Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Years in section headings, infoboxes

An editor recently went through a whole bunch of articles, changing all of the headers and infobox data to reflect later production in other markets. I restarted a conversation over here on the conventions talk page and welcome others' input. Feel free to move the thing over here if anyone thinks it preferrable.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Automobile articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Automobile articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 21:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

error of communication

hI everyone, Im confused on this wikipedia page it says the car the Smart Fortwo is a micro car while the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_car under the picture of the Smart Fortwo it explicitly says that the smart Fortwo is not a micro car but a common misconception is that it is. Could Someone please clear this up thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.70.234 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like User:Mr.choppers just "upgraded" the Smart Fortwo from micro car to city car classification. Perhaps there needs to be some discussion (at Talk:Microcar, Talk:Smart Fortwo, or here) first. --Vossanova ^o< 18:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. My bad. I added a reference from Automobile Year, but these classifications are nothing much but opinions in any case.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance: American Honda Motor Company

Resolved

Hello all, earlier this summer, I began to write an article on the American Honda Motor Company, the North American subsidiary of Honda Motor Company. In the process I have read through several independent books as well as newspaper, magazine and other coverage of Honda's American operations, and have been diligent in citing reliable sources. I have also taken a photo of the Torrance, CA facility for use in this article, which is now on the Commons and published under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. I hope that you all are able to make use of it in any future articles.

To this accord (no pun intended), I happen to have a COI with the subject matter, as Honda is a client of my employer. I don't feel that it has gotten in the way of putting together an article that is encyclopedic and aligned with Wikipedia's own standards, but wanted to note this upfront, as I recognize that others may see things differently. With this in mind, I have directed increased attention towards writing the article in a way that agrees with NPOV, Notability and Verifiability.

The article is now in a position to be created, but I'd like to get your input on it, along with your assistance - when you feel the time is right - in moving it to mainspace. It is currently located as a Subpage here: User:Jeff_Bedford/American_Honda_Motor_Company.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can best move forward. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a great article (I've tidied up some of the references so long), and certainly if you do post it then please nominate it at WP:DYK to appear on the Main Page. Very well referenced and good prose all around, this could go straight to B-class or even higher. My only concern however is that it is a bit of a promotional and myopic view of American Honda. Everything written in the article sounds like it is coming from Honda's POV. There's a lot of description of what they do and the things they make, but no real indication of why this information is important. It needs some external views e.g. something from a business or technology magazine that really describes how AmHonda fits into the bigger picture i.e. why do they matter? How do they rank against other automotive companies in the States? How do they fit into the Honda family amongst other subsidiaries worldwide? Where do they rank in all those weird and wonderful business indices? What is their market share/stock performance/employee numbers etc.? What interesting news stories have they been the subject of?

I'm not saying it's overly promotional, indeed it very matter-of-fact and written in a dispassionate tone. However almost every section of the article is a sort of subtle promotion of Honda's activities. Think of it like this: if I was an outsider writing an article about American Honda, would I consider each of the article sections and paragraphs to be salient to the topic, or would I simply have condensed or left out some sections completely?

However I am being over-critical, by all means move it to mainspace (don't forget to nominate the redirect for speedy deletion) and nominate it at DYK. It's nothing that can't be fixed. Zunaid 20:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, scratch most of what I said. That's what comes from reading whilst editing, I spent most of my time reading the bottom 4 sections above the References. The subtle promotion is still there, but I see that there is already a significant chunk of external referenced material in the History and some of the Vehicles sections. Job well done! Zunaid 20:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Zunaid, your scrupulous code cleanup and detailed feedback is much appreciated. Based on your most recent comment, would you be able to move the article to mainspace on my behalf? My intention isn't to pass the task on to you; rather I am new to the practice of doing so and would appreciate the opportunity to watch and learn.

Also just a note to those reading this at a later date: I am a firm believer in the concept that Wikipedia is a work in progress, and see this as just the first step in further collaboration on this article. If you have further thoughts or if I can be of help on a related project, please feel free to drop me a line here, or on my user talk page. Kind Regards, Jeff Bedford (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to move it but there is a slight complication: American Honda Motor Company already exists as a redirect to Honda, so I've nominated it for speedy deletion in order to make way to move your article into the main space. An admin will be along shortly to complete the move. I will also nominate it to appear on the Main Page in the Did You Know section. Zunaid 07:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated it for DYK here: Template talk:Did you know#American Honda Motor Company. Let's hope it makes it to the main page. Zunaid 08:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You can edit redirects: Click on the little blue link that appears on top of the page after having been redirected, and you will be taken to the original article. This is useful if you'd like to add a category for the redirect or adjust it. As for the article, whatever may be missing will surely be added by our other editors, as for NPOV I don't see enough to make an impact - and the level of POV is certainly at zero when compared to what a fanboy might have written.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but I wanted a history-preserving move. Cut-and-paste moves are strongly discouraged because they make a mess of the attribution. Anyway, job done, the article has been moved. If the DYK nomination goes through in the next few days (which it should) it will get a LOT more eyes on it very quickly. :) Zunaid 17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Zunaid and Mr. Choppers for moving the article and nominating it for DYK. Several others have already joined in and made beneficial edits, and it will be great to see this collaboration continue. On that note, I've uncovered quite a few sources and photos in the process of contributing to this article, so if you (or others) are looking for RS to bring automobile-related articles up to par in the future, let me know if I can lend a hand. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Headquarters

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but it would be nice to the flag of the nation which the manufacturer is headquartered. Such as :

Volvo

Headquarters Gothenburg, Sweden

Volkswagen

Headquarters Wolfsburg, Germany

And so on .... UrbanNerd (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is sometimes difficult to determine the exact headquarters for automaker brands. The “nominal” office locations, the factories, or the “real” corporate owner locations? Perhaps some brands may qualify as historical footnotes to their origin, but take the example of Volvo. Ford Motor sold it to Zhejiang Geely. So has to be the Chinese flag for Volvo’s real headquarters? What about Land Rover and Jaguar, the flag of India. Saab was pat of General Motors, but is now owned by the Dutch Spyker Cars. I would suggest that nationalistic flags be left off the infoboxes as they are not necessary and, at most, deceptive. CZmarlin (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with CZmarlin, I'd also like to point out that there are WP guidelines for the appropriate use of flag icons (WP:MOSFLAG). Letdorf (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

