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.
Is there any need for category templates to be shown on archived discussion pages, and is there any way to block the category from being used but still allowing the template to be viewed on the page.
If anyone has any solutions please could they post a reply on my usertalk page, thanks Dreamweaverjack (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
AMC
Would anybody be interested in starting an AMC related task force/wikiproject? RC-0722communicator/kills 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes! — CZmarlin (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Count me in as well. I'm the editor/publisher of "American Motors Cars" Magazine, and am a sponsor of the "AMCyclopdia" (www.amcyclopedia.org). We;re trying to get as much info as possible on the AMCyclopedia site, but the couple of us doing most of the info adding really don't have a lot of time.
Farna (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybach Exelero
I need a user to rate the article Maybach Exelero. If the rating isn't that great, I'm going to bring it up to speed. Contact me when you do. The link is here.
Thanks --Carerra "I help newcomers! 22:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
rated now --— Typ932T | C 09:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks, the hardtop questions # 2, 3 and 4 I posted seven months ago feel orphaned and so abandoned. Anyone up to bail 'em out from being locked behind unacknowledged question marks? Pleeeze (sob) ... joeditt (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has "Reference Desks" for answering user questions that aren't covered in articles. The talk pages (such as this one) are not there for asking questions about the world in general - they are there for discussing the writing of the article they are related to. I answered your first question more out of courtesy than anything - but you're asking in an inappropriate place - and hence there is no guarantee (or even, likelyhood) of getting an answer. So...head over to Wikipedia:Reference desk (or, perhaps most appropriately: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous because there is no particular section for Automotive questions). There are a bunch of very knowledgeable people there - they'll either provide an answer from their own knowledge - or they'll use their wicked search skillz to dig an answer out from Wikipedia or the Internet in general. Good Luck! SteveBaker (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Alternative Userboxes
I created an alternate userbox for the Project, just in case some people don't like the current one. The code is: {{User:224jeff6/Userbox/WP Automobile Bugatti}}
and the end result is:
I'm going to make 3 more very soon. If you have any feedback on the box, contact me on my talk page. -- 224jeff6 TALK2ME 00:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
commented on ur talkpage --— Typ932T | C 09:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Holden
Hi, just letting you all know that the Holden article is now a featured article, bringing the total up to 11. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Awesome job on that to all of its contributors, by the way. It's an excellent piece of work. Duncan1800 (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I came across this whilst checking on a anon IP spammer contribution history, when this user was caught spamming on the Max Power (magazine). When I came across it, it was poorly written, cluttered with spam, not to mention that too much original research, would placing this article on CDS or Prod be a good idea as nothing on this have been verified for almost 2 years upto now. Willirennen (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That really could do with extensive re-writing... I particularly find this part ammusing: 'most cruise locations are also in close proximity to fast food restaurants such as McDonald's or Burger King.' A great deal of what's in seems to be based on assumptions and stereotypes. The subject of the article doesn't particularly interest me but I'd be quite happy to rewrite at least some of it. Can anyone else lend a hand in cleaning it up? Norman22b (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo
I am a major contributor to this article and I would like to have a rating assigned to it so I can bring it... you know up to "speed" no pun intended. Respond on my talk page! Thanks! --Carerra 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Crash test dummy at FAR
Crash test dummy has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nishkid64(Make articles, not love) 08:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't de-list the article from FA because of the lead paragraph or the photo issues neither problem is at all severe. But the lack of inline referencing is pretty horrific for any article - let alone an FA. I think a bit of 'grunt work' would allow more of the facts in the article to be referenced from the existing "Footnotes" sources - and doubtless a detailed study of the works listed under "References" would allow many of them to be used as inline citations to back up specific facts. With both sets of sources converted to inline cites - I think that enough of the article could be properly referenced to allow it to keep it's coveted gold star. Sadly, I don't have the time to attack that right now - but this is easy stuff, I'm sure someone will take it up. SteveBaker (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Help the Chevrolet Corvette.
The article on the Corvette needs to be cleaned up and if people could help me do it that would be great. I am a huge Corvette fan and would like to see this article with clear information and an easy to read lay out. Thank you very much to those of you who will help me. LAZZO (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Year linking has been seen as "A Bad Thing" for many years. Even the somewhat-useful idea of linking entire dates in order that user-preferences on data presentation can be maintained has fallen from favor. So by all means, keep removing those links wherever you find them! What is (perhaps) more useful is to use categories like Category:Vehicles introduced in 1959 which provide more intelligent back-linking from the year to what was new in that year. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree! Where, exactly, is the policy which states that year linking is "a bad thing"??? From what I can see, the policy is still to link years. The template page Template:Infobox Automobile makes no specific instruction to NOT link dates. Furthermore, the layout page Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Layouts specifically DOES include date links in both the body text AND the infobox. The conventions page Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions makes no specific comment on not linking dates. This discussion started because User:Typ932 started by needlessly removing links on Fiat 131 (along with other similar edits I have made), without actually adding anything of positive or constructive value to the article! It was discussed on User talk:Typ932#Fiat 131 and User talk:Teutonic Tamer#Year links, but Typ932 has yet to provide any concrete answers to either my request for the formal policy, nor anything to counter my very valid reason for date linking. This BS has basically wasted most of my day when I could have been actively contributing to the article, rather than this "fire fighting". Cars are usually developed when certain fashions, fads, political, and other world influences prevail, and linking the date provides the reader to look at those prevailing issues - therefore, according to this Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Dates - dates should be linked. At the end of the day, no one is force to click on any year links - so what is the problem? Furthermore, whilst using categories of vehicle introdued in 19** is an excellent tool, this simply restricts the reader to research similar cars, and nothing else! Yours, frustrated... -- Teutonic Tamer 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that articles are full of meningless links if every word is linked, if you look other car articles almost all have been cleared from infoboxes, so now we should add links to every article?? if somebody want see what happened year 1987 it isnt big task to write that in go box... but Ill wait what will others say about this and those automobile project conventions arent up to date anymore, seems that this group has been quite inactive lately... --— Typ932T | C 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Erm . . . who said anything about if every word is linked??? This discussion is ONLY about linking dates, and nothing else! Fair enough, if you do find an article with an obsessive quantity of meaninless links, then delete them. However, as I have repeated stated, dates are meaningful, and do aid the reader to further their understanding of the subject matter. The fact that you have been clearing them from the infoboxes is clearly AGAINST the current policy. Concern about Wikipedia "automobile conventions" being out of date is not an excuse to "do your own thing" - if you are so pasionate about changing the policies, then raise the issue in the appropriate section, and allow the administrators to define and set in place any new or revised policies.
