeks I have been trying to find out where this car might be now.
It was discovered in pieces on a tomato farm in Adelaide South Australia in1950. It appeared in a "Stop press" in the Flying Lady No 56-5 1956 and appeared again in a fully illustrated article in No 56-6 December 1956. In 1958 it was exported back to the UK where it was fully restored by its then owner Stanley Sealy* This info courtesy of Mr David Neely.
The car suffered further damage on the voyage back to the UK. They piled many tonnes of bagged rice on top of it which bent the chassis.
Reg Eames, now 83, residing in Lusaka Zambia was one of the three or four people employed by Mr Sealy at the time who worked on restoring the car. He has many photographs from when it first arrived back in the UK to a fully restored machine. He talked about that project with a great deal of pride at one of our classic car meetings recently.
I have asked the e-mailer to ask Mr Eames whether he would be prepared to make the photos available to us and also whether he has any materials from the press, such as newspaper or magazine articles that discuss the fate of this particular Rolls Royce. If any such images and source material are forthcoming, would someone like to take on the job of adding it to the article, or if this particular car is independently notable, creating an article about it? Thanks. --ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Can i get an opinion here please. I've spent the day making improvements to my reverted table and now i'm impatient for a reply and some opinions. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)16:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
In order to keep the entries relevant, the list (except for the firsts section) is limited to automobiles built after World War II, and lists superlatives for earlier vehicles separately. The list is also limited to production road cars that:
are constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);
have had 20 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition (cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible);
are street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.
This list includes full production cars only; concept, modified, very limited-production, and race cars of any kind are not considered. If an independent time becomes available, that time will be listed over the manufacturer's time regardless if the latter is quicker.NealeFamily (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes that has been mentioned - we seem to have a range from anything 2 or more to 500+, depending on what view point is taken. There does not seem to be any definition of a production car in a WP:RS, or at least none I have found. NealeFamily (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes there is, Chambers 20th century says a mass produced item is one of which a great many are made, and even the wiki article acknowledges that " production car" is short for "mass production car". Greglocock (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
We should know if one of those is counted as "base" for other two, like Fiat Ducato is for its sister models. -->Typ932T·C11:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Although i can't be certain I believe the Expert to be the original from the small bit of unsourced (and vague) text at Peugeot Expert#Expert I (1995–2004).
It states Peugeot attempted to bring out a facelift 3 years early, which would not be possible if the design was not theirs with two other vehicles dependent on it (as it would no longer be a rebadged Dispatch/Scudo). Had Peugeot succeeded with their update in 2001, then the Scudo and Dispatch/Jumpy would have also been updated the same year and proving that the Expert is the original.
Fiat admit the factory is managed by PSA (see this Fiat ref), so that narrows it down a little! I'd be happy to see the Peugoet being the lead. Interestingly there is one ref that suggests that Fiat are handing back their share to PSA and ending the deal by 2016.Warren (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
A IP editor has added a poorly constructed entry to the lead of the Fiat article. I attempted to edit this so it makes sense, but have had my correction reverted 3 times. Does anyone else fancy a look to see what can be done to tidy up this entry as I don't fancy an edit war? Warren (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
To be honest i find the IPs change more factual and inclusive of new information. It does need rewording though and he's used waaaaay too many references. I'll try and reword it. Wish me luck ツ Jenova20(email)11:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you mean, "I don't like IP editors, so when one added a new section with references, I didn't copy-edit it, I blanked it repeatedly and called it vandalism." Any more of that and you'll be blocked for 3RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The IP had combined sources in an Original Research fashion for some parts, overlinked in most parts, and sensationalised some parts, which were factually incorrect. I've reworded and put the dates in order now. It's in the article and the discussion is here. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)12:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Andy, you need to check the edit history! I did actually attempt to edit and tidy up the refs, and then the IP editor took umbrage at being challenged, and kept reinserting his unedited original entry and ignoring my repairs to the refs, grammar, adding a wikilink, and sorting out the incorrect use of capital letters. The IP editor is the one who did not want to improve the entry or take on board suggestions, rather than your slur that it was me! Jenova20 kindly stepped in with a fresh pair of eyes. Warren (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
And he immediately tried to edit war with me too, including vandalising my user page...And AIV rejected my plea so he's still unblocked...I didn't look too far into the edit history though, i just reworded the paragraph and looked at the refs. Overall i'm glad i could be of help Warren ツ Jenova20(email)22:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to propose a series of changes to this particular template (I make my proposals here because the template's talk page is rarely visited). As I began various modifications that had no consensus, I will list my suggestions to decide which are applicable and which are not.
