Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 52

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Template:Mercedes-Benz vehicles

hi, anyone good with timelines, this should be fixed Template:Mercedes-Benz vehicles, I think it should be actual production yesrs, not model years? 2020 is crystallballing and should be removed also. -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it. Timelines for North American markets use model years, but the others use production or on-sale years. Since the new CLA and GLS have started production, I moved them up to 2019. --Vossanova ^o< 19:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

if the timeline is for US, maybe it should be mentioned somewhere template (and is it verified those years matches for model years?) ; its very confusing now, IMO we should have similar timeslines for all brands. -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The facts are as follows:

Most countries use calendar years for vehicle introductions (ie, 1990 means it was introduced calendar year 1990).
Americans use model years (ie 1990 means it includes 1 Jan 1990, which almost always means it was introduced in calendar year 1989).
Most non-Americans get very confused by American style model years.
Most Americans understand calendar years - but they really, really hate them as applied to vehicles.
Calendar years are indistinguishable from model years unless there is a month or words similar to 'model year' or 'calendar year'.
Americans will see something like a production year in text (unmarked but intended as calendar year) of 1990 and 'correct it' it to 1991.
Non-Americans will see something like a production year in text (unmarked but intended as model year) of 1991 and 'correct it' it to 1990.
Most Americans are very, very reluctant to accept calendar years as applied to vehicles.
Americans are a significant size of our readers (likely to be confused by calendar years) and editors (likely to change calendar years into model years).
Americans are not the majority of our readers, we have a significant number of international readers and editors.

Possible solutions are:

Make everything model years, thus bending the entire world to suit Americans and confusing non-Americans.
Make everything calendar years, thus confusing Americans.

We can't make everybody happy, so we choose one side (ie, keeping the majority of international readers happy) but we have to clearly label whether we are using calendar years or model years. The Americans don't like this solution much but at least it is understandable to all readers. For cars that are almost exclusively sold on the American market, we allow them to use model years. See WP:MODELYEARS for more details.

Anyway, after all that rambling, the simplest solution is to clearly mark the template with the words 'calendar years'. Americans won't like it much but without those words there will be edit wars and confusion between Americans and non-Americans. Even with those words, some Americans will still change the years to model years but at least we will have a clear reason to revert the change. Stepho talk 21:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose we should use model years for American market models, and calendar years for all other models. In addition to that, clearly stating which of the two is being used is reasonable and should be done. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the 2 types of years should not be mixed in one table. If the table is listing vehicles sold in an international context then no vehicle in that table should be listed in a different year system. Stepho talk 23:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Stepho, your rage is showing. You may also try to treat everyone with equal respect, and not suggest one way or the other is wrong. Also, it's not entirely accurate to call model years an "American" thing, since they're used in Canada too, at least. The "production years" and "model years" fields have settled disputes in the infobox, and we've tried to denote model years in prose with "for ####" or "in the #### model year". As for timelines, I think people have assumed that timelines for American or mostly American brands in North American or worldwide markets, or other brands in just the North American market, have used model years, but if it's not obvious, adding "(model years)" to the timeline title is an option. --Vossanova ^o< 13:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Rage? Unequal? Actually, I treated both sides rather equal, with almost every point being shown from both the American and non-American side.

Re: Canadians. On a work visit to Ottawa, one of our hosts told us "When you're in bed with an elephant, when it rolls you roll." For this case, Canada follows whatever the US decides.

I follow what you say about the infobox and text in an article. And for timelines for American vehicles it is slightly more obvious that models years are being used. But for the many timelines that have vehicles sold in both American (including Canada) and non-American markets, one set of readers naturally think a 1995 vehicle was introduced in calendar year 1995 and another set of readers naturally think a 1995 vehicles was introduced in calendar year 1994. Therefore we need to label it explicitly so that each side doesn't feel a need to 'correct' it. Stepho talk 22:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

............ Possible solutions are:

Make everything model years, thus bending the entire world to suit Americans and confusing non-Americans.
Make everything calendar years, thus confusing Americans.

Making everything to model years is not possibile because not all manufactuers tell their model years (or there isnt any) , its not been habit in Europe, but production years are usually known all over world . If we cant use similar system to all timelines , we should consider telling what system is used in template, because if there is no info template can be edited to include both years and that ends to mess -->Typ932 ^T·C 11:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Vossanova: I didn't know that Canada was not in America :-) Sarcasm off: I reckon there is a problem with not explicitly denoting model years with "model year" for timelines – it may simply not be understandable for all readers. In (many) Non-American countries usually only petrol heads know that model years exist, laymen would never even imagine that anything like that exists. In German, Magyar, and Russian, a 1986 BMW E28 rolled off the assembly line in 1986. So, as far as I can tell, it is not obvious that years in "American car timelines" are model years. „adding "(model years)" to the timeline title“ is a good idea. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Needing help

Dear fellow members of this Wikiproject, I found this photo in the Renault article: one very old antique. Through it has no description in the article nor in it's page in the commons, can someone tell me what car is it so i can help adding one? This is the picture:

Thanks for your help,Enivak (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@A1AA1A: (ping A1AA1A who added the image at Commons and seemingly still active). Any more information? Eagleash (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Type X or Type Y perhaps. This stuff can get confusing with coach builders and later restorations. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Did a lot of digging and found the exact same car from some auto show in France. I couldn't make out what the sign says though. I thought it said Renault CC 1911 but after looking up any of those info doesn't add up to the design of the automobile. https://aws-cf.caradisiac.com/prod/photos/3/7/8/521378/7154790/big-715479089e.jpg?v=1 --Vauxford (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This car's technical design seems to match the Renault 14 CV's (type CC): Wheelbase is similar, wheel hubs are the same, springs look similar, etc. –-Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all that! I will wait if A1AA1A posts something more here. Untill now, i understood that is it probably a Type X or a Type Y, a CC 1911, or a 14 cv., Again thanks, and i will wait a little more information. (@Eagleash:: thanks for pinging and asking, if you ask i do not know anything more, i just found it without description.)Enivak (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Basically, there is not need for more information,sorry. just opened the link that Vauxford has sent, zoomed in and it says that it is a CC of 1911. I will add the description imidietly! Thanks all!Enivak (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, picture aside, I do enjoy a treasure hunt of identifying a automobile. --Vauxford (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