The fact that Wikipedia is such a valuble and efficient tool, is down to the fact that it actively encourages links - so usining your logic - removing links from dates completely goes against the fundamental ethos. Remember, some people don't even know how to type a URL (or part of) in the address bar of their web browser, and can only navigate the interweb by way of embeded links! -- Teutonic Tamer 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:CONTEXT says: Only make links that are relevant to the context.
Provide links that aid navigation and understanding.
Avoid obvious, redundant, and useless links.
...links to years are certainly "obvious" - and I'd certainly argue "useless"...but more importantly, it goes on to say:
'It is counterproductive to hyperlink all possible words. This practice is known as "overlinking".[1] A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following....and later...Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. As a general rule of thumb, link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic.
This is not described in the Automotive style pages because we defer to the MOS in such matters. I've put enough articles through FA - and I can assure you that the current trend is to remove year links. SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Steve, kindly keep the content of your discussion to linking dates only. Linking dates is clearly NOT defined as "overlinking", so your comment on that issue is completely irellevent.
As I have repeatedly stated, linking dates positively DOES "aid navigation", and it positively does help with "understanding" the subject matter of automobiles. Take the de-facto textbook "Hillier, V.A. (Editor) (2004). Hillier's fundamentals of motor vehicle technology. 5th ed Book 1. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. ISBN0748780823. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)" - it constantly refers to individual years, along with decades (such as 1980s) to clealy add valuble insight in the subject matter. Regarding your comments with specific regard to linking individual "days of the year", "centuries", or "millennia" - again, this is irellevent, because this has not been an issue, and has not been discussed.
Furthermore, the "Automotive style" pages certainly do not defer to the generalistic MoS. Where specific subject area styles and protocols are developed which may differ from the MoS, then these specific styles should be followed, even if they are at odds with the MoS - else why would the specialist protocols be still listed. The fact that you personally remove year links does not make it the standard Wikipedia policy, even if you personally feel it is the "current trend". The Automotive style policy which is currently valid is to still link dates, rgds. -- Teutonic Tamer 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a warning in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) about overlinking and it specifically warns against linking years unless there is good reason. There are some articles, not just automobile ones, where every time a year is mentioned it is linked, this is clearly overlinking but to say that years should never be linked is clearly over prescriptive. My inclination is never to link years or dates unless there is a very good reason. If the issue here is that date linking is not covered in the Automobile Conventions page then that can easily be changed to bring it into line with Wikipedia general practice.
Malcolma (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I forced myself to be liberal on this subject in the past. That is, until I saw someone linking not only the year, but also the month. So, what good is it for anyone to learn that the same month the Grandeur Illusionist GTL was introduced, Caesar was killed??
To be perfectly frank, whenever I see someone linking dates, I think that there´s some small-minded person wanting to show off that he/she knows how to link just something.
I agree with Malcolma; no linking dates without a good reason.
Finally, an encyclopedia should be, in my point of view, enlightening, in the best sense of the word. Linking dates in allmost all cases is absolutlely pointless, because it does not create any new insights. Therefore, linking dates is not Enlightenment, it is the opposite, namely Obscurantism. And this really makes me angry. As I have stated elsewhere, in this so-called information age, the art is not in drowning the reader with pointless facts ("facts"), but to streamline the overwhelming mass of info down to something useful. (That`s why I also strongly oppose Trivia sections, see below.)
We need a consensus on that, I think - if wikipedia as a whole is meant to be more than a pasttime for bored jerx (granted, it`s only cars; but for me, this is a matter of principle). --328cia (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Cadillac Bus
An article called Cadillac Bus has been created by User:Texushotel which appears to be a hoax. I'm not familiar with the auto industry, and was wondering if somebody knowledgeable from this wiki project could confirm it is a hoax. Your help would be appreciated. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to be an expert - there are zero relevent Google hits for "LX4000 Cadillac" and no mention of it on the Cadillac web site. This needs to be speedy-deleted. SteveBaker (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Being a hoax isn't a suitable reason for speedy deletion, speedy deletion was refused. It stands for five days... Rich257 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been making adds here, & had a thought. Clymer reproduces quite a few ads, & there's often enough in them to start a stub page. Somebody who lives in the cities some of these cars were built might be able to find ads in back issues of the local newspaper on microfilm at the local library & do the same. Trekphiler (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You are history
Looking at automotive industry, I don't see historical production figures. Are there any? For instance, 1915 {U.S. only?} was 825930, 1916 (U.S. only?) was 1525578, 1917 (U.S. only?) was 1745792, 1918 (U.S. only?) 943436, per Floyd Clymer, Treasury of Early American Automobiles, 1877-1925 (New York: Bonanza Books, 1950), p.166, 173, & 181. Also, the first wrecker was introduced 1917, p.173. Trekphiler (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2008 & 06:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope I'm not stepping on any toes with this, but I moved [[Ajax (automobile)]] to [[Ajax (American automobile)]] to free up [[Ajax (automobile)]] as a seperate dab page, since there are a few cars with the same name. Trekphiler (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, TT has his own opinions concerning things that sometimes run contrary to achieved consensus (see the year linking dispute above). I wonder if this supercar question will escalate again or will ever go away. --328cia (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC) (a Teuton, BTW)
I think the cat should probably be nominated for deletion again, unless anyone has a good reason not to. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
TT has some weird habit to add all kind of extra words like trademark ®, super, hypercar etc, but we have to remember this is Encyclopedia not some fan page. I think everybody more familiar with this Automobile project are well informed the way to write but new users dont know everything... --— Typ932T | C 19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, he´s doing a lot of good things, too, like the recent Ford Fiesta clean-up; and I love the little flag icons he´s adding to the infoboxes. --328cia (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that flag thing should be take under conversation here also, as there is quite many articles which have those in infoboxes, this should be general concensus to use or not use those flags, that we get similar infoboxes to every page. --— Typ932T | C 19:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Automobiles: Articles of unclear notability
Hello,
there are currently 11 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
I notice a lack of consistency between the two Ferrari road car timelines. Consider the models listed for 1968: {{Early Ferrari vehicles}} lists 365 GTC, 275 GTB/4, 365 GTS and 365 GT, whereas {{Ferrari vehicles}} lists 365 GTB/4 Daytona, 365GT and Dino 206. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to make corrections myself. Another point to note: {{Ferrari vehicles}} is trancluded twice into the Ferrari article (once at the bottom of the article and once in the "Road Cars" section). Also, is there any reason why {{Early Ferrari vehicles}} ends at 1968 rather than 1969 (i.e. the end of the 1960s)? DH85868993 (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
GETRAG vs. Getrag
The correct capitalization of GETRAG/Getrag has been called into question again. Those wishing to participate in the survey and discussion may do so at Talk:GETRAG.~ Dusk Knight 22:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
An IP user has added Valencia, Venezuela as the assembly for about a dozen different GM, Ford, and Chrysler products. Can anyone verify this?