First, I propose to remove the list of Formula One cars. These are already listed in Template:Renault F1 and no other template for a generalist car manufacturer has included this vehicle class.
Second, I think it's time to separate Renault Trucks and to create its own template. Renault and Renault Trucks have no relationship currently, and only share the name.
I would also like you give consideration to the possibility of creating a template for Automobile Dacia as many cars are repeated in the same list (for Renault and for Dacia). Moreover, the Romanian company cars built before the purchase by Renault are not listed. As for Renault Samsung Motors, has its own template, so there would be no trouble there.
I think these are usefully better than what we have at the moment. Thank you. On the trucks, the red background is eye catching, but someone somewhere may have come up with a policy in favo(u)r of a different background colo(u)r. (I don't have a strong opinion of my own on this.)
My other thought: If you will have LOTS of time, the Renault Trucks entry would also benefit from a timeline. But it's a big job, and I don't think anyone has attempted it in any of the other language versions of the entry, so effectively you'd need to start from scratch, taking inspiration but no info from (as an example) Template:Opel timeline 1947 to 1979 (or any one of a dozen others). But it's a big job and a fiddly job and you may feel your day job(s) need(s) to take priority. Success Charles01 (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
To Charles: I did some research and I find difficulties to complete that task. The fact many models of Renault Trucks were only new versions of those manufactured by its predecessors (Berliet and Saviem) or rebadged Dodges or Macks made complex to establish production dates. Also, it seems to me that a number of models overlap in the same segment, although I can be wrong because there are not enough templates including trucks to compare. However, I didn't give up, but I think that will take some time.
To all: If there are no objections, I will be moving to article space the new templates and modifying the Renault's template this weekend. I will try to improve them as much as possible before then, so suggestions are welcome. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree with your changes. I think that they are improvements, the text's visibility is better than before and the commons and category links are helpful. Thanks! --Urbanoc (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Twin Turbo 440 - AMC Javelin
A new contributor (see 108.249.207.84) keeps adding information and opinions about "twin turbo 440" AMC Javelins, as well as to the List of fastest production cars by acceleration. No Javelins with such an engine were ever produced by American Motors. However, the editor includes a Youtube reference, apparently with "Motor Trend" as the publisher. Notice on the editor's talk page only elicited a comment that I have no brain. There is an AMC-powered dragster with twin-turbos (see: here), but this is not a "one-seat" production car. I have attempted to remove this fictional AMC, but I am over the limit on the number of reverts. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm watching it too. I did some searching in various AMC history books at Google Books and a turbo Javelin 440 didn't appear at all. The only mention I could find at all was a couple of sites that were word-for-word copies of the comments in the YouTube video. Also, the USA at that time had cheap fuel and no desire to go around corners, so power was usually provided by huge lumps of cubic capacity rather than technique. It looks to me like somebody made a very nice drag racer by adding twin turbos and somebody else is treating that (mistakenly or malicously?) as a factory car. Until a better source is found we should just keep deleting it as an extraordinary claim without a reliable source. Stepho talk04:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
For info, the article has been semi-protected for a short period meaning IP and new editors can't make changes. Hopefully our perpetrator will get bored and find some other target to disrupt. --Biker Biker (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Please feel free to add it. But beware that the reference says they are actually made by Assembly Services Sdn Bhd (ASSB), which is a wholly owned company by UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd. Stepho talk23:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Types of wheels
According to the list from the {{Powertrain}} navbox, notable types of road wheels include:
Same wheels as in this photo, with Peugeot logos. Painted original rims. My question is why you (the ip) would like to know? Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
but those French are so cunning aren't they. How do they design the wheel so the tyre inflation valve is always at the bottom? Eddaido (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe this article falls well short of the current FA criteria, and unless it's significantly improved in the next four weeks it's my intention to nominate it for an FA reassessment. MalleusFatuorum19:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any glaring issues...but then i've not managed to get an FA yet...I'm sure someone with more experience than me can put it right. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)20:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I see many. To give just a few examples:
The lead does not adequately summarise the article.