engine names

What do you think about User:Alvarowik made changes in infobox engines, he has been placing logo pictures instead company name , for example GM High Value engine , some engine names are also missing written company name in engine name field. -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think having the corporate logo there adds any value to the article whatsoever. I don't see a point to including it; it just makes for clutter in my opinion. --Sable232 (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't like it, text is perfectly adequate. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes I think also that text is good -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree. No logos. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that putting logos there is needed, but not always. In this case, it is unneeded. I think i know one more article with this problem: this Enivak (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No logos, they don't add that much information, and there are some engine manufacturers that don't use logos on their engines. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Post Scriptum: Example (ВАЗ-21011): An engine without any logos --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I have been reverting him for months in the articles that I watch. As said above, the logo image doesn't add much. And it makes life even harder for sight impaired readers. The field is called 'name', not logo and a simple text name is what is meant to go there. Stepho talk 22:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes if we want to remove those , there is some job to do. If you have time pls free to edit them back to original state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alvarowik -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have sent him a message Enivak (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Aluminum internal combustion engine

Aluminum internal combustion engine is a WP:coatrack apparently created for the purpose of writing about the Russian Aluminum ICE project. The topics 'aluminum engine' or 'cast iron engine' belong under the subject of engine block#Block material. Probably need to move the Russian engine content to its own article and redirect Aluminum internal combustion engine to engine block. Or take your pick from the grab bag of different suggestions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aluminum internal combustion engine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That definition is pretty much the opposite of what this article is about. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis and Andy. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I also agree, this thing needs cleanup! Now it seems as a complete advertising for that, no history nor nothing! Maybe someone wants to take on it to fix it? Enivak (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Needing minor feedback

Dear fellow members of Wikiproject Automobiles, i had some days ago mentioned that i wanted to improve the 9ff article from the backlog. With some days delay, and with some minor steps in the normal article, i finally started to create the history section in my sandbox. I want to ask something, can you please leave me a feedback here because it is the first article i do not make micro-edits? (note: i haven't completed it yet, i await your opinion to continue) This is the link: here I await your opinion, Enivak (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

One thing should be made clear is this just tuned cars, or is this counted as own brand like Alpina? in their web page they says "Naturally we are registered with the Federal Motor Transport Authority as a vehicle manufacturer". That could be mentioned in page -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will add this. Thanks!Enivak (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Goliath Rapid

Could someone with better developed, school-taught English style and grammar skills please be so kind and have a look at the article Goliath Rapid? I'd say it's out of question that it needs some improvements. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

After some contribs digging I came to the conclusion that someone with a lot of time should also take a look other articles created by the same editor [1]. They incorporate ... interesting grammar and style. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there were ...some... silly errors about that, I understood a handful of them as I am not English, at least understand it needs some improvement.......Enivak (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Finished it!

Dear fellow members of WikiProject Automobiles, I have you good news: after a week delay, I finally finished improving an article of the assesment backlog: 9ff! I know there is no ordinary reason to inform you, but it is the first article to expand, so I would ask your opinion about my changes, and fix any errors ( the last sections of it need some expanding) From now own, I will continue to work on automobile articles like this listed in your assessment list, and I want to tell you that you can assign me something easy to medium-difficulty to do, if any. Best regards, Enivak (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Identification? 1950s, Netherlands

Anyone? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Pennock Jaguar XK120 Coupe, this one to be specific [2]. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I was thinking "What looks so much like an XK120C, but with a Doretti grille on it?". Why would anyone do this though? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

That's coachbuilders, it's hard to take a good looking car like the XK120 and make it look better, so one settles for making it look different . Toasted Meter (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

List of automobile manufacturers article

This article is kind of a mess. Here are some issues that I notice briefly skimming through it:

Organized alphabetically by country and not manufacturer name (???)
Includes several exclusive motorcycle manufacturers (Ducati, Kawasaki, Zanella, etc)
Lists many companies without pages and sources (Envemo, Durkopp, OCULUS)
Is not useful beyond a page like the Car Brands Category page (information should be tabulated and expanded with dates/images)
Includes ALL manufacturers, defunct and active, resulting in an overload of names (I think active and defunct brands should be split into two pages). Some countries are not split into defunct/active at all.
Lists many 'manufacturers' which produce/produced a one-off or concept car and then disappeared
Is missing manufacturers (Hispano-Suiza, I'm sure many others)
Lists automobile manufacturing plants as well as individual car models (Ganja Auto Plant, Move 101)

Clearly this page is in need of some major work, most importantly a stronger criterion for what qualifies as a manufacturer and a split into active and inactive brands. I'm happy to start cleaning this up if there is agreement here. Aab254 (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like can of worms territory to me. But I salute your good intentions. Success Charles01 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

For sure, but this seems like a fairly important article for this project that has not gotten a lot of attention. I also just found that there also exist List of current automobile manufacturers (alphabetical) and List of current automobile manufacturers by country, which all seem kind of redundant- why not just a single list of current auto manufacturers, sortable by both? And then one separate article for defunct manufacturers? Aab254 (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey I have an idea: can we create 4 different articles, list of active automobile manufacturers (arleady exists), list of defunct automobile manufacturers, list of failed-to-start automobile manufacturers (better title needed) and list of automobile manufacturing plants, all organized as they must, and delete the other confusing ones? Best regards, Enivak (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup seems like a very reasonable thing to do. You have my support. The motorcycle manufacturer Dürkopp from Bielefeld, Germany, also made cars, but their name is spelled with an Ü, not U. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Error in Fiat Tipo (2015) and image in Fiat Tempra

In Fiat Tipo (2015) there are many sources (websites) about sales that weigh down the voice, very repeated and useless, can someone fix it? 23 website for the only sales in Mexico!!!

in addition, in Fiat Tempra a user continues to put an image in the template of a non-original Tuning model! I proceeded to modify it but the modification cancels it out for me, can someone fix it?