IP contributionsIFCAR (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Carabobo Assembly Plant (DaimlerChrysler de Venezuela) currently assembles the Jeep Cherokee (Liberty) Jeep Grand Cherokee, and some Mercedes models in Valencia, Carabobo for the Venezuelan market. Going back in time, it produced the Neon (see [1]) as well as a bus chassis (see [2]) — CZmarlin (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we might want to consider replacing the image that is currently displayed as the standard to shoot for on the WPA conventions page. The image is displayed at right.
While certainly not a bad photo, the lighting, angle, wheel display, and cropping are sub-optimal. I think we have many better choices available that illustrate the proper angle, clarity, and cleanliness. I've put in some suggestions below, based on looking through a few pages.
Hey! None of my pics are there. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree with IFCAR: we don't need every image to be absolutely perfect, but it's deeply unhelpful to have imperfect images as the "example" good images. – Kieran T(talk) 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Second that IFCAR is right, we need a new pic, the SLK one is probably the best of the above images, it works for me. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The SLk picture isnt good, too mych ligthning,reflections on that, I think Mazda3 is best of those pictures --— Typ932T | C 07:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
My favorite was also the Mazda3, except for the relatively low resolution. But I'm sure there are lots of other nice images on WP that people can suggest. IFCAR (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
For BDS sake, I nominate THIS image.
I see that BD is upset that none of his images are being used. As a result, I nominate this image. Just bustin! I in reality prefer the Volvo S60 image. Karrmann (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Not as I dominate that Acura CSX! -- Bull-Doser (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 2007 Acura CSX
Back to the topic at hand, that CSX image is OK, but I don't think it is up to example image standards, mainly due to the excessive shadows. But, BD, I don't like how you rank images on who makes them. We don't care if one article has images exclusively made by you or not, or who makes them, as long as they are of good quality, and none of your pics are up to example image quality, at least in my opinion. I wouldn't have cared if Stalin made that S60 pic, I like it because I believe it is of superior quality. Karrmann (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The CSX's main problem is that there is a person visible in it, which is strongly discouraged. It is also discouraged to have other cars in the background when possible, so our Ideal Photo that we want users to be aspiring towards should not have them.
But aside from jokingly submitted images, can we move on from a consensus that we should change the picture to what we should change it to? I'd be open to any of the ones I put up (as long as no one has a problem with the Mazda3's resolution), and probably many more. We just need to do something. IFCAR (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the Santa Fe image is particularly good, although perhaps a little dark on some people's screens. But the lighting of the car itself seems pretty good and there's nothing distracting in the image. Perhaps a tiny bit of tweaking of the levels, and a re-upload, could make it more compatible with dark screens! – Kieran T(talk) 18:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Santa Fe is quite ok, maybe slightly too dark but otherwise good, the Volvo pic has too much reflections/light --— Typ932T | C 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Santa Fe is definitely too dark, I think it is going to be hard to agree, but just to throw another out there, the Impala, while boring is very clear and shows what we are looking for in terms of images very well. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
How about this?
I've been trying to minimize self-nominations (it's hard, because they're the ones I know best), but how about the Civic photo at right? (I have the original in case someone thinks it should be rotated; as some of you well know, I have not exactly excelled at judging when an image is properly rotated.)IFCAR (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
A well-exposed looking pic from a good angle, but since we're being picky (why not, since we're choosing an example to give), I'd say the background of that one is a little too busy and distracting. – Kieran T(talk) 20:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the civic image once rotated is fine. It is difficult to find a background with less in it than that. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
its quite ok --— Typ932T | C 21:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
What I mean about the background is that brickwork. The ones with a solid wall, a field, or a line of trees are less eye-catching... a minor point; I'd have no objection to perhaps using the Civic one for now until another is suggested. – Kieran T(talk) 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
A car that is not a busy street or with a distracting building
One of the problems I have observed in many images are their backgrounds. In most cases they are too busy and or distracting to the focus of the picture: the automobile. Although the image on the left needs to be cropped to be closer to the vehicle, but it is at least what I think what a more "generic" setting of the car should be. However, they should not consist of shots of the cars in parking lots, on busy streets, in front of buildings, or in crowded car shows. Just my $0.02 — CZmarlin (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Most photos are of cars in parking lots because that's where most cars can be found. It's obviously not ideal, which is why none of the images anyone has seriously suggested so far for the "ideal" is in a parking lot or in another scene crowded with other cars. But is a building in a background really distracting from the focus of the subject car? I think that's approaching the point of silliness. What makes grass less distracting than a wall? IFCAR (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing per se. Just look at that particular wall though. It's inherently bad for electronic display because it has bright, high-contrast regular lines which will shimmer slightly on some displays when dithered to form that thumbnail, and are just as bright as the car. The point is more an aesthetic/photographic one though, rather than technical. But overall let's not get too embroiled in this: we're choosing an example. Surely we can find *one* picture that everyone likes!? ;-) – Kieran T(talk) 23:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this also distracting?