"In December 2010, Practical Classics reported that 99.09% of all UK registered Tagoras were no longer on the roads." Uncited.
"However, Chrysler management in the United States deemed these features too extravagant ..." Grammar.
"... with a longitudinally-mounted engine." Grammar again.
"The Tagora was not greeted with much acclaim by the British motoring press."
There's a very heavy reliance on one source, "Car, December 1981", but what is that? To the magazine or to an article in the magazine? Written by whom?
Ref #3 is a raw url.
"Buckley suggested that the car might attain collectible status by 2003." We're now 10 years on. Has it?
"Oddment accommodation was 'disappointment'". What's that supposed to mean?
I could go on and on, but I'm just giving you a few examples, as I've no intention of undertaking a full FAR on this talk page. MalleusFatuorum20:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a problem with the "Chrysler management" or "longitudinally" bits. The rest, I'd agree. There are also some hyphenation issues ("straight-4" and "straight-six", v not, & "long-wheelbase" is misplaced). TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura22:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem isn't with "Chrysler management", It's with "However, Chrysler management ...". As for "longitudinally-mounted", I'm sure you're aware that adverbs aren't hyphenated; that's for adjectives. MalleusFatuorum01:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
"Longitudinally-mounted" & "However, Chrysler" may be unattractive to some, but I'd hardly fail an FA on that basis. It's one thing to say, "The engine is longitudinally-mounted" (which would be wrong). It's quite another to say, "The 300C has a longitudinally-mounted V8" (which wouldn't). In the same way, saying, "However, Chrysler chose not to" is no different than saying, "Chrysler, however, chose not to" (Or indeed, "But Chrysler chose not to", a phrasing I find unpalatable. It isn't wrong, whatever I may think.) TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura10:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
And neither would I if that were all that was wrong with the article, but it isn't. Why not read it and judge for yourself? MalleusFatuorum11:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed up some of the references. "Car, December 1981" is a perfected valid reference with the given page numbers. An article title and author name would be preferred but even so it is still enough for somebody with access to the magazine to verify the claims. If you find the article title or author name then feel free to add |title=XXX |last=LLL |first=FFF to the citation. I'm not sure if the Auto Katalog references should be combined into a single reference or not. Overall, I found the article to be no worse than most WP articles (ie good in some places, sloppy in other places) but not really deserving of being a featured article. Stepho talk14:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
How should we deal with acceleration data? Depending on many factors (number of passengers, launch technique, timing method, traction of the track surface on a given day, air temperature, gradient, etc etc), the results can vary by 0.5s or more. Yet often a single number is presented as gospel, which leads the reader to incorrectly compare car A and car B based on vastly different test conditions. Should articles include acceleration figures? How can they be presented without misleading the reader? Regards, 1292simon (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
My first thought was that it could be interesting but further thought brings up some big problems:
As you said, different tests are not comparable, due to track conditions, driver ability, tires, etc. Without a single body doing the tests in a standard manner under standard conditions it is a useless number.
It will become a mine is bigger than yours competition.
Which version of the car? The representative family hauler version or the rarer sports model?