This is the not original model with fake wheels and bad resolution

And this is a better photo on Commons

Or this

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.99.111 (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This seems like WP:OWN, the editor who keeps reverting took the photo, and demands that it must stay on the page ignoring Its deficiencies. I fixed the cite thing. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if i am wrong, but i think there are also differences in the face of the car, isn't they? Enivak (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's just the angle. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Look at the front bumper, it is slightly different. Enivak (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Terrible modified example, should be all original, the previous ones were fine. --Vauxford (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ford T indentification

I took a photo of two Model T Fords which I have uploated to commons. The photograph needs to be better categorised on Commons, but I am not an expert on the exact year/model of these vehicles. Any assistance would be welcome. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Dear members, my website where I present automotive history research is being reviewed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Lend a comment there. YBSOne (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Instances of usage on Wikipedia here. YBSOne (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Up for deletion Commuter Cars

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Commuter Cars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Arguably a notable company. Sources in Time Magazine, CNN Money and a blurb in Bloomberg. I spent some time trying to develop the categories and improve the refs. Perhaps more refs can be located. Should be considered in conjunction with Commuter Cars Tango. I have improved the reference formatting on the latter article, but it would be improved by moving some of the "References" to in line citations. I also improved the formatting of the reference in this article Commuter Cars. In any event, between the two articles, there is plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. [[WP:NEXIST] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. Bump me if needed. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford

I was urged to paste this draft on an administrator notice board so I did. But I think it may belong more naturally here. Sorry it's not finished: Vauxford insisted on outing it from my sandbox before I'd finished with it. And in fairness, if I'd kept on polishing it till it was perfect I'd never have wiki time for anything else....

Introduction

Vauxford has contributed to Wikpedia since the end of 2016. He has also contributed under other names in the past. I am not aware of any other wiki-identities he is currently using, however.

I have contributed to a large number of Wikipedia automobile articles over the years and then left most of those articles on my watch list. That means (I suspect) that I am alerted to Vauxford edits more frequently than others who might be tempted to read this. A ringside seat. My problem? Indeed.

An appreciation of the scale of the "Vauxford Issues" would need many weeks of studying the Vauxford edit history. It is not realistic (and would be seriously unkind) to wish that on anyone. Nevertheless, here is the summary Several things leap to the eye, depending, perhaps, on what you were expecting. One thing that seems to have increased powerfully during 2019 is the weight of Vauxford contributions to talk pages. (But there are several other very unusual features also.) Although he plays a prominent role in so many talk pages, a flavour of Vauxford's attitudes to Wikipedia can by seen simply by consulting his own talk pages and as here.

In summary, Vauxford contributes according to his own rules: he robustly ignores suggestions, recommendations and pleas to contribute according to anyone else's rules. He does not "do consensus". It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he cheerfully treats Wikipedia with sustained contempt The result is damage to Wikipedia in ways that play out both directly and indirectly, both in plain sight and invisibly.

Issues

Between December 2016 and June 2019 Vauxford uploaded 31,395 files to Wikpedia-Commons. It's a lot.

As far as I can make out these were almost all pictures of cars. In my opinion Vauxford has spent 30 months uploading all "his" pictures to Wikipedia-Commons without regard for whether they are (1) good, (2) more or less competent, (3) mediocre or (4) terrible.

During the past thirty months Vauxford has linked "his" images of cars - as in HIS OWN images of cars - to Wikipedia articles in between ten and twenty different language version of Wikipedia. Hard to believe? Yes. But page down on a few of these … if you’ve got the time to count the links to different Wikipedia pages on each one. Well, maybe just a randomly selected sample….:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 He has done this regardless of whether "his" picture is (2) more or less competent, (3) mediocre, or (4) terrible. People familiar with these issues may very well have their own examples in mind. There are lots. (There must be a few (1) good “Vauxford pictures” in the mix too: but these would not normally get noticed so much....)

Vauxford repeatedly indicates his belief that this behaviour is (1) normal and (2) not damaging. I disagree. Others disagree. During June 2019 Vauxford invited and received a large amount of advice. Almost all of the advice he has received has been, in my opinion, carefully considered and broadly sound. (As in I agree with it!)

One contributor wrote: "... the way you're going about this is wrong. Both you and ____ should be putting your images on the Commons, then letting others decide how they ought to be best incorporated into WP."

A gentler soul pointed out that: "...it was always considered bad form to "push" ones own photos".

A third contributor, in response to one of those interminable Vauxford discussions, wrote: "Putting your own pics if there is a pic already is considered very impolite in all Wikipedias I guess."

Plenty more along the same lines. People may or may not agree with those pieces of advice. Vauxford rejects them.

Sometimes someone dares to replace a "less than stellar image by Vauxford" with something better. He reverts the edit.

People are becoming a little bit less accepting of Vauxford's behavior in this respect. Partly this is because, in my judgment, his behavior is getting worse. Sometimes, if still infrequently, he is persuaded to enter into a discussion on an article's talk page. Or on an individual's talk page. Or on an admin noticeboard of his choosing. Or any and all of the foregoing. He then strings the resulting discussions out with inconsistent (and, it appears to me, frequently phony) assertions, interlaced with abuse, in the hope that everyone else will lose the will to live, and go away. Which we quite often do. Where a clear consensus is reached he will ignore the consensus and reinsert HIS OWN picture anyway. Where even Vauxford appears to have spotted the existence of a consensus, you can nevertheless go back to the page in question a couple of months later and find he has reinserted HIS OWN picture when no one was looking, and even where HIS OWN picture contains a significant number of characteristic and very basic errors. Many people reading his will have examples of this already in their own minds. But here and here and here and here and here and here and here are elements from a few of the worst – mostly recent – ones. (Check out how many ended up with “Vauxford SELF-LINKED” own images back where they were before it all started, after it all died down!)

Vauxford tells us that "other people" behave like this too. The only other person in recent years to behave like this on anything approaching the same scale was EurovisionNim with whom Vauxford attempted to operate a quasi-monopolistic partnership during 2017/2018. About a year ago Vauxford turned savagely against his former partner in crime, however: their exchanges on one others' talk pages (and, it felt, everywhere else) became more and more ... shrill. About six months ago Vauxford launched one of his admin notice board attacks on EurovisionNim which led to EurovisionNim's exclusion from the project. You might think that after this experience Vauxford's own behaviour would have become a little bit more mainstream. In my judgement the precise opposite has happened.

Vauxford tells us that "other people" behave like this too. It is the case that - albeit on a much more controlled scale - there are indeed more people who do this, apparently following the logic that if it's ok for Vauxford (and EurovisioNim) to link THEIR OWN pictures to wiki articles on cars, then it must be ok for everyone else. There is indeed a certain logic there. However, none of these “other people" links their own pictures to Wikipedia entries on anything approaching the industrial scale which Vauxford thinks "normal". And, just as importantly, these "other people" seem to recognise the difference between a competent picture of a car and a terrible picture of a car. So where they do, on occasion, upload THEIR OWN images .... most of the time no one much notices. (Though some of us still wish they wouldn't do it …. except, perhaps, in some of the more egregious cases created by Vauxford actions.)