For this particular example I can understand. But that wasn't my impression of what CZMarlin was saying. How about at left, for a less-distracting building?
Or how about some of the others from the original gallery, like the LS400 or Mazda3? I'd be satisfied with either of those, if no one has a problem with the 3's resolution. IFCAR (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone? Something? IFCAR (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Not if IFCAR is a part of this discussion(Dddike (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC))
Put the Mazda3 it is good enough, this isnt so serious, it is just some help/convention page. --— Typ932T | C 19:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
IFCAR's new Civic is by far the best of the ones posted. The background is not distracting - it is nice, solid, and in a colour contrasting with the car. The natural lighthing is wonderful and provides for good contrast, almost no distracting reflections or shadows on the body. It is also unique in the group posted in that it looks good in most sizes (both as thumbnail and big picture) PrinceGloria (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The background contrasts with the car but I found the red/white brickwork to be very distracting.
I think it would be unfair to suggest in the "image to aspire to" that users should digitally alter their images. There are quite a few that have been fully dropped-out to have no background distractions, but I don't think people can be expected to produce something like that of high quality. I'd also support the Mazda3, but something about the Marlin's lighting just seems really weird to me. IFCAR (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
To get the decision finally Ill suggest that we vote for examples given, I can start Mazda3- One --— Typ932T | C 20:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Lexoids are really good, I see nothing wrong with promoting some photoediting. I did to my photos uploaded here, perhaps to a lesser extent. Otherwise, still the Civic. The Mercedes and Mazda3 were taken too close to the objected and are distorted, Mazda's background is distracting and the resolution is too low, while the Mercedes melts too much with the background and has too much relfection on the windscreen. The Marlin is lit from the wrong side, the side in the picture stays in the shadow. Besides, I am not that keen on the background, it distracts from the car. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
more head on view
The reason for the sun light from the "wrong" side is to highlight the Marlin's straight character line on the side and the shape of its slightly kicked up rear fender profile. Having sunlight fall directly on the vehicle's left side would blend everything together, thus the image would make it look as if the car had a smooth side surface and an almost straight body from the top of the front headlamps all the way to rear. Sometimes this is the only way to show the design of an automobile and there is no "enhancement" of any kind in this photograph. This image is also available in a higher resolution in the Wikimedia Commons. Furthermore, my preference is for "natural" backgrounds (such as the Chevy Silverado pick up) rather than various distractors from the actual vehicle. These include the Civic's "falling" wall of bricks and trees (because of the angle of the camera) as well as the rather strange placement of a lamp pole that seems come out of the roof of this car; or the setting of the Mazda that does not need to be standing on a handicap reserved parking space. I think that a series of sample images on the convention page should suggest appropriate settings to help photographers illustrate subject vehicles. — CZmarlin (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
So, ah, are we doing something? Or are we going to stick with the Yukon image that I don't think anyone could call Wikipedia's best, because it's easier than consensus? IFCAR (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, unless there's any objection, I'd like to put the picture at right as the new example image, at least until a consensus can be reached at replacing it. Is there any objection to using the picture at right instead of the current GMC Yukon photo? IFCAR (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that the car in image on the right be washed (you can see the dirt kicked up behind the front wheel on the lower body side), remove the trinket hanging from the inside rear view mirror, and position the vehicle so it does not have the tree trunk coming out of the car's roof. Once again, I think the "aspirational" images with as few problems as possible and to highlight the vehicles in the best possible light. It would be good to have more than one example to provide ideas for the contributors. Thanks — CZmarlin (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying this is perfect. I'm just saying it's significantly better than what's currently displayed, and I want to change the current image to something that's better while discussion over the Ultimate Best keeps stalling. Do you not think this Civic has fewer problems than the Yukon? IFCAR (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(1) I agree this Honda picture is from a better angle, and in other respects better, than the Yukon that got this exchange going.
(2) I strongly agree that the perfect car image does not exist.
(3) I therefore also agree that we need a small gallery - at least 3 images but maybe up to 10 - of 'good' car images, if we want to head down this road (and it seems we do). If you ONLY show a grey Honda in front of a grass bank then there will be a temptation to go around looking for grey cars in front of grassy knolls, and contributors who live in countries where grey is unfashionable and / or grassy knolls hard to find will get discouraged. Besides, if all the images of cars were grey with grass backdrops, you would achieve excessive uniformity which would be ... um ... unnecessarily dull. Of the eight that someone put up at the start of this exchange, my own favorite is that of the Lexus 400. Some of the others appear to have been taken from so close that the lens angle has been widened to a point that to my eye verges on distortion: then again, these more 'in your face' shots can be eye catching. But that Lexus image is white. So IF you went with the Civic and the Lexus shots THEN I think that a third one should ideally be more colorful. Red, blue, green... And maybe not produced by a third Japanese automaker? Here's one I quite like, though (in this context) I guess I'd like it more if it was red. Still, it does (also) answer the regular criticism that wiki is too much of a monoculture. I don't think they ever sold a lot of two stroke Auto Unions in the US...