History of Mercedes Benz

I am stocked with a copy of Legend & Collection: Mercedes Benz Museum I bought on vacation in Germany last year. It can be roughly divided into three sections, a very short introduction to the museums in front, the history of the brand in the bulk part, and an overview of all production vehicles built by the company (including a few weird ones like the Popemobile. So, any recommendations before I start writing it up? (I hope to make a good article out of it, possibly featured). Thanks, ResMar 22:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are intending on fixing up that dreadfull Mercedes-Benz article, that would be great. Two other automotive brand articles that may help you are Holden and Lexus. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it is terrible; however for now I will put my scope in its History alone. Motorsport is almost definetly better put into history. ResMar 01:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nissan Pulsar

I've just tidied up the article, the infobox looks a bit better with text running alongside the images which are now in the infobox rather than here and there in the article. Should we try this for all articles?

(sorry, logged in on public terminal so must be quick!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.219.185 (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that images scattered up and down the page are distracting and make the text hard to read. But the infobox is meant to have a single representative image. The various images are best gathered with the {{gallery}} template. I've done it for you. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In general galleries – with their disappointingly small thumbnails and often cluttered text – are a bit of a risk, because people just keep adding and adding images rather than including only the useful ones that highlight differences in models, etc. It's often said in WP style discussions that its preferable to just use a link to the commons category that contains all the images. A handful of well-placed images in the article should highlight those things that require to be shown in images, and excessive additions by... keen photographers... should be reverted. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the excess of pictures. But the teeny weeny thumbnails are a feature of <gallery>, whereas {{gallery}} gives reasonable sized thumbnails.  Stepho  (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the infobox being meant to have only a single image, maybe we should add that to our standards page. (I just stumbled upon Chevrolet Cobalt SS... the lead image is nearly incomprehensible and it's a GA!)

I prefer keeping images down the right side of the page below the infobox. It's when they get alternated left and right or end up on both sides that they make the text hard to read.

Regarding galleries: I've been trying to come up with a Commons-based solution for articles that get a lot of images added to them. See commons:User:Sable232/F-Series gallery proposal for the early stages. --Sable232 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the style guide warns against having thumbnails on both sides. Unless there are carefully placed "clear" templates or other formatting, it's easy for text to get pinched between two and be in unpleasant narrow columns, particularly on smaller windows/screens. – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Pictures down the right hand side below the infobox work fine as long as there is enough text to fill the space on the left. Otherwise there are huge amounts of white space on the left (assuming {{clear}} is used) or it intrudes into the next section. Then you get the joys of edit wars between the 'I hate empty space' and 'keep the pics within the section' camps. Agreed that pinching text between images and images/infobox is always awful. By the way, someone has done a partial revert so that we have images down the side and a gallery at the bottom of the N13 section (duplicating each other).  Stepho  (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

BMW and Nazism

Over at BMW there is an edit war over the addition/removal of contentious content related to BMW and Nazism. However, the connection does not really involve BMW per se, but rather a major shareholder of the company at the time. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Merging of some Lotus car articles

The content of Lotus Mark X has recently been merged into both Lotus Mark VIII and Lotus Mark IX. At Talk:Lotus Mark X, and editor has asked whether this was appropriate, or whether the content should have only been merged into one of the two articles (and if so, which one). I wonder if perhaps all three articles should be merged (which would solve the above issue), if they are essentially successive developments of the same design. I've already raised the topic at WT:MOTOR but I thought I'd mention it here as well, in case anyone here has any interest/expertise in the topic. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Project scope

I dread bringing this up, but if I don't I'm never going to make a dent in our backlog of unassessed articles.

Obviously, our project maintains articles on passenger cars and light trucks, and by extension, their manufacturers and the components that go into them, as well as important people related to these. We don't completely cover heavy trucks and buses because there are separate WikiProjects for those (there is some overlap though, of course). Traditionally, it doesn't seem that we have covered auto racing, because there are several other projects which focus on that. However, there has been a considerable influx of articles related to races and long-ago racing seasons (some of which are right at the top of Category:Unassessed Automobile articles).

There are a number of other things getting added which I don't feel are within our scope. An IP has been spraying our project banner everywhere it can. I recently removed it from Crawler-transporter, while it's also on Lunar rover (Apollo). You'll also find articles on car insurance companies, state DMVs, movies, and the like. On most of these articles I feel that there really isn't anything that's best covered by members of this project.

Thoughts? --Sable232 (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Lights commercial vehicles (e.g. Mercedes-Benz Sprinter) are okay, small trucks (e.g. Mazda Titan) are not. Car racing video games (e.g. Need for Speed), car racing events (e.g. NASCAR), films (e.g The Italian Job (2003 film), but documentaries like Who Killed the Electric Car? are okay), insurance companies are all out of scope, as are all-terrain vehicles and tractors, et cetera. These all have their own WikiProjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Sister Projects.

WP:CARS should comprise of exactly that: cars. Other things that can be included are: automobile clubs/associations, crash safety groups (e.g. NCAP, NHTSA), automobile news/reviews websites and publications (e.g. Edmunds.com, Car and Driver), articles of automobile parts (even if shared with other vehicles, e.g. steering wheels), measurements like mpg, 0–60 mph, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We've also got a bunch of articles on license plates... I'm leaning towards no, what do you think? --Sable232 (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably keep because where else are they going to go? If no other WikiProject exists that is a better fit, then I guess we have to include them. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The only other place for them is with the projects for the plates' respective countries. --Sable232 (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Since license plates are a prominent part of cars sold in any country, it would be really pushing it to leave them out. You can guarantee that there will be edit wars over the inclusion of these articles if they are removed. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, you're right. --Sable232 (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Until there's a license plate project, at least.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping for more editors' input, but this is looking much less controversial than I expected so I'll start removing some of the articles in question. --Sable232 (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Cadillac DeVille to Cadillac Sedan de Ville move

It looks like Cadillac DeVille was moved to Cadillac Sedan de Ville without any discussion. It's my understanding that the car was more commonly known as DeVille.. but I could be wrong. It makes the title of the article inconsistent with the subject (not called "Sedan" throughout the article), and messes up the timeline template something fierce. Can we get consensus to keep it this way or revert? --Vossanova ^o< 20:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also looks like there was already some discussion between Peter.shaman and Sable232 on this.. --Vossanova ^o< 20:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I was quite opposed to it, unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to stop him before he moved it.