Arrogance. Am I not being monstrously arrogant myself in sharing my opinion that most of the >31,000 pictures that Vauxford has uploaded to wiki-commons, including most of the pictures that he has linked to wiki entries in our various language versions, are of a quality that lies somewhere between "more or less competent" and "terrible"? Yes I am. Or rather, yes, but ..... I would prefer that people form and share their own opinions of the quality of all those Vauxford pictures. I hate signs of arrogance when I see them in others and I hate it if I see them in myself. That's one of the reasons I hesitated so long before drafting up this summary. But we are all here to try and make Wikipedia better, or at least to try and prevent it from becoming worse. That's what we do here. And that is the best answer I can think of just now to the accusation of arrogance.

So isn't picture quality purely a matter of opinion? In my judgement, yes: but only up to a point. Vauxford's actions over the last few months mean that a large number of people, most of whom would normally tell you they had better things to worry about, have found themselves prodded into offering an opinion on the quality of a picture that Vauxford has uploaded and then HIMSELF linked to one or more Wikipedia articles. By the law of simple averages you might expect that roughly fifty per cent of those contributors would have shared the opinion that the Vauxford picture under discussion was at least competent, or to use a word Vauxford likes to use a lot, "fine". (A couple of weeks back Vauxford even announced that I had written that I thought a picture he had uploaded and then himself linked was "fine": this was incorrect.) The striking thing is that not one of the people who has been sucked, by Vauxford, into one of his interminable "discussions" about a picture he has uploaded and himself linked, has come up with an unqualified endorsement for the Vauxford picture under discussion. Not one. There are one or two places where people have indicated that one of those Vauxford self-linked images looked like the least bad option available, but only in the context of apparent agreement (an apparent agreement excluding Vauxford, of course) that someone somewhere needs to find something better. Ringing endorsements based on the quality of a Vauxford self-linked picture - any Vauxford picture - are vanishingly hard to find. I think that's the best answer I can manage to the thought that picture quality is purely a matter of opinion. However, in the interests of balance it is worth adding that on those relatively rare occasions when he does not simply avoid directly addressing the issue, Vauxford's explanation is quite different. He believes that everyone is “piling in” against him. Starting, I think, if he will be reading this, with me. But even if you are tempted by the idea that there might sometimes be an element of truth in this, you are still taken back to the question of why Vauxford's behaviour attracts adverse reactions from so many normally level-headed Wikipedia contributors?

So maybe I need to spell it out. I am not against Vauxford. As far as I can make out no one is against Vauxford. I am reasonably sure he’s able to be a charming fellow in real life. But yes, I am against a lot of what Vauxford does to Wikipedia. I hope that was clear enough.

Despite his apparent lack of self-control on so many talk pages and administrator notice-boards, Vauxford generally manages to avoid discussion of his own behaviour. But someone recently managed to extract the following comment during one of his outbursts on an Admin Noticeboard discussion: "...I'm not getting paid to do these edits or doing it out of my interest. I know that hard to believe but that's the truth and I understand why people mistake that..." (sic). This is reassuring on one level, but also revealing of Vaixford's attitude to himself (and - apparently several notches down on his list of priorities - to Wikipedia).

Without wishing in any way to downplay the more collegiate qualities that Vauxford could presumably display if he wanted to, I do not think we and all the others he has caught up in this should be devoting so much of our time and energy to Vauxford's behaviour. Back in the Wikipedia mainstream there is content to be created and built upon.

Of course it is still entirely open to anyone reading this to come along and tell us about Vauxford self-linked pictures they have found which they believe to be just "fine". I, too, think some of Vauxford’s pictures are competent and some of them – not too many, but maybe this is more a matter of taste – are quite good. Everyone is entitled to share an opinion. Every opinion deserves to be respected and evaluated. On the other hand, if you now tell us you think most of Vauxford’s SELF-LINKED “own” pictures are just “fine”, you might find yourself gently asked why you didn't mention it earlier..... - because these "Vauxford Issues" have become pretty high-profile lately. He repeatedly pushes himself up the Wikipedia agenda in ways which I for one find very very odd. He cannot be faulted for any lack of wiki-stamina.

Impact

The most directly visible impact of the Vauxford project is a loss of quality on a large and growing number of Wikipedia automobile pages. Vauxford's OWN PICTURES which he insists on linking on a massive scale can charitably be described (and in some cases were described) as "less than stellar". Less charitably, many are pretty dire.

The quality of the Wikipedia automobile project is also diminished by the uniformity of the Vauxford pictures. He has picked up on approximately three of the ten or twenty things to consider when photographing cars, and then applies them as rigid mantras, regardless of where he has found himself (and the car) and without pausing to apply his judgement to all the other things that conventionally careful photographers would normally take into consideration. So there’s a level of uniformity which you may find reassuring and which you may find dismal. Rather depends, I suggest, on the quality of the pictures. The images over which he goes to war are almost all produced in a small corner of central England not celebrated for its beauty spots. They almost all feature the same sort of (in my personal opinion badly judged) background. They almost all suffer from poor judgement in respect of (1) lighting, (2) angle and (3) reflections. There are no magic solution, but there are one or two quite simple steps that he could take to improve matters. Sadly, we have established that one thing Vauxford does not find himself able to take is advice.

Where someone dares to remove SELF LINKED Vauxford picture with a better picture, Vauxford reacts by launching a lengthy and soul destroying edit war. To him it would appear that for someone to replace a SELF LINKED Vauxford picture is the same thing as a profoundly intrusive attack on everything that matters on Planet Earth. I cannot believe he reacts to disagreement like this in real life: he would surely not have got away with it. But he seems unable to display his better side when he switches on the computer and comes along to make his contributions on Wikipedia. Quite often the result is that an inferior SELF LINKED Vauxford picture remains in place for longer than it needs to or should. Much longer. The price, again, is one paid in terms of Wikipedia quality.