Ok this is taking up a lot of time. So here is my idea to end discussion for the moment. I agree with Charles that having a few images would be good so lets put up a a few of our best say 3 or 4 and if one can be improved, replace it with a superior image with an explanation and if there is disagreement discuss on the appropriate talk page. Sound ok to everyone? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It might also be useful to have some "what not to do" photos - I don't mean really terrible photos - I mean one photo for each "Don't do this" point - and have each photo be perfectly good EXCEPT for that one problem. That might be more useful since it allows our potential car photographers see precisely what's wrong with each picture. SteveBaker (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
(Hmmm - I was going to say "Why don't we use a 'featured picture of the day' as our example...but there isn't one single car photo in the archive! Isn't that rather humiliating?) SteveBaker (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
What about this image of the Toyota Aurion. Currently, it is a featured picture nominee. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That pick is quite good and could be added to the subpage. If I was going to be nit picky I would complain about the front wheels not being turn away from the camera, but that is a minor point. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia as a source
I'm assuming we can't use Wikipedia itself as a reference/source for something, but I can't find a policy speaking to that. See this recent McLaren F1 change: [3]swaq 02:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there's something stronger than this somewhere, but for the moment: WP:VERIFY (a policy, not merely a guideline) says, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." (My bolding.) – Kieran T(talk) 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it's not allowed - I too have seen a very specific guideline about that - but I can't find it offhand. In theory, it should go like this: If a fact you need to reference is mentioned in another article - then there SHOULD be a reference for the fact in that article. You can go ahead and copy that reference into your article and you haven't broken any rules. If the fact you need from some other article is NOT referenced - then OBVIOUSLY you can't use that as a reference because it too is unreferenced. SteveBaker (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
came across this article Brabus Rocket on new page patroll, not knowing a thing about cars I thought I would bring it to your attention, so someone more knowledgeable can give it the once over. BigDunc (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks legit, just needs a lot of work and citations. swaq 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I thought that from a quick google search.BigDunc (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Krasnavian (talk | contribs) has added a link to a YouTube video in the Ferrari 250 GTO article. I removed it the first time as a possible copyright violation. However, the user has added it back in (at the very bottom of the page) with this edit, stating that he is the copyright holder. Although the video isn't that bad, I'm not sure it adds anything to the article. In addition, since the user claims he is the copyright holder I suspect a little self-promotion here. It seems to me that the primary options here would be either create an External Links section for it or move it to the talk page for discussion. Any recommendations? swaq 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the link under External Links for now. A quick Google search on the username shows that this guy is probably not lying about having owned a 250 GTO. Lucky... swaq 00:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Trivia sections
I don`t know how other folks feel about it, but personally, I`m sick and tired of trivia paragraphs containing absolutely pointless pseudo-information on Top Gear, Gran Turismo 1-2-3-4-5 and movie stuff. Can we reach a consensus to throw all this "information" overboard, as a rule? --328cia (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
To be perfectly frank on this matter, too: These trivia sections, it seems to me, are but a platform for 12-year-olds to "contribute" to WP. WP, however, if we take it seriously, is a grown-up thing...Therefore, in my opinion, we NEED a consensus to get rid of this stuff in order to keep the youngsters away and not giving them any pretense to "work" here. A matter of principle, again. --328cia (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes Im also tired of top gear in every car article..... --— Typ932T | C 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless its very relevant delete it along with refences to sightings of cars in pop videos and tv programmes. Malcolma (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. We may or may not continue to have an article on car spotting, but we don't need to be engaging in the activity here. Friday(talk) 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Year linking, again
I´ve added my two cents on that in the section above and hope to find a consensus on that, too, or else TT will link each and every year he`ll find. --328cia (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
(Copied for convenience:)
I forced myself to be liberal on this subject in the past. That is, until I saw someone linking not only the year, but also the month. So, what good is it for anyone to learn that the same month the Grandeur Illusionist GTL was introduced, Caesar was killed??
To be perfectly frank, whenever I see someone linking dates, I think that there´s some small-minded person wanting to show off that he/she knows how to link just something.
I agree with Malcolma; no linking dates without a good reason.
Finally, an encyclopedia should be, in my point of view, enlightening, in the best sense of the word. Linking dates in allmost all cases is absolutlely pointless, because it does not create any new insights. Therefore, linking dates is not Enlightenment, it is the opposite, namely Obscurantism. And this really makes me angry. As I have stated elsewhere, in this so-called information age, the art is not in drowning the reader with pointless facts ("facts"), but to streamline the overwhelming mass of info down to something useful. (That`s why I also strongly oppose Trivia sections, see below.)
We need a consensus on that, I think - if wikipedia as a whole is meant to be more than a pasttime for bored jerx (granted, it`s only cars; but for me, this is a matter of principle). --328cia (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
A new user has just created a Diesel supercar page. I don't know what to do with this, but I suspect the information should either be in the supercar article or not exist at all since we aren't using the supercar adjective for vehicles. swaq 20:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I redirected it to supecar, more or less crystalballery, we might as well have an electric supercar article as well. It might be worth a mention on the main supercar page though. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Mazda
I noticed that Mazda 6 and Mazda 3 redirect to some random other names that i have never heard before. Since the cars are known as the Mazda 6 and 3, why aren't the articles named that? I understand that those are the names that they are known by in Japan, but this is the English wikipedia where we use English. I hear that the cars are solely referred to by those names in Japan and no where else. The current names are misleading and as the "use english" page reads, we MUST use the most common English name. Strangely, the Mazda 626 and Mazda Capella have their own pages even though they are the same car. Capella being the Japanese name just like Atenza for the Mazda 6. I'd suggest moved the 6 and 3 to their proper English names. Grk1011 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed 123 times before for those specific articles, not to mention in other cases. The specific WikiProject Automobiles convention is to use the "original market" name. It has nothing to do with language, as this is not a linguistic issue, it is just the only proper solution that was found by this WikiProject taking into consideration not only this, but also many other factors. PrinceGloria (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the quick response. I guess its just one of those things that I'll have to get used to. Grk1011 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The existing site-wide guidelines encourage the use of the commonly-known name. When we have a name that's specific to one country, versus a name specific to the rest of the world, I know which one I would pick. We have the article Cary Grant, but this is not his original market name. Friday(talk) 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
We went through that so many times before. The current consensus works well in many cases, even if outsiders to the project are sometimes baffled by specific cases. It only works to broaden your knowledge to find out the Mazda3 is in fact a Mazda Axela :D PrinceGloria (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm. According to WP:NAME, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Are there any English speakers in the world, other than people in Japan who happen to speak English, who would recognize the Mazda3 as the Axela or the Mazda6 as the Atenza? Fritter (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There are many other factors to consider while naming automotive articles, so we adopted a solution that is the least controversial in PARTICULAR cases. Example - how would you name the Daewoo Kalos article? Chevrolet Aveo, Chevrolet Kalos, Daewoo Kalos, Daewoo Gentra etc.? We've got redirects so that no-one gets lost while searching for Mazda 3, Mazda3 or MAZDA3. And what about cars that go by different names in different English-speaking markets - Opel Astra (aka Holden Astra, Saturn Astra etc.), VW Golf/Rabbit, Fiat Bravo/Ritmo etc.? PrinceGloria (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