Like I said on his talk page, I think merging them together is the best option since there's no point in having two separate articles for two body styles of the same car. However, the atrocious condition of both, with half being almost empty and the other half riddled with fanboy junk, pretty much requires a total rewrite in conjunction with a merge (in my opinion).

But to your main point: I would revert it for the time being. "Deville" or "DeVille" was the name of the car after "Sedan" was dropped in the '90s, so I think that's the most sound way of naming it (as opposed to generically referring to it as "de Ville" as it now sits, which I'm not sure is right in any way). --Sable232 (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cadillac DeVille, please. Enjoy the rewrite!  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've decided we should consider the merge first, since, if we decide to keep the coupe and sedan split, there's less of an argument to call the article just Deville. It does look like there's enough content in each article for them to remain split, but then, much of it may be redundant. --Vossanova ^o< 18:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Plymouth

I've started a discussion at the talk page for Plymouth, requesting that it become a disambiguation. I don't believe for one second that the English city is the primary topic anywhere but Britain. The car is an equally important topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Image size in galleries

Over the past day or so, a user has been going around increasing the size of images in galleries to 180px instead of 100px. On a standard 1024px-wide browser window, this makes the gallery hang over the edge of the screen. Unacceptable in my opinion. The other option is to put the gallery on two lines, which just looks like clutter.

My preference as I've mentioned before is to do away with most of these galleries because the images multiply like rabbits and ruin the readability of the page.

However, barring a solution on that, we should have a consensus on image size. There's a discussion at Talk:Ford F-Series where I reverted the change. --Sable232 (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a topic that comes up pretty regularly in other projects, and if there's sufficient interest I'll dig around for links to same.

Here are some samples of the sort of things I've been doing with galleries:

• From Woodie, example for a small gallery
• 
  1949 Dodge custom woodie carryall
• 
  1930s Ford Woody
• 
  1937 Ford Deluxe Station Wagon

• Default, 100 px width
• 
  1949 Dodge custom woodie carryall
• 
  1930s Ford Woody
• 
  1937 Ford Deluxe Station Wagon

• 4 x 180px width, example for a larger gallery
• 
  1949 Dodge custom woodie carryall
• 
  1930s Ford Woody
• 
  1937 Ford Deluxe Station Wagon
• 
  1948 Chrysler Town and Country, a convertible Woodie

Fine-looking old cars.

I think the 100px thumbnails are so small as to be almost useless, but maybe that's my aging eyeballs ;-} There's no formal policy for image size in galleries that I know of. There's a bug in the code that prevents the user-selected (preferences) sizes from working inside galleries, and I've been told it's +/- unfixable, so fixed size is what we have to work with, for now anyway. FWIW, 180px is the default image size outside galleries.

Anyway, I thought concrete examples would be best, to see the options. As for oversize galleries I agree, and the Ford truck page you mention could use some serious pruning. Separate issue, though. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For articles which have only couple of lines of text that 180px looks too big, it would maybe suit for larger articles. We really should not use galleries unless its really needed to show for example different car bodies/versions. But generally I would use the default gallery pic size -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had much success with the {{gallery}} template. Its default size is much better and it has better smarts for how it interacts with the rest of the page (change the browser width and see how each gallery changes).

example using Gallery template

• 
  1949 Dodge custom woodie carryall
• 
  1930s Ford Woody
• 
  1937 Ford Deluxe Station Wagon
• 
  1948 Chrysler Town and Country, a convertible Woodie

I've updated the Ford F-Series article so that others can see what it looks like.  Stepho  (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd also recommend the use of {{gallery}} instead of <gallery>. Letdorf (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks , that template looks promising. The only problem I see is occ. clipping of the bottom of captions. Here I see it for the Chrysler woodie. At Ford F-Series, it's the 1978 – 79 Ford F100 (clips bottom line in cap). --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It has a 'lines' parameter

example using Gallery template

• 
  1949 Dodge custom woodie carryall
• 
  1930s Ford Woody
• 
  1937 Ford Deluxe Station Wagon
• 
  1948 Chrysler Town and Country, a convertible Woodie with a super long caption that goes over many lines

Default lines is 2.  Stepho  (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Cool, thanks! That seems the way to go, then. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Chevrolet Corvette C6.R

Are you sure that the name "Chevrolet Corvette C6.R" is correct?. I thought it is only called "Corvette C6.R" without "Chevrolet". 79.246.172.139 (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Renault Symbol new page

I've created this user page about the new 2010 generation of Renault Symbol, in order to prepare it for moving to actual Renault Symbol page, which is a redirection to the Renault Clio page. There has been a discussion about this topic there too. You are welcomed to contribute to the new Symbol page, in order to move away from the user page. There is one thing I'm not clear about: should the new Symbol page contain separate details about the previous generation of the sedan named most commonly Clio Symbol (based on Clio II); and then should the content from the Renault Clio page about the Clio Symbol be moved to the new Symbol page and let there (on the Renault Clio page) just a short reference and a {{main page}} template to the Symbol one? Catabv23 (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I rather think it would be better to create the new page just for the new model Symbol and the add at the top of it a template "not to be confounded with...". The 1999-2010 sedan was called Symbol in Brazil as stated in the Clio article, but generally I think it was better known as the Clio Symbol. The new model has a new design and different than that of the new Clio too. Catabv23 (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research

I've removed original research from Volvo 200 Series regarding trim levels, but what other articles have them - especially in this area?