Only stock standard production cars or mild modifications or wild modifications? If we say stock then we will still have to fight an endless queue of editors trying to post up their personal best times in their modified cars (see point 2). Stepho talk05:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion we should tell the manufacturer data, and if needed or very different then maybe some magazine data which should be additional data not the sole data. We have now many articles whihc have very hard to campare data because they are made by various magazine/net sites etc. -->Typ932T·C04:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Considering that there are more bicycles that use wire wheels than there have been wire wheels built for use with cars, the bias in the article looks more toward cars to me... Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I've recently added some info on 1934 Superb and I would be very glad if some native speaker with knowledge of technical terms found time and gave it a copy-edit treatment. Thank you very much in advance! Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Recent upload from Seattle City Archives' Flickr account. Kind of intriguing. Does anyone know more about this vehicle? - Jmabel | Talk15:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys. I've started a push to get Honda S2000 up to FA status (it is after all our banner mascot for the project). Would appreciate the eyes of the Automobiles project on this article to point out missing info, style and content issues, layout issues (photos etc.). Anything that you'd like to see in the article that it currently falls short of. I've also created a talk page section to capture comments if you don't want to edit directly yourselves. Thanks! Zunaid11:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I have started a conversation regarding the use of delimiters in four-digit numbers (ie 1,796 cc rather than the more common 1796 cc) HERE. I would welcome any input on this often annoying WP quirk, with which most automobile editors seem to disagree. Cheers, Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Mazda B-Series#Pickup Truck another Australian editor has made this edit whereby all but one reference to the word "pickup truck" has been avoided under the guise of internationalisation. In short, "pickup truck" is not widely used in Australia as we say "ute". Now I am reasonably confident that anyone from Australia interested in reading an article about the Mazda B-Series would know exactly what a "pickup truck" is, but if they didn't the numerous links to pickup truck would certainly clear things up.
I think it is an unreasonable burden on the vast majority of readers to eschew all references to "pickup truck" to something along the lines of "vehicles of this style" or some other vaguer placeholder word/phrase. In the infobox, the editor in question changed "2-door pickup" to "2-door". As far as I am concerned "2-door" is not a body style; it's a prefix used before the body style to give extra detail, i.e. 2- or 4-door pickup. Pickup is the international wording except in Australia/NZ (ute) and South Africa (bakkie).
Need to resolve the issue, so what do you guys think? Is pickup truck fine to use, or am I being unreasonably harsh to my own kind? OSX (talk • contributions) 00:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
♠Unless the B-series is only sold in Australia, that's way out of bounds. I have no issue with the Oz section specifying (even preferring) use of "ute". I have no problem with Oz-market vehicles preferring "ute" (per Engvar). This is nuts. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura02:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Coupe utilities and pickup truck differences
Ute or coupe utility with the cargo area's bodywork not separated from the cab. Design derived from sedan equivalent.Pickup truck with the cargo area's bodywork separated from the cab. Design not based on a existing passenger car.
Technically, "ute" is short for "coupé utility" which can be characterised as a passenger car-based vehicle with the cargo area's bodywork not separated from the cab (interior). Pickup trucks tend to not be based on other sedan-type vehicles, and the tray is separated from the cab. However, in Australia, "ute" has had its meaning broadened by persistent misuse to include what the rest of world would call pickup trucks. I think separate pages are warranted as the products are technically quite different, even though the meaning of "ute" is blurred. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The picues do not include all the possibilities, as you can have car based with separate load area, or even car based chassis cab. Doubtless there are other possibilities. Greglocock (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the tray had to be part of the body; hence recent model Ford Falcon utes and the Holden Crewman were not technically coupe utilities. However, since this is off topic maybe we should take this discussion elsewhere. I'm not saying that I am right, just that is how I understood it to be. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to see a source that tells us that "ute" is short for "coupe utility". As an Australian of mature years I've never heard that story before. HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd also like to see a definitive reference for the unequivocal assertion that "ute" is short for "coupé utility" and that everything else is "persistent misuse". Despite the paucity of information on the current wiki page, "Utility vehicle" is a phrase that goes back to the days of horse and cart. Mighty Antar (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a misuse anymore, in the early days maybe. Nowadays "ute" has very broad meaning—i.e. pickups to the rest of world. I guess I was trying to say that it is my impression that the word's misuse lead to the broadening of the term. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
No I don't have one on hand as I don't have the time to go through my old books at this time. But I don't know why this is being asked of me. I came here to see what other editors thought of the actions of another editor removing all references to "pickup truck" from an article, not to debate the difference between pickup trucks and coupe utilities (which is what this conversation has morphed into). OSX (talk • contributions) 13:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't define the term. Why did Ford call their version a "Ford V8 Utility car"? [2] You'd have thought they'd have got it right as they invented the thing. Could it be because it's another utility vehicle? Mighty Antar (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no formal, globally accepted, definition of vehicle body types - only defacto usage by marketing men who call it whatever will sell the most today and don't care what it was called in another time or place. The general population follow whatever the marketing men called it. Demands for a formal definition will get nowhere. And it's only a side issue in this discussion, so I'd drop it for now.