We can consider individual cases on their individual merits. This happened last time too- various editors gave their opinions on why, for the Mazda3, it's better to use the worldwide name than the Japanese name. PrinceGloria, however, disagreed and insisted that the Auto WikiProject had some different standards. Since he was willing to edit war over the name and nobody else was, he got his way. In my view, common sense and consensus indicate an answer different from his. He appears to have ownership issues. Friday(talk) 16:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
A bright line rule defaulting to the home market of the manufacturer may be a good idea, although this isn't clear to me. It may be just as good, if slightly more complex, to apply the rule only in cases where the model has different names in different English-speaking countries, defaulting to WP:NAME's preference for the common English word when there is no conflict. When there are conflicts, I can see how it would be irksome for different editors to debate which market is the largest or most important, and the home-market rule might be desirable. But with the Mazdas, it seems to produce the wrong result, given that the English-speaking world does not recognize the Axela or Atenza. Can you link to the guideline or discussion explaining this guideline? I can't seem to find it. Fritter (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that again the standard is adduced without actually being linked to. If it's going to hold sway it must be available for new editors to refer to. Fritter (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yuck. I forgot how pointless that discussion had been. I guess the bottom line is: There is no specific standard. To me, this means we fall back on the default standard of calling things by their most commonly-known name. Friday(talk) 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
An new editor has just created a new article Daewoo Mirae. I've attempted some initial tidying up, but it could do with some more, including some additional references to the facts. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in the subject! -- MightyWarrior (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Fuel Economy
As a reader of car articles, I am fairly disappointed when I don't find a mileage rating for cars. It's pretty important to me, and it should be to everyone, I think. Shouldn't fuel economy be listed with each model, in perhaps both miles per US gallon and liters per 100km? Mewsterus (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Mileage might be appropriate in some cases, but it just isn't feasible to list mileage ratings for all engine options and for all generations of all models. The other issue is because of different methods used to measure economy, comparisons might be misleading. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports, nor a website for consumer/buying advice of any kind. I would strongly advise you to look elsewhere for this kind of information, as Wikipedia is, in its nature, a very poor source for such purposes. Actually, most of the remaining info that could be of value in this regard is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines [citation needed]. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone with a love of Volkswagons and some knowledge of history care to try and polish this article - Volkswagen Advertising History - up at all? Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Opening up the Fuel Economy Arguement again
I realize that we are not Consumer Reports or an ad service (you'll find I've been vicious towards people who have used it like that) however I still think that listing fuel economy would be important to a automobile article.
It would not have to be on an engine by engine basis nor a country by country basis. However, I think if we list the minimum fuel economy the car could achieve in ratings by a government institution (EPA in America, and I believe its the DIN in Europe right?), and then the maximum, that this would suffice for a encyclopedia article. Once again, we do not have to do it on an engine by engine, transmission by transmission basis. But I do believe it could be in the template to have a space to list minimum and maximum possible rated fuel economies.
And if there isn't a rating available? Do the same thing we do with un-cited sources or pictures: ask for one from a cited source in the space.
We do have horsepower ratings, and lengths, and widths, and (unfortunately) sometimes weights. Economy would be a vital piece to the puzzle as well. Just keep it wiki and all is ok.
Added in edit: As far as different ratings methods, just link to the article of which rating method was used. I haven't checked to see if such an article exists, but I think that is another worthy pursuit: creating articles on an institutions rating system for measurements. We already have some articles of such for other units of measure, why not fuel economy? And I think there is an article on horsepower detailing SAE methods already right? Why not an article on DIN and EPA fuel economy ratings history and methods?
Scryer_360 (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we give all kinds of basic info, as you point out. Mileage ratings should be included in that. (But what's wrong with weight? It's a very handy single number to tell you what general size of car it is.) Friday(talk) 16:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Fuel economy ratings are listed in vehicle sales brochures for most modern vehicles in most major markets. Not that I'm suggesting that people go out and scrounge up brochures so that the information could be referenced based on what was listed in a brochure, but it is a source of information. I try to list vehicles maximum weight on the most heaviest version and then state that the weight listed is the maximum weight disclosed. I think a precedent has been established for fuel economy disclosure by the article on the Toyota Prius and other Hybrid vehicles. Are some editors in favor of deleting fuel economy information because it is against Wikipedia policy on these vehicles and enforcing strict removal procedures?(Dddike (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
Fuel economy information is against policy? That's absurd; I cannot imagine how this could possibly be true. Has anyone really claimed this? Friday(talk) 18:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in the article discussion two sections up "Please note Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports, nor a website for consumer/buying advice of any kind. I would strongly advise you to look elsewhere for this kind of information, as Wikipedia is, in its nature, a very poor source for such purposes. Actually, most of the remaining info that could be of value in this regard is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)" This assertion seems to state that fuel economy information should be "researched elsewhere" (Dddike (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
Ehhh.. this is the same editor who kept citing some naming convention that does not actually exist. He has a rather strange outlook on things. I find him frequently nonsensical, so I think he can be safely ignored. Friday(talk) 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with weight? Many editors of Wikipedia are from outer space, where the gravitational field strength, hence weight, may vary from what it is on Earth. Fritter (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a caveat on the brochures-as-sources point: remember that they would not count as an independent, third-party ("secondary") source (even if they were citing what they claim were the official government-body figures) and so would be a poor choice; see WP:SOURCES. – Kieran T(talk) 18:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that fuel economy is one of the most important aspects of a vehicle's attributes and should be part of the template. If a car is targeted for the US market, use the range of EPA ratings for it. If another market (e.g., EU), then use those ratings. If both, provide one or the other (or even both). For example, the Honda Insight would have the following fuel economy listing;
|fuel_economy_city = 45-49 mpg EPA
|fuel_economy_highway = 49-61 mpg EPA
66.225.251.176 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just clarifying that there is nothing (at this point) preventing the data from going in the article, as far as I know.
But I still agree with the previous consensus that the infobox is NOT the place for it. You talk about how important the data is, then want to use a range of figures which, really, is meaningless. When there's an 8 MPG difference from one transmission to another, what good is it to say "39-48 EPA MPG highway" without any context noting why? This is the same reason why power ratings shouldn't be in the infobox either. It is FAR more efficient to have a table in the prose rather than 10 lines in the box. The infoboxes tend to be too long as it is; there are some editors who would just as soon do away with them and the more stuff you add in the better the argument for getting rid of them.