Everything has a life cycle. Trilobites. Zoroastrianism. Soviet hegemony. Western Liberal Democracy(?). Jelly beans(?). In my judgment Wikipedia's life cycle is running its course with alarming rapidity. More rapidity than, ten years ago, we would reasonably have foreseen. Is the first burst of imaginative innovation and enthusiasm even now beginning to give way to middle-aged drift? And then stagnation and then ... what? There are certainly other overlapping information providers out there who envy Wikipedia's popularity and reputation: They want a piece of that cake for themselves. Their presentation is often slicker and their strategy is better funded. And their commitment to truth? I believe the Vauxford wars that Vauxford launches, when the most destructive elements of the Vauxford Project meet with resistance, encourage editors to reduce the amount of time and effort they devote to the Automobiles entries. They may hang around and work on other corners of Planet Wikipedia. Or they may wander off and give up on Wikipedia entirely. Although there are lots of people who have contributed something on Wikipedia, the proportion who hang around for a reasonable length of time, and use that time to make constructive contributions, trying to work collaboratively, in order make Wikipdia better, is vanishingly small. I have a strong impression that the automobiles project is suffering a steady reduction in the number of those people trying to build the thing and maintain its quality. And there is a compounding reduction in the number of hours dedicated by the editors who remain to engage in competent content creation. No doubt there are people trying to produce meaningful statistics on all this stuff (though maybe only globally, rather than on a project by project basis). Either way, no contributors: no Wikipedia. And I am sure that Vauxford's behaviour has driven people away and will drive away more people. How far you agree with that is, of course, likely to depend (1) on the extent of your own experience of Vauxford's warring, (2) your personal reaction to it and (3) private discussions, taking place, outside the Wikipedia bubble, with friends. But I do not think you can simply conclude that because something is difficult or impossible to measure, it must not exist or at least cannot be said to matter.

Of course most Wikipedia contributors are occasional contributors who never get to the point of becoming serious contributors of useful content for more than a few weeks. They stop by, correct a couple of typoes, mention something important that everyone else ignored in a couple of entries, and take a look around. They check out a few talk pages and one or two entries in more detail. In the case of automobile entries, they come across one or two Vauxford contributions on talk pages and edit histories. (The Vauxford contributions tend to stand out for various reasons.) Those casual visitors are all potentially serious committed contributors. But if you were one of those people and you came across manifestations of the Vauxford project, you might very well decide that Wikipedia really wasn't the sort of place where you wanted to "stick around".

If it is difficult to provide meaningful statistical analysis of the (vanishingly small) proportion of occasional Wikipedia contributors who then become more permanent, it is completely impossible to give a figure for the number of people who might have taken one look at what Vauxford does to Wikipedia and decided that it's not even worthwhile to register as a contributor. Impossible to measure what isn't there. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem. "If you can't measure what happened in the past you can't do anything about where it will lead in the future" may be put forward as a realistic mantra for one or two undistinguished politicians, but it nevertheless ignores massive chunks of what matters in life. And of course, with the Vauxford project, there's a knock-on reputational impact affecting even people who (1) have never looked at a Wikipedia automobile entry or even (2) have never (yet) consulted Wikipedia about anything. Reputational damage, once it sets in, can be awfully long lasting and difficult to correct. Especially if you think Wikipedia's early success has left it with a high profile and powerful enemies.

Vauxford has made himself a star of the admin noticeboards. He seems to be a bit of a natural. Not necessarily in a good way. Vauxford hates to be ignored. We all need recognition and reassurance, and Vauxford seems to have figured that the admin noticeboards are a good place to go and look for it. He has been rewarded with large amounts of advice from Admins and from others who follow those noticeboard discussions. I guess you would expect Admins to come in a range of shapes and sizes and to be supported with a wide range of different background beliefs. But they all appear to believe in Wikipdia. Many of them have taken significant amounts of time to look at what Vauxford has written on those noticeboards, check out the many links he has kindly included in his ... um ... verbals, form a view of a matter, and come back with a careful response. (Presumably there have been plenty more - Admins and others - who have also taken wiki-time in order to evaluate carefully some part of the Vauxford verbals on the notice boards, and then concluded that there's nothing they can think of that they could usefully add. But they will have taken time and mental space to think about it. Wiki-time and wiki-mental space.) Vauxford's admin noticeboard contributions are particularly time consuming, because where he doesn't get the reaction he had hoped for and the discussion slides off into the noticeboard archive, he solemnly digs it out and pastes it back on the admin noticewboard. Where, again (as in for a second time) he doesn't get the reaction he had hoped for, and the discussion quietly (as in again) sides off into the noticeboard archive, he digs it out. Again. And puts it back. Charming or what? He has also told us about a case where, failing to get the reaction he hoped for, he "pinged" an individual Admin whose response, he thought, might be to his liking. Vauxford has only told us about energising his harrassment by pinging an Admin behind the scenes (as far as I have noticed) once during recent weeks. But for those of us reduced to a certain level of paranoia where Vauxford is doing what he does, it necessarily raises questions about how far he may have been contacting other Admins behind the scenes in support of His Project. (If he has, and as far as I can tell, those Admins whom he has approached have quite correctly refused to involve themselves.) So, does it - should it - matter that Vauxford takes so much time - his and lots of other folks’ - doing his stuff on the admin noticeboards? Well, I reckon some – one hopes many - of those Admins are among Wikipedia's more experienced and more committed contributors. They do what they do on the noticeboards because they think that is an important way to make Wikipedia better and / or to stop it getting worse. But when they're not doing admin stuff, it's a reasonable assumption that most of them will be providing content on subject pages. Subject pages are at the heart of what Wikipedia is about. All those admin noticeboards and the talk pages on which Vauxford spends so much of all our time are valuable only because they support content creation. Treating them as freestanding outlets for what's on your mind really is a waste and an abuse. Many Admins must be tempted to think that they should be able to work more usefully by providing more content, and by taking less time doing "admin stuff". Well, Admins often resign, citing just those reasons. Who would blame them? Does this paragraph look a bit creepy on this page? Well yes, to me it does. But I still think it belongs in a summary of the cost to Wikipedia of what Vauxford does. So I leave it in.

Rereading that, it looks as though I think the most important people for Wikipedia are its contributors. That's completely wrong, of course. The most important people are the readers. Sure, some of those folks also become contributors, (including, I guess, anyone reading this). But if you separate out those two groups, it is the readers who will make or break Wikipedia's influence and status and, in the longer term, survival. That's an important part of why quality and reputation matter. And that is why, if you think Vauxford's desperately bizarre and unconventional package of contributions to Wikipedia damages Wikipedia (I do), then you maybe shouldn't want to run away from the thought that these Vauxford issues matter.