I think we should have some new policy on not posting what people think trim levels mean unless they have a source confirming it - in line with "No original research".

Anyone else found original research elsewhere?

[sorry to be short, public PC session expires soon] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.219.185 (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a separate policy, as WP:Original research already covers it—a Wikipedia-wide convention. Thanks for removing it from the Volvo page though. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Automotive articles are particularly bad for OR - Large family car is a good example. I agree it should be deleted, but it's a massive task. Letdorf (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

I think we dont need trim levels list at all, seems that many car articles are nowadays just list of trim levels/specifications, we need articles not lists -->Typ932 ^T·C 03:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What about if the trim levels are sourced? I think they are useful, even if they do get complicated when many markets are involved. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Earlier Volvos' trim levels definitely had meanings (GL = Grand Luxe, etc), and the use of those on the later 240 is sort of a hangover. Sadly my troves of old Swedish car magazines are in storage on the other side of the Atlantic, so I can't verify it. The 240's designations, however, were in the process of becoming abstractions and I would be hesitant to assign any definite meaning to GLT or GLE. Executive? Electronic fuel injection? Take your pick. Often different definitions were used for different markets, making things more confusing.

As for the never-ending lists of trim levels in different markets (see egregious example), I don't much like them either. Collapsible tables are my favorite solution, filling less space but allowing the often useful info to remain.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What if the trim levels are written in prose like they are at Toyota Camry (XV40)#Market? Collapsable tables seem like a good idea for those unsightly lists that keep propping up. However, I think prose is the best means of conveying this data. Unfortunately, this involves far greater effort (especially when referencing is involved). OSX (talk • contributions) 11:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I can't even look at the prose lists - it just turns into illegible mush for me, even had it been written by an Orhan Pamuk or T.S. Eliot. Prose works fine for me when dealing with a sixties car (Standard, deLuxe, with maybe a Grand Luxe on top) but it just gets too long with modern cars. I prefer a table every time for that kind of information, but I'm not looking for any new conventions nor to start a debate. I see you clicked my link, thanks for removing the "hot dog" and "pizza" Lancer references. I should have done that months ago.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If we need such details, I would use tables (maybe collapsable), people seems to be quite lazy nowadays, we have here lost of car articles which are basically just lists of data. -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hitting the traps

While I'm by no means expert, can somebody confirm if either the Road Runners or SCTA were actually drag racing, & not land speed racing, organizations? As I recall, Wally was a land speed racer first... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Are these two Alfa articles about the same car?

Alfa Romeo 20/30 HP and Alfa Romeo 20/30 HP ES Sport

Most of the text is completely different between the two, but they've got the same engine, almost the same name, and the same number were built. I'm not familiar with Alfa Romeo nor do I have access to the book that's cited. Anyone know?

They are not same cars exactly, but there might be some errors...I think we could put them under same article like in French wikipedia..the source used is little bit unclear with this car -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Chevrolet Corvette page moves by User:Vegavairbob

Was there consensus for these? They look like they go against the recommendations of Wikipedia:NCDAB, but I cant find any discussion on the talk pages before they happened.

• moved Chevrolet Corvette C1 to Chevrolet Corvette (first generation-C1) [1] and [2], so needs admin to fix?
• moved Chevrolet Corvette C2 to Chevrolet Corvette (second generation-C2) [3]
• moved Chevrolet Corvette C3 to Chevrolet Corvette (third generation-C3) [4]
• moved Chevrolet Corvette C4 to Chevrolet Corvette (fourth generation-C4) [5] and [6], so needs admin to fix?
• moved Chevrolet Corvette C5 to Chevrolet Corvette (fifth generation-C5) [7]
• moved Chevrolet Corvette C6 to Chevrolet Corvette (sixth generation-C6) [8]

User:Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 16 November 2010

The general consensus is to use model codes (i.e. C6) over the generation. Also, the model code should be in parentheses, so "Chevrolet Corvette (C6)" should be favoured over "Chevrolet Corvette C6". This is another one of our undocumented conventions that really should be added to the list. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with OSX, "Chevrolet Corvette (C6)" using factory model codes is the preferred style. Most of our articles are like this. E.g BMW 3 Series (E90) and Toyota Camry (XV40).  Stepho  (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Although it is not my favorite convention, it is much better than anarchy. I say go ahead and rename. Also, since the "C#" includes the number of the generation, spelling it out becomes twice as pointless.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr.choppers, what is your preferred convention? OSX (talk • contributions) 07:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally am not very fond of the parenthesis, but it is of zero relevance and not something I am interested in changing. I'll save my arguments for more important matters. :)  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have performed the page moves. I think the parentheses are used because that is the Wikipedia convention used for disambiguation—"C6" is not part of the model name, it is just a convenient means of disambiguating. Are there any objections for the formal establishment of this convention at WP:CARS/Conventions? OSX (talk • contributions) 23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

None, and thanks for your consideration.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Rather than just adding a single clause to the conventions page, I have formalised the old proposed naming convention page. A lot of what was written there was out of date, so I have updated this information to better reflect the current status quo. If any editors object to the contents added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions please come forward so this can be resolved. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

car wheel = tire and rim

Can't understand the confusion when talking about car wheels. A wheel is the combination of a tire and a rim. A flat tire or a bent rim will make for a faulty wheel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.218.68 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain your point in a bit more detail please. Does it affect any particular article?  Stepho  (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may jump into the question: I think the "confusion" contributor 24.66.218.68 is asking is probably caused by the frequent, and incorrect, use of "rims" to describe the over-sized fancy and decorative after-market automobile wheels. Although the term "rim" refers to only to the outer edges of a wheel on which the tire is held on the wheel itself, its popular use (such as in "that car has 'gansta' rims") has needlessly corrupted the word describe the entire wheel and tire combination. This problem gets further confusing if one of those "gansta rims" on a vehicle has a flat tire (and is described as a bad rim) when such an event really means that the car has a faulty wheel, not that something is wrong with that wheel's rim. Just my thoughts! CZmarlin (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition to what CZmarlin explains above, this is an example of somebody (meaning the original poster, not CZmarlin) trying to tie down a definition where the reality is unsatisfyingly ambiguous — this happens a lot on Wikipedia as people try to close down woolly language... but the reality is "wheel" is used widely in perfectly reputable (Wikipedia-friendly) sources to mean both the combination of the round metal thing & rubber tyre; and sometimes to mean just the round metal part. Take the tyres off and to most people they're still "wheels". One buys "alloy wheels" or "wire wheels" even if one isn't buying them with tyres fitted. – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Boats