Furthermore, the "citable" MPG figures for American cars come from the EPA. Well, the EPA changed their testing last year. Do we use the official window sticker figures or the new ones, and why? Where that's concerned, it's common knowledge that the EPA figures are not very well in line with what actual economy is in a person's driving anyway. So what point is is to have the information when its no more than a vague estimate? --Sable232 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, you said it better than I could. I feel fuel economy should only be discussed on vehicles where it is a notable point, such as on hybrids, and then in the body of the article, not the infobox. I propose removing 'fuel_economy_city' and 'fuel_economy_highway' from Template:Infobox_automobile. swaq 17:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus that "the infobox is NOT the place for fuel economy data"; indeed it appears to be just the opposite. The argument that it should go in the article can apply to any of the data in the current infobox. The revised EPA figures for vehicles can be found at http://www.fueleconomy.gov . In the infobox now are different engines, different transmissions, and different weights, so having more than one fuel economy figure fits in perfectly with the automobile infobox approach. Therefore, I concur with including fuel economy data in the infobox, as it current exists. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally think it clutters the infobox and would be better mentioned in the article if it is notable. If it is notable then there should be something to say about it anyway, so it could use context. Putting it in the infobox encourages Consumer Reports type listings. I see you (198.151.13.8) were the one who put the fuel economy entries back into the infobox. swaq 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"Use this text: {{Lamborghini road car timeline 1980 to date}}".
Note that the old names will still work of course (due to redirects); it's just a matter of whether you want to be advising people to use the old (redirect) names. DH85868993 (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
De Lorean DMC-12
De Lorean DMC-12 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Awards sections
Is there a policy/guideline on "Awards" sections (see: Audi R8, Porsche Boxster). They seem a bit like trivia to me. swaq 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Major awards seem like notable facts to me. However if a car has won many awards, or one award multiple times, it may start to border on trivia if each award is listed separately and repetitively; there is diminishing value in noting many similar awards, and it might be better to condense them, or convert to prose if there are just a few notable awards. Fritter (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Critical reception, and how an auto made an impact on the industry, are very clearly important topics to include in an encyclopedia article. But, yes, I agree with Fritter that this stuff should be kept relevant and integrated with the article. Friday(talk) 16:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Splitting international variants
What do you guys think about the recent splitting out of Wolseley 24/80 from Wolseley 15/60? It seems to me that they're natural developments of each other which belong in the same article, although with the 24/80 given more importance than merely an entry in an "international production" section. I think it's unhelpful to have the Australian model separated out, where it might be missed by a reader; especially when it's now just a "see also" in the parent car's article. – Kieran T(talk) 11:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to get too excited about this either way, Kieran, but I think on balance I disagree with you. The two cars had different engines and different names and operated in different markets. And climates. It is entirely possible that features that matter to the Adelaide reader of the six cylinder car are very different from the features of the four cylinder car that matter to Robin from rainy Rutland. The important thing is that reference is made in each section (or entry) to the 'other' model.
The thing that bothers me more is I never understood the names of Wolseleys in the 1950s and early 1960s. Presumably the 15/60 was '15' because of the 1.5 liter engine? But why 60? A (very vague) reference to the horspower using SAE? I genuinely don't know. If you (or anyone) does, please could you spell it out in the entry?
And thanks. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
USDM
A note on something I've seen in many articles: "USDM" is not the same as "US-spec" or "US-market." USDM specifically refers to American-brand cars sold in the US. A Mercedes-Benz made to American specifications is not a USDM Mercedes. "JDM" is the same way. See the Wikipedia article on United States domestic market for reference. IFCAR (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting and thank you. But the fact that you feel the need to tell us this makes a deeper point. 'USDM' is culturally specific and as such a form of jargon: it works for car enthusiasts who understand American English. Jargon is great if you want to show how you are smarter than the other guy. But I think the the purpose of wikipedia has more to do with sharing information: if we tell the other guy about cars, maybe the brain surgeon can tell me how to make my brain work and the classicist can tell me what Socrates was on about. Meantime, the unreformed jargonistas mostly have navels: they can contemplate those.
What I take from that is that we should try and avoid industry / sector / profession specific jargon. Sometimes you can't avoid it, and then you need to put in links so folks can click across and find out what you mean with minimum difficulty. Maybe that's the case where someone thinks USDM cannot be avoided. But I think a better solution, when available, is to spell out your meaning in a version of English that the averagely literate generalist reader can understand without having to reach for the dictionary and / or online equivalent thereof.
I suspect we most of us use abbreviations and acronyms and initials and jargon more that we should / could / might. I do. But I still think we mostly need to try and do it less!
I believe that we should split up the Dodge Avenger article into two different articles; Dodge Avenger (1995) for the DSM coupe, and Dodge Avenger (2008) for the new sedan. I believe that this should be done as the cars are two entirely different models in which they only share the nameplate. I believe each version warrents its own article, similar to how Dodge Charger (B-body) and Dodge Charger (LX) have their own articles. Right now, I am involved in other stuff and can't do it, although perhaps if anyone agrees, they can do it. Karrmann (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Trivia, once more
Last I remember there was a general consensus that "popular culture" (AKA trivia) sections were not notable, except in a case where a TV series/film/etc. made an impact on the car, in which case it would not be sitting in an afterthought at the end of the page. The fact that "The DEF 1200 was in Obscure Film 2007" has never been notable here.
I heartily agree with Sable232 here. In the meantime, in individual articles, I've had fairly good success removing the laundry list of movies the Toothgnasher Superflash (or whatever) has been in if I toss a model-relevant link to www.imcdb.com in the article's "External Links" section. See, for example, here on Dodge Dart, and put some good PR spin on the edit summary (e.g. mv movie/TV list to external links, unitise/expand). Yes, we have to be careful not to create a WP:EL problem, but so far in my experiments this compromise has shown to be quite robust in the long term against reversions to itemised lists. It seems to give everyone something s/he wants: The people who've just gotta have an "External Links" section get a good one, and are thus less inclined to add mediocre ones. The people who've just gotta have a list of pop-media appearances of model get, with one click, a far more exhaustive, far better indexed list than they could ever hope to come up with on their own, and with far less work. The people who realise we're writing an encyclopædia here, and not a fan site, get to see ugly, /notable laundry lists replaced by a single one-line link. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep - absolutely. We have well-established the guidelines here. I don't know why they are not in our list of other guidelines - so I've taken the liberty of adding it - along with a really good example of the right way to handle these things. SteveBaker (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ford Contour, something apparently needs explaining
I've been trying to fix this for some time now but it is not working.
