Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Article improvement

I feel, one of the key article of this wikiproject, Automotive engineering needs a good revision and copy edit. I would love to help in the process as much as viable. Being a civil engineering student I am unknown of some key terms. In addition, i see the need of forming a new article Automobile engineering much famous in South asian countries including Nepal and India to flourish the information regarding the subject and make the area of study open to fellow readers.Franked2004 (talk)

Idea

I was thinking of creating a list of what we'd consider "reliable" and "unreliable" sources on the WP Automobiles project. Pinging such editors as @Andra Febrian, Mr.choppers, and Stepho-wrs: to see their opinions on this. 750h+ 04:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? I'm open for it but Wikipedia policy WP:RS feels sufficient for now. Andra Febrian (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like Top Gear (magazine), Classic and Sports Car, and Autocar (magazine) would be top-tier reliable, while Carsales and Autoblog might be on the concerning-spec, and blogspot and Best Selling Cars Blog would be unreliable. 750h+ 16:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:RS is largely sufficient, to be honest. If anything, I'd like to add a note regarding those spec compilation sites (automobile catalog, carfolio, and ultimate specs - in order of reliability IMHO) can be trusted for basic specifications but are considered to be of less weight than reliable, secondary sources. Same thing for manufacturers' publications - fine to verify specs, dates, etcetera, but not for anything contentious or any value statements.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Same, let's just follow WP:RS. Most of the the well-known car magazines are very reliable sources. The compilation sites I don't trust much - some of them have merely scraped data/images from my own site and I'm reasonably sure they do no fact checking of their own. Non-car magazines (eg New York Times) are fine for very basic facts but are usually not written by or for car enthusiasts - more like telling rich readers which car makes this year's best image statement. Manufacturers are also fine for basic facts (eg wheelbase, engine size, release dates but not power, emission or fuel economy figures) - as always, if there is a buck to made for "enhancing" the truth then it will be stretched within an inch of its life.

I'm not seeing a big problem with choosing reliable sources. Is this a major issue that you are seeing?  Stepho  talk  00:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna go against the grain here and say I actually think this is a decent idea since i've found many larger general sources which are considered reliable by WP:RS such as the NYT to be less reliable and substantially less detailed than smaller and less established enthusiast run news sites and blogs, and certainly less reliable than established enthusiast sites and magazines. There are also a handful of semi well established car news sites which seem to have suspect reliability but are cited in many articles. Off the top of my head, HotCars comes to mind, as its basically a quantity over quality content farm. TKOIII (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Late resp: I was just thinking about something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, which would help editors choose between what sources to and not to use 750h+ 13:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. This discussion so far has been about magazines and newspapers which are not exactly scientific studies, they're chat at the end of the day and often based on or consisting of paid material even if the final text is written by the publication. A decidedly reliable source can repeat the same press release as a decidedly unreliable source, doesn't change anything about the quality of the information. Unreliable claims should be made on case basis, and if a source can be found that is questionable without a reliable one being found by the editor, than the substance of the article should be considered more than putting a list together somewhere else. Rally Wonk (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Engine Charts

Hello! Remodeled The Engine Charts for the Honda K Engine To make it slightly more compact and a bit easier to read. Please give your opinion on this: Draft:Honda K Engine MotoMottor (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Pilot (automobile)

Pilot (automobile) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contains 3 different unrelated topics. That's a problem, since it is not a topic article, but a grabbag of independent topics that share a name. There are also other automobiles not in this article called Pilot listed at Pilot (disambiguation). -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Pilot (automobile)

65.92.247.96 (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: This has been split into 3 artricles -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Before I start a massive RM

I've been wondering for ages why articles about EVs in regions are all called "plug-in electric vehicle in X", for instance plug-in electric vehicles in the United States. I don't think that's the WP:common name (anymore?), and people almost uniformly refer to these cars as EVs now. Before I open a RM with >100 entries, I thought I would ask here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You may want to consider that an EV is technically any vehicle that is driven purely by electric motors and that the electricity may come from different sources. Sources may include purely batteries (PEV or battery EV), fuel cells (FCEV), a petrol engine (series hybrid or electric drivetrain), solar power and others. Add in petrol powered range extender options that can charge batteries but not fast enough to power the vehicle in motion.  Stepho  talk  00:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Is that true? The DOE defines an EV as relying on batteries. Similarly, the IEA defines an EV as a BEV + plug-in hybrids. The Wikipedia article on electric vehicle uses a 1996 source for its definition on the other hand. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