FYI, there is a proposal to cover the boat aspects of amphicars in a new wikiproject. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Boats . 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Marlin Roadster

Under the subject Marlin Cars (roadster) There is a picture of a German registered Red Mk 1 Marlin Roadster. Any information about this actual car would be appreciated for the register. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.104.9 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise chatting up MartinHansV, the prolific car photographer who took the photo. I doubt that he knows anything about it (taken at a classic car meet), but perhaps he can tell you how to find out more through the German equivalent of the DVLA.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tracked vehicle up for deletion

FYI, Tracked vehicle has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Trim levels

Is it not better to list these as a wikitable with colours than have them as a paragraph, as it looks like padding. I could be bold and edit them, but don't want to risk edit-warring. The Toyota Starlet and Subaru Legacy are candidates for cleanup in this area.

Maybe if we had some standards about this? Just floating the idea.

[posted from shared computer] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.219.185 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed before, but it seems that agreement on this would be hard to come by. Personally I prefer tables, as I reckon that they can fit more information in a more legible fashion than prose is capable of. As for the Legacy and Starlet pages, I suppose that any edits which are helpful won't risk ruffling anyone's feathers. Go ahead, be bold!  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else want to try? I'm inactive this and next week. [posted from shared computer]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.219.185 (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think short lists and tables are okay for trim levels. However, we want to avoid lists of trim level features/options, which become long laundry lists, and large tables, which makes the article into a comparison guide. Details regarding the features of trim levels should be written (summarized) in paragraph form. --Vossanova ^o< 15:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participate!

Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.

I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Vauxhall Cavalier

94.9.166.85 (talk) insists on changing the Cavalier article to make it seem like an independent Vauxhall product. Fine, one could argue where the line goes, but this following sentence is not acceptable in any way:

Launched with a 1584 cc engine in 1975 as a 1976, model, the Cavalier was a restyled version of the German Opel Ascona, toriginal styled seperatly to the equivelent Opel Ascona B. Along with the Saloon a Hatchback and an Estate was also on the drawing board. These did not make production and ultimatly the Cavalier ended up sharing some styling and components with the Opel Ascona B. But the car is far from just a re-badge of the Opel. Produced initially at the GM plant in Antwerp, Belgium.

Not only is the grammar and spelling atrocious, but nothing is referenced. These are obviously good faith efforts, I have posted on the users talkpage hoping to engage him/her in a dialogue, but I would like to have another editor behind me in some way. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd oppose any effort to describe the Cav as a Vauxhall, in particular because the design was on & for a corporate platform, & based on an Opel to begin with. (Yes, this does call in question the origins of many modern cars... Is the Taurus actually a Ford, or a Stude, frex? ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Daewoo and Chevrolet in South Korea

As reported by Chosunilbo, the Daewoo brand is being phased out from South Korea and being replaced by Chevrolet (as used internationally). Thus, the Daewoo Kalos replacement will be named "Chevrolet Aveo" in South Korea, and the facelifted Daewoo Winstorm will become the "Chevrolet Captiva". The replacement for the Daewoo Tosca (derived from the next-generation Chevrolet Malibu) will also be introduced as Chevrolet in South Korea, although the actual nameplate has yet to be revealed.

So, should we rename the articles Daewoo Kalos and Daewoo Winstorm to "Chevrolet Aveo" and "Chevrolet Captiva", respectively? OSX (talk • contributions) 13:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, sensible news from Daewoo. Who'd have thought? Anyhow, I thought the policy was to use the first name used on a car if it has changed during the history of the model, but this might be a justifiable exception to that rule.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The next generation Aveo (Sonic in North America) will not be called "Daewoo Kalos" (or "Daewoo Gentra"). So the article will therefore exist under a title that only applies to the first generation (and only half of its production run, as the T200 Kalos became Gentra after the T250 facelift). The name "Aveo" applies to all variants (the next generation will only be called "Chevrolet Sonic" in North America; "Aveo" will continue to be used in Europe and Asia).

The policy of "[using] the first name used if it changed during the model cycle" is not actually an official convention (it may be another one of our long list of unwritten ones). I would have thought that if there was a discrepancy over the name in the original market, then the name that best fits the policy of WP:Common name should apply. Previously, this would have been "Daewoo Kalos" as that name was used in Europe and Australia before they were rebranded as Chevrolet and Holden, respectively. Now that the "Chevrolet Aveo" name is going to be used in South Korea (and is currently used in most markets, except China and Australasia), for sake of consistency, the article should remain as a multi-generation page (that needs splitting desperately). OSX (talk • contributions) 23:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposed change, I was just trying to have us exhaust any opposing arguments in advance. As for the unwritten convention, it seems like one that would be hard to put into solid legal form but a useful one nonetheless.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have initiated page move discussions for Daewoo Kalos and Daewoo Winstorm at Talk:Daewoo Kalos. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Jowett Jupiter specifications error

The Jowett Jupiter page lists, in the specifications section, the weight of the vehicle as "2100 pounds (462 kilogram)" - obviously at least one of those numbers has to be in error. Xuancris (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither seem particularly credible. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is it neither credible? The metric conversion was wrong. It is now corrected. Malcolma (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I got my units mixed up: I was thinking 2,100 kg (too heavy) and 462 kg (too light). OSX (talk • contributions) 12:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Split of Volkswagen

I would like to get some input and feedback of splitting the Volkswagen article into this:

Volkswagen, List of Volkswagen vehicles, History of Volkswagen

Please participate in the discussion here: Talk:Volkswagen. Thanks, L Kensington (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hypercar (supercar)‎

CZ bringing up the term "boastful superlative" reminded me of what may be the worst article in our little WikiProject. Take a look at this thing. I don't think there is anything salvageable, but it is a real term used (occasionally) in the automotive press. What do you folks think should be done. I once boldly tried to just redirect it to Supercar, but it got quickly reverted and I didn't feel like pushing it at the time. --Leivick (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge with supercar and make a brief mention of it there. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Neither of these terms is solidly defined across the industry - hence there is little of merit to say about either of them. There is certainly no justification for having two articles. SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge with supercar and never mention the word hypercar again. I remember going to a "Hypermarket" in Italy once (Ipermercado), but there is no article called Hypermarket (supermarket), is there? Just boastful nonsense.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the article could just be about the actual word itself, e.g its media use and how it is a 'BS', rather than listing supercars. Otherwise, merge. --Pineapple Fez 21:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge no, AfD. Almost the entire justification of the article seems to depend on the opinions of Jeremy Clarkson. No justification for an article at all. --Falcadore (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Škoda 742

If anyone is interested, someone has changed the entire categorization of the Škoda 105-136 (742 modelcode) and it has now become very hard to find anything. I would welcome all who are interested to visit Commons:Category:Škoda 742 and view the changes. The changes are overcategorizing in my opinion, leaving tons of empty categories and making it hard to find anything at all. Very confusing altogether, especially for those who aren't well versed in Škodas. There is also an attempt at a debate on the talkpage; this is relevant because the user in question (SuperTank17) has made similar changes to Fiat 126 (and perhaps other Commons categories).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

NUMMI and Tesla Factory

I highly doubt that a name change and a change in ownership warrants a completely new article for the same subject. I think that one should be merged with another. Please provide input. Thanks. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely should be merged. Same facility different name. Straight forward to merge them too. --Leivick (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 04:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think NUMMI would be the more appropriate title per WP:Common name. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 04:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, half an hour to form a concensous. I thought I spent way too much time on Wikipedia but it looks like I have to increase my checks to more frequent than 30 minutes. NUMMI was a commercial entity, not a factory. The land and buildings were handed over to Tesla but NUMMI itself (the commercial entity) was not. I suggest that the NUMMI article remain as it was with just a comment to say that the assets were passed to Tesla. The Tesla Motors article can mention that it bought the factory from NUMMI (or Toyota or GM as the case may be). Currently the Tesla factory doesn't deserve an article of its own.  Stepho  (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, nearly forgot - the proposed changes should have been mentioned on the talk pages for NUMMI, Tesla Factory and Tesla Motors.  Stepho  (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with a bold merger. If someone thinks it is a problem they can revert and we can discuss. No need to send everything through committee first. --Leivick (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I done the revert and my part of the discussion is as I said above (ie NUMMI was a commercial entity, not the land and buildings). I've also made a comment on those talk pages to point to this discussion.  Stepho  (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I agree with the original consensus in that 2 articles on one subject is just silly, NUMMI should be merged with the Tesla factory page, Passionless (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and on a side note, since there are many people here, could someone help me with editing the Tesla Motors page, in particular I think the history section needs major condensing, though the only other serious editor of the page is kinda against me on doing this without more people agreeing, thanks, Passionless (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the pretty clear choice here is to name the article Tesla Factory and say in the lead that it was formerly called NUMMI. The NUMMI article as it stands now is about the factory not the commercial entity which never had much of life outside the joint production facility. --Leivick (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if the NUMMI article currently only discusses the factory and not the commercial entity, there is always the potential for this to be added. The lead does seem to insinuate that NUMMI was the factory and not a joint venture as such. If Stepho is correct that NUMMI is a commercial entity, then it has little relationship with Tesla other than a shared facility of assembly.

Would we combine an article about two unrelated famous/notable individuals just because they both lived in the same property at some point in time? OSX (talk • contributions) 08:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know the commercial entity never had any function beyond its legal purpose as the joint operator of the factory. --Leivick (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it seems awkward to maintain a single article for two entirely different entities (which just happened to share the same plant). Also, I am not sure if I am entirely convinced by your assertion of limited function either. If Pontiac had the Vibe, and Toyota had the near identical Matrix, then some sort of design and development collaboration would have had to occur somewhere between both manufacturers. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I change my mind, the two articles should be seperate articles as the difference between the two is more than just a name, but the product and ownership are quite different, with both being notable enough on their own. Passionless (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we have a separate article for Fremont Assembly, the plant's former life before NUMMI. --Sable232 (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Assistance call to complete Leaf GA1 review

As some of you are already aware the Nissan Leaf article is undergoing GA review. Since nowadays my availability to edit is limited and a second GA review just began today (see Talk:Plug-in electric vehicle/GA1) I request your assistance to do the tasks required to complete the improvements and changes requested by the Leaf's reviewer. OSX is already contributing and additional hands are welcome, so I can try to take care of the PEV review (which will require more work than the Leaf article). I will work a bit more on the Leaf article (mainly, fill in missing refs since I know the article very well). If you want to contribute go to Talk:Nissan Leaf/GA1 to check for pending tasks and do not forget to flag the reviewer on the changes made. Thanks. --Mariordo (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: Just in case. I nominated five articles for GA in late September and early October. By December only the Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil was reviewed and granted GA. Now these two are up for review, and I hope the other two will not come up soon. See details on the status here--Mariordo (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to continue assisting with the Leaf article and also the separate Chevrolet Volt nomination. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Large crufty additions to roadcar articles

Can someone take a look at some recent very large fancruft style additions to roadcar articles containing technical specifications without context of racecar versions of these roadcars. Should they be deleted as pure cruft?