Solutions

It would be incomplete to summarize the problem, as I have, without addressing the question of solutions. I do not have a monopoly of wisdom. Self evidently. But that is not a reason to run away from trying to identify some possibilities. Others may very well have better ideas.

We may take time to drill down into the evidence and decide that almost all the pictures Vauxford uploads and then HIMSELF LINKS are just "fine". We may think his edit warring across and beyond the entries and the talk pages is just "fine". Or even, as he repeatedly insists, we may decide that Vauxford doesn't do edit-warring any more. Or at least we may conclude that Vauxford is a very special individual with very special personal needs, and Wikipdia is here to accommodate them. Any other response would be ungenerous and mean. Maybe we think Vauxford's behaviour will change if we just sit back and watch. Well, some of those responses are perfectly natural. But in my judgment this solution puts the feelings of Vauxford ahead of the preserving the quality and promoting the development of Wikipedia. I don't think that correctly reflects why we came here in the first place.

We accept there are problems with Vauxford behaviour, but, well, we sit back and watch. And maybe over time we find ourselves spending less time on contributing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia becomes a personal "spectator sport". Again, perfectly understandable. But what if it just goes on? Which I think it would. There is now a large historical body of evidence. The trend of it all looks remarkably linear from here.

Vauxford has taken exceptional measures to make himself the star of the show. Perhaps he will now step back and evaluate all the excellent advice has received, not in the context of his personal project; but in the context in which all the people providing the advice mostly operate most of the time. The context is Wikipedia. So Vauxford stops linking HIS OWN pictures to Wikipedia entries on cars. He stops launching toxic month long edit wars when someone dares to replace one of his "less than stellar" images. The problem? Does Vauxford think there's a Vauxford Problem? Can the leopard change his spots? Well yes, such things happen. And from many perspectives this will be the best solution. Though of course it does nothing to address the destructive impact on quality already inflicted on so many automobile articles, and it does nothing to address the impact of Vauxford behaviour on Wikipedia behaviour more widely. But that has become a long-term problem: it is not realistic to expect a short-term cure.

We might require Vauxford to transform his behaviour as indicated in the previous paragraph. Might work.

Vauxford himself is not too big on respecting the personal feelings of other contributors. Nevertheless, maybe we should still be going out of our way to respect the personal feelings of Vauxford. He regularly comes across, in some ways, as an extraordinarily sensitive soul. How far should we go in respecting Vauxford's personal feelings? Maybe this far: maybe we should require that NO ONE should link THEIR OWN pictures to Wikipedia articles on automobiles. It is something (if you leave Vauxford out of the mix) that would leave most of the people contributing to automobile articles and others reading this unaffected because they don't do anyway. Or we don't do it very much. So this is not a solution that, for most of us, imposes widespread changes in behaviour. In most ways it simply takes us back to somewhere near where we were before Vauxford came along. You can object that it would be a little “over the top” to impose a rule on every contributor in order to deal with the behaviour of just one very exceptional individual. But I still think that, in the absence of anything else that works, this one deserves to be considered seriously. Of course, it leaves wikipedia stake holders on the other 19 (or whatever) language versions who are also afflicted by Vauxford issues to fend for themselves. Not sure hos that should work.

Other suggestions?

Background

Some people have seen (a version of) this report before. That’s because Vauxford generously “outed” it from my “sandbox” on 2 July 2019.

He did it in the context of a personal attack which he launched on an Administrators' noticeboard on 4 June 2019 (and has now managed to sustain for more than a month). In the end a surprisingly large number of people responded to his … submissions. If you already took part in that discussion, thank you. Although the Vauxford invective, on this occasion, was targeted against me, I found myself in the slightly surreal position of agreeing with virtually all the reactions that people took time out to share on the noticeboard.

This (above) report is NOT a direct reply to Vauxford’s Administrators' noticeboard submissions. He has received plenty of replies from others: most of those are far more succinct than I could manage. Even if he does not seem to like them. (And from what I have seen of his behavior in Wikipedia, he likes to be ignored even less, so at least in that sense I am sure that he, too, is grateful to all those who took the trouble both to read and to reply to his Administrators' noticeboard submissions.)

So, since you’re reading this, I think you probably looked at the report preceding it. Thank you. I am sorry it is still longer than I’d like. Possibly not all easy reading. As in still unfinished and still too long. (And faaaar too short to count as a serioues indictment!) But after Vauxford outed it on the Administrators’ noticeboard and then kept snooping on successive versions of it in my sandbox and bleating about the existence of the copy in my sandbox to a hapless Admin on his personal talk page, I have been urged simply to paste it here, finished or not! (And I’m too fed up with the whole Vauxford thing to relish spending yet another month thinking about Vauxford’s wiki-behavior. So thank you for that powerful prod, El C.)

If you will (and/or already did), thank you for any reactions you are willing and able to share on these matters.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I generally consider Vuaxford's pictures to be of good enough quality. However, his pushy methods are tiresome. I wish he could stop promoting his pictures, and I wish he would stop lengthy debates about which picture is a tenth of a percent better. If there is a good quality picture in an article, don't replace it with something that's not a clear and strong improvement. When it's your own picture, that threshold gets higher yet. I am sure I have sometimes been guilty of replacing an image that wasn't really needing replacement, but it is not the ONLY THING I DO. And I would never engage in these ridiculous long arguments about the merits of various pictures. I would like for Vauxford to get it and to be a pleasant collaborator, but I don't exactly know where he is heading. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Mr.choppers Please see the ANI. That also includes everyone else thinking of commenting. In my defence, a lot of the things Charles01 is describing isn't worst as you think it is. I admit it was wrong of me pushing my pictures in a way I did in the past and I stopped that completely. I'm trying to convince others that I'm not that disruptive and can make truly good contribution but it just seem I'm making people more angrier somehow. --Vauxford (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not angry and you don't sound angry either. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Ikarus 256 infobox image

Good evenening everyone,

I would appreciate additional comments on the Ikarus 256 infobox image, see Talk:Ikarus 256#Infobox images. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Shelby GLHS and Dodge Omni 024