Since this is an Australian term, it falls under WP:ENGVAR. If the article is tired to a particular country then it should use that country's terms - but the Mazda B-Series is not tired to Australia. Otherwise we use whatever term the original editor used. If the original editor used 'pickup truck' then that is the term that should continue to be used. 'Pickup truck' is understood by most reader (even Aussies) and an occasional link explains it to the few that don't know. Changing all instances of 'pickup truck' is not needed and is against WP:ENGVAR. Such a change should only occur by consensus. Stepho talk21:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I have always been suspicious of the claim that the word ute is derived from "coupe utility", and suspect it is a faux back-derivation. If you think about it the insistence that for the thing to be a ute the load tray must be joined to the cab would have been a silly thing to insist on prior to unitary bodies, and of course the word ute long predates them. Of course this being wikipedia somebody will find ute defined that way in a book and supposedly that is the end of discussion. Greglocock (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Lew Brandt called it a Coupe Utility because at first glance it would look like a coupe - ie a pretty 2-door, 2-seater sedan with a small roof curving down to the boot/trunk. Remember that his brief was to design a vehicle that could work on the farm and then be driven to church. He knew the sedan chassis he was using (which stopped just after the rear axle and did not extend to the back of the vehicle) would not not be strong enough to stop the body breaking into two behind the B pillars, so he joined the cargo area side panels to the main body. This pre-dates the common use of unitary bodies and was all about structural integrity. Stepho talk23:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
In terms of different terminology for El Caminos than for Silverados, I suppose there would be some technical term somewhere for car-based vehicles with an open bed, but I think I share Car and Driver's couldn't-care-less attitude from their 1983 (I think) advertizing section for small pickups. Among the S-10s and Rangers and CJ-8 Scramblers and Toyotas and Nissans were the Subaru BRAT, the Volkswagen Rabbit Pickup, and the Dodge Rampage. While I realize that opinions of editors bear absolutely no weight in the content of an article, I still say that a car-based vehicle with an open bed is a car-based pickup truck. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
♠I'm not sure C&D is the best source, seeing they seemed to have an attitude, if it wasn't a sports coupe, ignore it. :/
I'm sorry to hear that Bangladesh has been nominated for deletion, but let's face it, it was a fairly useless country, more of a swampy beach than a real one. HTH Greglocock (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Toyota 86#Official sites listed by country about which countries (if any) should be included in the list of official websites shown in the 'external links' sections of many automotive articles. I believe the outcome of this discussion could be applied to the majority of automotive articles and so the final outcome should be part of the our policies and conventions. Comments should be given on that talk page. Stepho talk06:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Air Con is a Con in Europe and UK
Of the billions of cars and their owners around the globe. I wonder how many car owners if asked what is car air conditioning would say something to keep the air clean and no more or would say something to keep us cool on hot days or both. I guess a high percent mostly Europe would say the latter both cleans the air and keeps us cool on hot days. Which is the point I make here Europeans have been badly educated about Air Conditioners.
Likely it stem from knowing that air conditioners for buildings can cool the air in hot weather. Also warm the air in the cool weather.
So why would it not be different for car Air Conditioners since the name is the same.
Wrong in most or all Europe and UK car Air Conditioners are nothing more than fancy air purifiers carbon filtration and others. Some do have a little cooling ability maybe a degree or two no much more on hot days.
This is more a namesake confusion that has been played on by car industry. Or the car industry has changed the name meaning to something they wanted it to be.
Then there is Climate Control which for cars is true air conditioning as would have in the home though may times better. Cool to a fridge temperature or heat like a desert is no problem for Climate Control for that what they can do.
When actually did Climate Control become to mean Air Conditioner in car and buildings. Why the mix up has meant people buying cars get not what they expect from their air conditioner such as cooling and heating by more than one or two degrees.