• Audi A4
• Chevrolet Corvette C6.R
• Mercedes-Benz C-Class

Thank you. --Falcadore (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would delete those as too detailed info -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete entirely, un-encyclopaedic technical list. Maybe a compromise could be reached with external links pointing to this information? OSX (talk • contributions) 15:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Until the racers get their own pages, this is junk. Delete. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it in the C6.R article, on the basis it isn't a road car. Unless you want to argue that tech specs of a race car in a race car article is crufty as well. --Pc13 (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It is rather crufty and redundant. We have a template specifically for racing cars (Template:Racing car) that can easily contain the relevant information. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Should have mentioned Ford Puma‎ as well. --Falcadore (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely some undue weight on the subject of the Racing Puma there. Letdorf (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

This editor has been doing this across several articles.

• Audi R10 TDI
• Ferrari F430
• Sprint Cup Series

--Falcadore (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

American Automobile Association cleanup

American Automobile Association is currently tagged for cleanup and review regading WP:NPOV and content policies. The article is marked as High-Importance with WikiProject Automobiles. All editors are welcome to help improve the article. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Input requested for edit war regarding safety ratings

The opinion from a third (or more) editor would be appreciated at Talk:Toyota Vitz#Edit war regarding the formatting of safety ratings (prose versus the displaying of actual stars) and the notability of real-world crash data. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Trucks.

Is there not a section of wiki dedicated just for trucks? --Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Trucks     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     19:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Cylinder block

This article (see Talk:) has been identified for some time as being (according to opinion) either a poor article, or else an article that belonged under a different name relating more closely to US V8 big & small block engines. In the last day or two an editor has WP:BOLDly decided to rework this, something which has certainly been overdue.

The results though probably warrant some overview from other editors within this project. Related articles are:

• Cylinder block
• Engine block
• Monobloc engine

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Monsoonshield

The article Monsoonshield has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for reference found a few mentions of this term, it appears the more popular term is Window deflector, which does not have an article, I am not able to envision an article on the subjet that meets Wikipedia expectations, fails WP:N unreferenced for 4 years

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

MG Cars

Following a bold (and now reverted) renaming of the MG Cars article, I have proposed a different page title. Votes and comments are invited on the talk page. Letdorf (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Flag icons in infobox

Just been editing the Vauxhall Carlton article, and added flag icons to the infoboxes. Is this a good thing? (sent from shared PC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.219.185 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, this flag thing has been discussed here millions of times and general concensus and WP:MOSFLAG is that we dont use them -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: List of Mazda MX-5 colors and special editions

I have proposed the article "List of Mazda MX-5 colors and special editions" for deletion here for those interested in participating. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ferrari 375

Hi - anybody know the appropriate relationship between 1954 Ferrari 375 and Ferrari America? The former obviously pushes one side of the legal dispute in its second half, but I assumed that the first half is more or less OK (after a little editing). Is there another article it should be merged with, or is it best as a standalone article? Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the first one's been deleted (copyright vio?) so question is now irrelevant. 4u1e (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nissan Leaf compact or mid size?

As some of you may be aware the Nissan Leaf article is currently undergoing GA review, and as such, any content dispute will quick-fail this GA nomination. An anon editor yesterday switched the lead to state that the Leaf is a mid size not a compact, so temporarily and for the sake of consistency I changed the infobox to mid size (US) adding the RS that supports such classification. The dilemma here is that Nissan always said the Leaf is a compact but last November the US EPA issued the Leaf equivalent fuel economy it compared its fuel efficiency within the mid size class see here, thus creating the present confusion. Nissan Leaf's US site now omits any classification.

Considering the expertise of editors in this project, I request your contribution in achieving consensus on how the Leaf should be properly classified so that we can correct the article without long disputes. My first take would be to state in the infobox that is "mid size (US)" and "compact (international)" and omit in the text any classification in the lead by just saying ... is a mid-sized five-door hatchback electric car manufactured... Please state your comments below. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Per this Autoweek article, Nissan seems happy with the "mid-sized" designation. I'm no expert in size-ratings, but it seems reasonable to leave the size rating as designated by the EPA and endorsed by Nissan. That said, I would go with whatever consensus is achieved in this discussion. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

From the exterior, the Leaf does probably look more like a compact, but it is the interior size that counts according to the EPA. The Nissan Tiida (Versa) is also a compact, but due to its interior size, is classified as a mid-size. The Prius shares similar dimensions with the compact Corolla, yet due to its interior packaging, is classified as mid-size. If the EPA says it is mid-size, then the Leaf should be regarded as mid-size here. If you can reliably cite a source that says something along the lines of, "the Leaf is mid-size according to the EPA, but has been widely noted to share similar external dimensions to many compact cars", then feel free to do so. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My first take would be to state in the infobox that is "mid size (US)" and "compact (international)". There's no internationally agreed size class, only various regional ones, so that wouldn't be right. A Leaf isn't "compact" in, say, Europe, because we have a different name for that class of vehicle.

Considering the expertise of editors in this project... Ho-ho, very amusing. We have editors here, not experts.

I would go with whatever consensus is achieved in this discussion. We should go with what reliable sources say, not decide for ourselves.