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

Interesting consideration Looking into the articles, I'd leave the GLHS article as-is for now for a couple of reasons. Along with the article being less of a stub than the other mentioned, the actual GLHS is based on two different vehicles (the 1986 Omni and 1987 Charger). It does make perfect sense to merge the Dodge Omni 024 into Dodge Charger (L-body) (it may take a deal of rewriting to do so). On a side note, the Dodge Omni article needs a great deal of attention as well. --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Chery Exeed TX and Exeed TX

The Exeed TX and the Chery Exeed TX are Same car and same article! Exeed is only a brand, not a marque! can you unify the article? moreover they are only a sketch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.98.35 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The name of Aion S and Aion LX is incorrect! The real name are GAC Aion S and GAC Aion LX! Can we correct please? Thanks! :)

Major expansion of the Amati Cars article

Hey everyone, over the weekend I just completed a major expansion of the Amati Cars article, if you would like to go over and help copyedit or contribute any improvements. Reattacollector (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Reattacollector: Thanks, we always appreciate help from everyone! If you are interested in cars, you can join us! Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 22:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Buick Century

Bit of an edit war going on here.. I started a discussion at Talk:Buick Century#Unsourced content. Just wanted to see if there's any more editor input before going to WP:ANI. --Vossanova ^o< 16:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

More image in chinese car

In most of articles about chinese cars there are more gallery and more images! See Volkswagen Bora (China) (a total of 19 images! 19!)

Im not sure this page has too much images, because those images shows facelift differencies -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Scope

Are articles about events which prominently involve cars (such as car crashes & car bombings) within the scope of the project? Jim Michael (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

With the possible exception of conception in the back seat of a car, we happily take almost anything to do with cars. Beware that some subjects like car bombings are more about the bomb than the car. Also, some subjects may overlap with other projects. Stepho talk 10:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. A car bombing has little, if anything, to do with the car itself. Just because it happened to use a car and not some other instrument doesn't make it pertinent to this project in my opinion, and I doubt that editors in this area would be likely to contribute to its article. --Sable232 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Popular pages

Greetings, I added a section and updated sidebar for "Popular pages", a bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Honda Civic infobox

[3] Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Honda Ridgeline - 2 images in the infobox RFC

Hi, There's currently an RFC at Talk:Honda Ridgeline#RfC about 2 images in the infobox over whether not the infobox should have 2 images or 1, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Automobile infobox

Please help establish consensus that track width should be added to the automobile infobox, directly below wheelbase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.19.101 (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox automobile#Template-protected edit request on 20 September 2019. Stepho talk 10:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hyundai i10

Talk:Hyundai_i10#Old_facelift_and_infobox Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Bugatti road car timeline, 1980s–present

Hey guys, the template shows the Bugatti Divo as if it were a successor to the Chiron, even though it is only Chiron-derived, not a replacement of it in the lineup and no Divos have been produced yet. The Centodieci and La Voiture Noire are both absent from the timeline, despite being just as different to the Chiron as the Divo in some aspects. I would suggest changing the timeline by adding parallel entries of cars regarded as separate models (Chiron, Divo, Centodieci, La Voiture Noire). What are your thoughts on this? Galopujacyjez (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This question should have been raised at the template talk page itself. template talk:Bugatti road car timeline, 1980s–present Stepho talk 19:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Reporting about automobiles based on mere confirmation

I think its not okay to add information to an informative article about automobile models which haven't yet been unveiled by the company, online or in physical form. Wikipedia is not a place for automotive reporting and that should be avoided. I want to establish a consensus on the subject matter. This discussion brought me here in which these two editors on the G80 M3 discussion present their interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL BALL in defense to the inclusion of an upcoming variant of the BMW M3 which has only been confirmed by the head of BMW M. No production/unveil date or even the specs are confirmed. All have are speculative power outputs based on other BMW M models and heavily camouflaged prototypes testing around. U¹ _quattro TALK 07:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, give an auto exec a microphone and you will hear all sorts of bollocks- which the lapdogs of journalism will report (that is their job) in order to get continued access to free cars (which is their desire). Sadly the vomit that the lapdogs produce are reliable sources and so their effluvia can be quoted on wiki. Greglocock (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That has got to stop. We are here to make informative articles, not to report what cars are due to be launched etc. The portal is reserved for that.U¹ _quattro TALK 15:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I generally agree but I want to play devil's advocate for a moment. My intent is to spark discussion. What is the limit in this case? Take the... eventual... unveiling of the new Acura/Honda NSX or the "new" Camaro a few years back. In both cases we were dealing with "worst kept secrets" with lots of RSs reporting on these future cars. In that case I feel like a case can be made that the future vehicle is notable... but perhaps I'm wrong. If nothing else, in the case of the Camaro and NSX, the long development leak period leading to the final release of those cars is part of the story of those models. It's something I would include in an article written after the fact since many RSs commented on it. At the same time, I think a case can be made that we should avoid reporting "facts" that might be subject to change when the car is actually released. Perhaps the best rule of thumb is to say, just wait until it's out or dead before starting the article? Springee (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The Camaro had an article made after it was introduced in concept form with the history of its development. It's okay to report what started the development of he car and vice versa when the car actually exists, rather than adding facts to the article which are subject to change.U¹ _quattro TALK 15:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Am I correct in saying the distinction is once a prototype is shown, even if it ends up not reflecting the final product, it is "reflective of itself". The prototype represents a fixed snapshot of the development and thus can be notable in it's own right. Basically we can say "the prototype had a 2.3L V6" but we wouldn't say "the production model will have/is expected to have a 2.3L V6". We also shouldn't say "the new model will have a 7spd automatic [soure: rummor mill reported by car magazine]". Is this in line with your thinking? I would support such a view. Springee (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, yeah. As the case with the upcoming BMW 4 Series. At least information was added when the concept was shown and not before. That concept may or may not represent the final production model. In the case of this G80 M3 we don't have any information besides a company person saying "Would have, could have" and heavily camouflaged prototypes with engine speculations.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Is BMW M3 up for deletion at AfD? Nobody arguing that the entire topic of the M2 is not notable? No? OK. Then WP:NOTCRYSTAL has no relevance. Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Unannounced vehicles it says "information about future or speculative vehicles that have not been officially announced by their manufacturer should not be discussed" and that's dead wrong. The policy makes no mention of what can be "discussed". It's not in the policy. That policy is strictly dealing with whether or not a whole separate article should be created about a future product. There is no specific policy or even guideline that tells you whether you can or can't mention a future product within an article that is independently notable. You have to refer to WP:CONPOL. I.e. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT etc. It says "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content" but that's just another way of saying we only have facts cited to reliable sources.
There can be local consensus. The project might agree to never discuss future models. That has less force than a policy, and even less force than a guideline. See the policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. You could propose some rule of thumb for when an article can start talking about an upcoming model of M3, but you can't pretend that you're following policy. It's just your opinion, and maybe some other editors will share that opinion.
I'd not spend too much time on it, personally. You can just as easily get bogged down arguing how many words to devote to describing the fabric pattern on the seat covers or the shape of the buttons on the car radio. It always come down to WP:WEIGHT. If reliable sources have devoted a lot of time to describing the radio buttons, maybe they're important. Hopefully our sources tell us why they talk so much about the buttons, and those reasons can go into the article, and it will make sense to the reader because we're telling them why all this radio button discussion is there.
Many future models are not that important and we know that because our sources don't spill a lot of ink over them. The next Chevrolet Sonic is probably not going to get as much attention as a new Tesla model that Elon Musk has tweeted about twice. Our sources will write 100,000 words about those two tweets. I'd have some restraint, but generally, if our sources are fascinated by this future Tesla, then we should try to follow suit. This principle applies to everything: colors, prices, seat upholstery. It's all about WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. WP:CRYSTAL is what you cite for WP:PROD or WP:AfD, but not a few sentences at the end of an article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Never said that the article was up for deletion. You never read what my original post was about. I didn't say I was listing the whole article for deletion. I was trying to make a rule of thumb and obtain a consensus about the speculations being added to the BMW M3 article. Nope, automotive press haven't spend too much time on the subject. They are just focused on making headlines. They don't care if the information is true or not. Atleast we shouldn't reflect that attitude on Wikipedia.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You just posted "Yes its 39 words and those are not notable". When you speak of WP:CRYSTAL, and "notable", you're dealing with the question should we create an article? Or should we delete an article? Creation and deletion are not the topic. The topic is whether or not to add a sentence or two to an existing article. As long as you keep referencing the crystal ball policy, or speaking of "notability", you're demonstrating you don't understand the basic distinction here. Go to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. The first section is the GNG. Right after that? The critically important section Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Which means notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Notability. Guidelines. Do. Not. Apply. To. Content. Within. An. Article. Once again, say it with me: Notability. Guidelines. Do. Not. Apply. To. Content. Within. An. Article. It says what I've been telling you: "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."