This Wiki could easily be updated to reflect this and so make people more aware that what they should be asking for when buying a car is Climate Control. We should say Climate Control and not Automatic climate control as Climate Control implies full control over the control of cooling and heating. Where as Auto implies user has no user control. And if people started to ask for Automatic climate control maybe they get just that with no manual control. Better then to term it as Climate Control since Air Conditioner in a car means nothing more than a Filtered Fan purify the air
Sure we could have both Climate Control and Air Conditioning but people don't know about Climate Control in Europe and UK. Lets help to educate them here on this and other Wiki pages
Despite plenty of earlier requests not to do so (see his talk page), Georgy90 has just replaced a bunch of competent (if generic) photos of cars with his own less informative (if sometimes amusing) alternatives. (Or perhaps not his own. Though he uploaded them to Commons, at least some also appear in this Facebook page.)
In almost every case, his edit has been for the worse. But (complicating matters at bit) not in every case. I've reverted a number of his edits, but I've run out of time: I must instead attend to my Wikipedia (and car) -irrelevant salaried job. Could somebody here please take a look through his list of recent contributions? -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have already reverted a number of his photos on pages that I follow. He replaced a nice photo of a pristine Datsun 1200 with a derelict example sunk down to the axles in the dirt with a tree covering half of it. Stepho talk06:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
♠To start, I should say, I've been known to add my own pics to pages. (If anybody's got a better one of the Willys Aero, I'd be happy to see mine go. :) And a pic of the Hirohata Merc would be very welcome indeed. :D )
♠That disclosed, I've rv'd most of them (& got beat to a couple :( ;p ). They're uniformly less informative, lower quality, showing a ratty example, or all the above. (There's also an odd preference for rear views. :/ ) This may not reach the level of vandalism, but it's looking deliberately disruptive. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura07:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have to admit that some of the pictures I attached in articles were slightly inferior to the ones I replaced. But in at least half of the cases I sincerely believe that my pictures are better than the replaced ones! For example, the pictures I placed the following articles: Toyota Corolla E30, Toyota Hilux, BMW 5 Series, Mercedes R107, Mazda Familia, Fiat 850 and Jaguar MK2 even Peugeot 404 are in my opinion superior to the ones I replaced. Furthermore the edit in Fiat 124 coupe was just an addition of the rear view of the car, I do not understand why it is unwanted. I hope you will review the pictures in the articles I told you. Most probably you won't take me seriously as you think I am a vandal, but what I am doing is clearly in good will. Mr. Hoarer replaced blindly all the pictures I added with the previous ones, even if some of my pictures were better. I don't see how this is better from what I did. I am the admin of the page Old Cars in Cyprus, you can confirm that with a message to my page. I have hundreds more pictures of classic cars, waiting to be uploaded in wikipedia, but people here consider contribution to be vandalism!
♠Changing in your own pictures for no apparent reason isn't vandalism, but it is disruptive to no purpose.
♠I've looked at your preferred pictures. They are uniformly not as clear, well-composed, or well-lit as the ones they're replacing; they're all too often of low-quality examples, for no apparent reason; & they show an odd preference for rear views. (That rear shot of the Mark II is particularly bad.) Defending that shot of the 404 as "particularly good" when it's under a car cover is absurd, & calls in question your sincerity.
♠I share the view of others. This is not helping. Do stop.
Having admitted that you were replacing some photographs with inferior alternatives (and thus implicitly admitting degradation of some articles), you claim that there were at least eight improvements. Trekphiler has commented on two of these. As for the others, recommend them on the talk page of the relevant article; if they are good, their quality will persuade other editors.
Actually I see some appeal in your photos. Many of WP's photos of cars are generic and look curiously reverent, almost as if WP were a publicity arm for the manufacturer or owners' club. Your photos are different. Fine with me. But they are generally less informative, they're often poorly lit, and they show flare and other problems requiring correction via GIMP or similar.
You say: I have hundreds more pictures of classic cars, waiting to be uploaded in wikipedia. I think you mean Wikimedia Commons. Please don't. If there is a demand for your photography, go ahead. If there isn't, you're just wasting the WP Foundation's resources and other people's time. -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Can I suggest Georgy90 has a good look through the Image guidelines for Automobiles. Ultimately what makes a good picture is subjective, but this may give you a better understanding of what would be ideal. It's great to have more pictures, and I'm sure Cyprus has some obscure cars and interesting variations of otherwise fairly usual cars that would be great to see, but unless the picture you upload meets the guidelines more effectively than the one already on the cars page, I'd suggest leaving things as they are and adding a gallery link to commons on the page instead if one is not already present.