But that is a US only definition. Remember that Wikipedia is international. Australia defines 4 types of EV - BEV, PHEV, FCEV and regenerative hybrids. See https://arena.gov.au/renewable-energy/electric-vehicles . Other countries may differ again.  Stepho  talk  09:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Stepho - the current titles are clearer and more understandable internationally. --Sable232 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chrysler#Requested move 20 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chrysler#Requested move 20 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

First

After 20 years of this project being open, our featured list has been promoted! It is List of Mercedes-EQ vehicles for anyone who's interested. 750h+ 00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Toothed belt#Requested move 29 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Toothed belt#Requested move 29 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi people of the project, could i ask if you all consider Electrek a reliable source? 750h+ 11:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty spotty. I think it was discussed at RSN a while back. They were big on Tesla a while back (sycophant level) but that enthusiasm may have waned. A large portion of their content comes from a single author. If they are the best source you have it's probably content that we should question. Springee (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's fine for basic facts. I generally trust Fred Lambert's articles. As with any magazine, take care when they give opinions.  Stepho  talk  23:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Could i also get some opinions on Top Speed? 750h+ 08:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Top Speed the magazine is excellent. The TV show is utter crap presented by clowns for laugh value only.  Stepho  talk  10:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you're referring to Top Gear and the Top Gear TV series. I'm talking about Top Speed. Are we referring to the same thing? 750h+ 10:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. I was thinking of Top Gear. I have no opinion on Top Speed.  Stepho  talk  11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Tesla Model S

Hello contributors of the project, the article Tesla Model S, one of the most important electric vehicles of the 21st century, has been put up for FAC, if you would like to leave your comments, they'd be highly appreciated. Much thanks, 750h+ 13:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC concerning an article which may be of interest to this project

See Talk:Flying car#RfC on the inclusion of Whitehead's No. 21 machine in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Holden Commodore (VE)

I'd like to insight from a variety of editors. Would we call GoAuto, carsguide, drive.com.au, and carsales reliable sources? i plan to bring Holden Commodore (VE) back to FA from which it was demoted in 2020, and would like to make it one of the site's best articles. 750h+ 10:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I consider goauto.com.au and drive.com.au as completely trustworthy for facts and expert opinions. carsales.com.au is also trustworthy but only covers basic facts and does not offer opinions (expert or otherwise).  Stepho  talk  11:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Stepho. Pinging more experienced editors like @Andra Febrian, Springee, and Mr.choppers: to see their thoughts on these sources 750h+ 12:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

All of them should be fine, I used them several times. Andra Febrian (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Trustworthy, but obviously not gilt-edged references like newspapers and learned journals and the like. Good luck!  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with those sources but in general if the sites appear to have some level of editorial oversight and if the claims in question are not controversial I would err on the side of use with caution. Looking at the sites it appears they do offer articles and they aren't just some enthusiast blog (not that some of those blogs aren't really good). Yeah, I would be OK so long as the claims aren't extraordinary/red flag. Springee (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Most car websites do have some kind of the editor's opinion of some sort. On the safe side just avoid the car review articles. Andra Febrian (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Chrysler

An article that been involved with (Chrysler) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Stellantis North America). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Adriazeri (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent undiscussed page moves

For everyone's information, BrightDrop Zevo was recently moved to Chevrolet BrightDrop, and GMC (automobile) was recently moved to GMC (marque). The former appears to be at least technically correct, as GM recently announced that they're now selling those vans as Chevrolets. The latter, the previous title was the result of an RM, but that discussion was from 2011. --Sable232 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

For the latter, I think there should be a concistency within the project. Why does Pontiac, Plymouth, Mercury, Envoy, Geo use "(automobile)" but Mini, Rover, Sterling, Smart uses "marque"? Why MG is "MG cars"? Why is Chrysler (brand) named like that, is it because "marque" is associated with British English? Then why are we using "(marque)" for Chinese brands? I think this should get sorted out...

Andra Febrian (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It probably isn't possible to get a project-wide and trans-Atlantic consensus. If it was easy it would already have been done.

You might have already seen the various opposing thoughts in this recent discussion, that you started. Rally Wonk (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind a regional consensus. If the decision is to use automobile in America and marque for RoW, then so be it. But this time we can't really say that the title "GMC (marque)" is an inappropriate title, other than the fact that it is an undiscussed move. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally use British English so I recognise marque as being in respect to an automobile brand. If that’s not agreeable to speakers of North American English, or it’s not considered appropriate for use on a North American auto marque. Then brand would make sense. Adriazeri (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)