The EPA has, for quite a while now, defined cars by their "interior volume" (combined passenger and cargo space),[9] so their external dimensions aren't really relevant. "Mid-size car" (in America) is an invention of the EPA, so if they say that's what the Leaf is, shouldn't we just follow Nissan's lead and acquiesce? However, I best prefer the suggestion to omit it entirely from the lede. It constantly annoys me that so many articles in WP state the EPA's definition of a car's size class as if it were some kind of absolute which applies worldwide. It's a descriptor that should best be limited to the infobox (or, if I had my way, categorization and nothing else). --DeLarge (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Different countries define cars by different measures - internal volume (EPA), external volume, wheelbase, overall length. If they differ for the same car then all we can do is list the differences (with the supporting references). Also note that just saying 'Nissan says' is misleading because Nissan USA my say quite different things than Nissan Japan, Nissan UK, etc. In the US it would be quite natural for Nissan US to follow the EPA. It is also to Nissan USA's advantage to compare the economy of their lightweight car to heavier cars. But Nissan Japan would be more likely to state the classification given by the government bodies - even if it differs from that given by Nissan USA. I haven't followed all the links but http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62G2MB20100318 says it is built on the same line as the Juke compact crossover. http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/17/nissan-announces-european-prices-for-leaf-under-30-000-after-i/ says it looks like a compact family car. The US may be the biggest market but it can't override what other countries say. For myself, its external size is typical of a compact. I would drop the infobox classification (which doesn't handle complications well) and add some text in the main body to list the differences eg 'The US EPA classifies this as a mid-sized car based on interior volume while other countries classify it as a compact based on exterior dimensions).  Stepho  (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Its a small family car ... -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I will assume that you have a reference for that. And that's the problem, we can find multiple, valid, official references that define it differently. If the US EPA says that it is a mid-size car then in the US it is a mid-size car - but not necessarily elsewhere. We must mention the different classifications in the text. The only real choice is whether the infobox has a single class (but which one, and the joys of edit wars), put both classes in (too complex) or leave it out (hey, where did that go?).  Stepho  (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If we know the body type, size/doors we can determine the class, if automaker says or anyone else says its supercar we cant use that as reference if it really is not -->Typ932 ^T·C 07:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A Leaf supercar would be something to see :)

The problem is that even knowing all those factors, different authorities combine them in different ways. Some use only interior dimensions (EPA), some use only exterior dimensions. If we make up our own formula then we are either doing original research or creating our own memes.  Stepho  (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

GM fullsize dimension comparison tables

Over the past few days, an editor has placed a table on every single GM fullsize car article comparing the dimensions of the 1974 model to the dimensions of the 1977 model. He's also spammed every talk page with some rant about conspiracies and propaganda (apparently, the reason he's using the 1974 dimensions is because he believes GM fudged the numbers in 1975 and 1976).

I didn't feel like reading though the whole treatise, but what I gather is that head and leg room and trunk space increased while shoulder room decreased (from my own personal experience I can say the downsized cars feel roomier in every way except overall width). I don't think we need these massive tables cluttering up articles (look at the mess on Buick Electra) just to prove someone's point. The infoboxes already have the exterior dimensions, they don't need to be duplicated for the sake of "comparison." --Sable232 (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah these should be removed as cruft. I see the point that the editor is trying to make, that there was some marketing babble in the mid 70s regarding the interior dimensions of these cars. However there is automotive marketing babble all the time, we don't need to try and correct this 35 year old borderline false advertising here. --Leivick (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

STP initials query

The Studebaker article at this section indicates that under Studebaker's ownership (according to their 1960 Annual Report) STP was short for the "Scientifically Treated Products" Division. This represents a change from "Scientifically Treated Petroleum", as per the STP article. Does anybody have some early company literature or other means of verifying what the intials have meant from time to time? If so, can you please post info and discussion at Studebaker Talk Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of SuperCars (top speed 240 mph or faster) for deletion

The article List of SuperCars (top speed 240 mph or faster) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SuperCars (top speed 240 mph or faster) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Falcadore (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Quarter Panel Article

The Quarter Panel Article has been rated a stub for several years. In addition to being rated a stub, it has a significant error in that a photo on the page misidentifies a fender as a quarter panel. I particpated in some recent edits of the related Fender Article and some of the material I contributed there is applicable to the quarter panel article.

It seems to me a major rewrite is in order. I'm wiling to contribute but believe my wiki skills are inadequate for me to be involved as a major participant. Bradkay (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think the image is a misidentification. As far as I know in almost all modern vehicles quarter panels and fenders are one and the same. Vehicles have front and rear quarter panels which in modern vehicles also act as fenders. This might be an American versus UK English issue. --Leivick (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

US auto industry usage of the terms is not interchangable. I don't have access to UK auto industry material. It would be good if someone with access to such information were reading. The fender article has it correct (last time I checked.) Bradkay (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I though as well. Maybe a merger would be appropriate? OSX (talk • contributions) 01:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger is appropriate if its believed the words are interchangable. I think the fender article shows they are not. Bradkay (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I see there have been some edits. I'm willing to work on expanding the article but would prefer having some guidance. Bradkay (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

New infobox?

Example

for example 1st generation
Manufacturer	Fiat
Production	2005-present
Class	Mini crossover SUV
Body style(s)	5-door hatchback

I was wondering, should we make new infobox, with default image size of 250px (maybe option to use different size also) and caption option to picture, as it seems that caption is used very often now (and the caption text styling/placement varies a lot) I was testing this in my sandbox, only problem is that it would need some work of existing pictures and captions, but it would bring some help for placing pictures you could just use Image= File:carpicture.jpg and caption as Caption=1956 Mercedes Someone with better understanding could make totally new box, as this current one is little bit out of date....maybe some bot could do all the changes? What do you think? I also lurked some other language wikipedias and many of them have fixed image sizes and so on... this our current box looks like some ancient version, which needs much of understanding (from beginner editors) how to edit those fields. This whole process would of course be huge and should be done someone who knows better the box scripting and bot using for changes. -->Typ932 ^T·C 09:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I support such a change of this nature, but only as an alteration to the existing inbox, not an entirely new one.

Maybe this would also make a good opportunity to implement the larger 300 pixel-wide image? OSX (talk • contributions) 00:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We would need some expert to implement these to be sure everything goes right, otherwise we could mess lots of articles, it would also be huge job for some bot to fix all images and captions, not sure how could this be done. -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't like the captions, they seem to be spreading to more and more articles so adding that function to the infobox would be a good idea. I don't see what we'd need to revamp the entire thing for though.

I can't remember what all I said last time the 300 pixel-wide infobox was proposed, but I know I mentioned that we'd have to unequivocally forbid left-aligned images in the same part of the page as the infobox (we should probably do that now, but with a 300px-wide box any text would be even more difficult to read). --Sable232 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

We could add that caption option probably quite easily as I been made in my test template, that would not need any must changes to current automobile articles. in my opinion it would be good idea to do to get all boxes to look same, now we have many different caption styles in use. We must also make clear rule when to use it, there is no need to double the infobox title there. -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)