We don't want to drive you away - but we do want you to improve. We urge you to consider improvements in the following areas:
Subject matter - cars under covers, rusting or sitting in pools of water are simply not suitable.Unsuitable Publica imageUnsuitable Peugeot 404 imageUnsuitable Peugeot 404 imageUnsuitable Datsun 1200 image
Composition - trees and bad lighting are distracting.
Judgment - the new picture must be better than the old one. The Peugeot 404 to the right is not a "far better quality picture!" If you take a good picture then we will welcome it with open arms. But not that picture. Experimenting with your camera is fine as your own hobby but only the good pictures should be presented here. Perhaps asking a friend (preferably a photography enthusiast) to have a look first might help. Stepho talk13:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
♠"Many of WP's photos of cars are generic and look curiously reverent, almost as if WP were a publicity arm for the manufacturer or owners' club." I do, to an extent, see the point of that. What most photogs seem to want is the best quality with the most visible detail, & that tends to be "show quality" cars. Given this is for encyclopedic content, "daily drivers" aren't what we really want, anyhow, any more than you'd expect it in C&D.
♠I find the best pics are from places where the cars are posed, because the light tends to be better & you've got more time to compose the shot, with less distracting junk (mostly; trying to keep the ropes used at car shows out of the frame does produce strange angles... :) ).
♠That said, if there were good pics of, frex, the Hilux on a jobsite, I'd have no problem with it. (There's some really nice shots of rally cars in action posted, & that's the kind of thing I'd aspire to, beyond the static shots.)
♠My biggest beef with Georgy90's is the composition: dead-astern shots aren't revealling much, & all the "junk" is only a distraction. That Mk II shot, the car isn't bad, but the wall is a foof that distracts for nothing, & that black Benz, nice as it is, is too far from the camera, with too much other stuff in the frame. I'd suggest looking more carefully at the shots that have stayed in. Look at what they're capturing, & how. Copy that style.
Ι found the Image Guidelines and tips for Automobile pictures really useful, and I will take them into consideration the next time I spot an interesting car! I have now uploaded 40 new photos from my archives of classic cars I shot. I made sure that all of the pictures I posted are of decent quality and in accordance to the guidelines! Please take a look at the new images I uploaded, and give me feedback when you have time. I think that at least the Corniche deserves to be a lead picture in it's article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgy90 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's the Corniche photo. It's not bad. But it only took me a minute to start up GIMP (purchase price: zero), rotate the photo, stretch its contrast, lighten it, adjust the white balance, trim, and save. The photo wasn't categorized at all; under the impression that the Corniche III+ has colored parts of the bumpers but not knowing whether this was a Corniche I or II, I categorized it broadly. ¶ A quick look soon shows that Commons has many photos of the Corniche; while this new one may be the best, this isn't something that's immediately obvious to me. -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It's obvious that reasoning with Georgy90 has not worked over the past two years. It's also suspected that he is posting these pictures as an attempt to promote his Facebook page about old cars in Cyprus. In my opinion, he should be blocked either temporarily or indefinitely until he actually learns his lesson. - Areaseven (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Calm down, people. It was obvious a couple of days ago that reasoning with Georgy90 had not worked. That was a couple of days ago. Since then, people have reasoned with him afresh. Here is the one (1) edit of his on or since 8 August. He politely asks exactly the question I suggested that he ask. I think that his posing of the question is a little myopic, but people aren't blocked for myopia. Incidentally, nobody there has yet answered this question of his. Hardly "it is suspected"; rather, you, Areaseven, voice a suspicion that he's attempting to promote his bit of Facebook. People aren't blocked on Wikipedia for the low quality of their reasoning (in Wikipedia) or the generally low quality of their images (not even hosted by Wikipedia, but instead by Commons). They're not even blocked for attempted promotion of their websites, unless requests to stop pretty flagrant promotion are flagrantly ignored. So treat Georgy90 politely and wait and see what happens. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
_TDI400_Highline_4-door_utility_(2011-08-17)_02.jpg)