Stop asserting that this future product isn't "notable". It doesn't need to be notable. The questions are 1) is it a hoax or real? and 2) is 0.65% of BMW M3, at the very, very end, undue weight?

Six tenths of one percent. That's what you're fighting over. It's disruptive and you're hindering the process of building an encyclopedia for the sake of fighting over next to nothing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this discussion going to happen here or at Talk:BMW_M3#G80 M3 ? I'm not keen on having the same arguments present twice, the aggravation received twice (for both sides) and the useful results halved. Stepho talk 22:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I don't recommend creating articles on models that haven't even been presented to the press. What is there to write about a BMW i4 or a BMW G80? Nobody knows how high, long, and wide these cars will be, what suspension, tyres, body, drivetrain, and interior they will have, and if BMW will even decide to build them and offer them for sale. There have been BMW concepts before that have never made it into series production. The key question, Will this car be a regular BMW in the near future? cannot be answered. We should also not write about rumors in an existing "series overview article". We could basically just write that we don't know anything. What we can do however is write about past rumors in existing articles. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

We should have an RfC on Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Unannounced vehicles so that we stop claiming that WP:CRYSTAL forbids "discussion" of future products. It doesn't say that. There needs to be two separate points in the WPAC: one on separate articles (governed by WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PRODUCT, and a second one on mentioning future products within a notable topic. They're not the same thing, as WP:NNC says. The Automobiles project could simply remind editors to follow WP:UNDUE and WP:CONPOL with regard to how much content about future products to put in an article, or the project could agree on some specific rules of thumb to follow, such as direct on-record statements from company sources, or firm release dates, or physical production of a prototype. My personal pet peeve is performance claims that haven't been independently verified. But there's a lot of room for the project to create whatever local consensus they wish. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That is just great. I'd start a discussion there and obtain a consensus. Time to put an end to this.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

As requested by Dennis, I have raised an RFC. See Talk:BMW M3#RfC about announcements of future vehicles. Stepho talk 00:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Circa 1909 Buick

Can anyone do a good ID on the car in File:Unidentified man, woman, and young girl standing outside a residence on Dose Terrace next to a Buick car, Seattle, probably (SEATTLE 2772).jpg? - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, I've gone to a very great deal of trouble over the last few years to get accurate dates on cars in Commons And put them into categories. Have you tried there?

Take a look at this page:

Media related to 1905_Buick_automobiles at Wikimedia Commons or the next. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Everything I've seen on Commons seems to have a wide bench seat in the back, not this single bucket seat. That's why I was here asking. - Jmabel | Talk 03:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it fits one of these descriptions:

1908 Model 10——165 cu.in— 88 inch wheelbase — 3-passenger touring car
1909 Model 10—166 cu.in— 92 inch wheelbase — single rumble, tourabout,

There's a photo of a similar car here. Eddaido (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Help with Honda Ridgeline articles

I'm hoping some editors might be interested in helping with the three Honda Ridgeline articles (main and specific models [[4]], [[5]]. The three used to be a single article but apparently were split due to length. Looking at the articles they often read as if they were a single article. More significantly, they are very long in large part to a huge amount of insignificant material sourced to Honda brochures etc. Until recently the articles listed the complete list of trim levels and features for each levels as described by Honda. I do want to respect that this isn't controversial material and as a car person myself I don't mind erring on the side of inclusion when dealing with uncontroversial information. However, these should be just a single article and I think with reasonable editing they could be again. Springee (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Aston Martin Rapide-E

Talk:Aston_Martin_Rapide#Rapide-E_Proposal Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Iterations

Is it appropriate for successive versions of (say) Volkswagen Golfs to be described as iterations? Thanks. Eddaido (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"Generation" is the more common description. Some use "Mark I", "Mark II", etc. "Iteration" is also technically correct and understandable but quite rare. Without knowing the context, I would advise against it. Can you provide some more context? Stepho talk 09:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stepho. Not being a computer person I do not believe the word is being used correctly (i.e. it is not technically correct and understandable unless you make the leap to a rather poor analogy) - why I asked for opinions. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)