People have been editing Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique claiming that they are somehow mid-size cars. Maybe that's true in the alternate space-time continuum that these people reside in, but not here. I have never once seen anything stating that they were anything other than compact cars. Rather than an endless cycle of reversions I'd rather refer them to a discussion that shows they're wrong.
The second part of the issue: Ford has not built a compact car since 2000. They've had the sub-compact Focus and the mid-size Taurus. The editors mentioned above seem to think that the Fusion and Milan, midsize cars, are the "successors" to the Contour/Mystique. Where that logic comes from, I don't know. The Milan and Fusion were introduced to replace the discontinued Sable and the Taurus that had been relegated to fleet sales. The fact that the Taurus has now been reintroduced as a full-size has absolutely no bearing on this whatsoever.
I hate to bring up something this trivial, but this has become frustrating. --Sable232 (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd say they're midsize and the Focus is compact. If the Focus is subcompact, where would that leave something like an Accent or Aveo?
Not that I plan to edit the article based on that, just food for thought. IFCAR (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What makes you say they're midsize? They're considerably smaller than an '86-'07 Taurus and about the same size as a Grand Am. For what it's worth, Consumer Guide classifies them as compacts.
As for the Focus, I've heard that it's on the large side in terms of sub-compacts. In fact, I seem to remember when it came out something about it straddling the line between compact and sub-compact. --Sable232 (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I try to stay out of discussions of US cars because frankly I don't know much about them. But this particular case suggests that maybe some other people, who are getting involved, are approaching this with an international perspective, rather than the US one which I presume you have. Why's this relevant? Because those cars are clearly, from even the briefest glance, directly similar to the Ford Mondeo, which is positioned as very much a middle-sized car, compared to the "compact" Focus. In fact, they're the biggest model branded as a Ford in much of the world (4x4s / SUVs / MPVs / Minivans excepted).
Perhaps that's what needs to be explained to those other people and / or adopted in the article: the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to take an international view even if the product in question isn't the international version. Actually, what's really at issue here is that we've still not cleaned up the car classification issues, and we still mix our US and international terms for describing car sizes. – Kieran T(talk) 23:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
True. However, I don't expect Opel Omega to say "mid-size car" when, in its market, it is an executive car. I can click on the link and see what an executive car is, just as a European reader can click on the link for compact or midsize car and learn what those mean in North America. I don't believe you're suggesting we reclassify all American cars to European classes; that would result in it getting changed back anyway. Most North American readers would find it laughable to call an Oldsmobile Achieva "mid-size", just as a European wouldn't think "large family car" is the best way to describe a Ford Scorpio (this in my assumption anyway), which was known as a mid-size here. --Sable232 (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right that I'm not for one moment suggesting we try to impose either system on the other places! :) The attempt at a productive suggestion out of all that I wrote was that firstly, if there's an edit war going on, you ask the people doing the changing where they're getting their definitions; and secondly, that we as this project don't forget that we were trying to clean up car classification, vehicle size class, car body style and all the similar articles and lists. Once we've done a good job of that, these definitions might, just might, be nailed down enough that we could just point people at them. – Kieran T(talk) 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth the EPA considers both the new and old Taurus to be "large", the Focus to be "compact", the Fusion to be "mid-size", and the Contour/Mystique to be "compact". I personally think you're out of your mind if you think the Focus is a sub-compact, the Contour/Mystique weren't replaced by the Fusion/Milan, and the '01-'07 Taurus was a mid-size car. But then again I'm not going to get involved in this Gong Show, after having gone through the same thing with late '80s to early '90s Dodges and Plymouths. --93JC (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the issue is pretty clear - the EPA, which is, FWIK, the only authoritative official source for USDM car classification, put the Contour/Mystique in the compact class based on their interior volume calculated according to their mysterious ways. As such, the cars are classified as compact in the USA (and, as such, this classification is often extended to entire North America).
That said, it doesn't preclude the Contour/Mystique from being predecessors to Milan/Fusion. No other cars served the same purpose and filled the same place in Ford marketing in between - the Focus, for all intents and purposes, wasn't, FWIK, marketed as something equivalent to Contour. The only thing that bothers me is the 6 year gap - I remember we agreed sometime ago on a 2-3 year gap being the maximum to consider models "successor/predecessor". I guess it is safer to say the gap in the lineup left by the demise of the Contour/Mystique was only filled by the CD3 cars.
By the way, it is a good example to show that we are probably placing too much emphasis on car class in the vehicle's description. There was a proposition to get rid of it in the infobox, and I wholeheartedly support it. I believe it can be mentioned in the article, but it should not be made a cornerstone of describing it.
Also btw, wouldn't you agree with so little content there isn't much reason in keeping the Mystique and Contour articles separate? PrinceGloria (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, going by EPA, the "subcompact" Focus is bigger than the Contour.
I'd also oppose a merge, as it would lead to unnecessary clutter while the existing arrangement is working perfectly fine. IFCAR (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The Focusoid has been compact all along, FWIK, due to having more "interior room" according to EPA standards - what's the problem with that? As to the Mystique - clutter? Could you expand on that? All but a few tidbits that currently constitute the Mystique article apply to the Contour as well (not to mention some of them are POV/rubbish). PrinceGloria (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Poor articles should be improved, not removed. IFCAR (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
What is "poor" about the Mystique article not containing content that would not pertain to the Contour too if the cars are essentially the same? PrinceGloria (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The Mystique article would be something like one paragraph and an infobox if the unsourced and unnecessary information were removed. But that doesn't mean that shouldn't be expanded on. There's no reason to be afraid of a bit of redundant information, as the format is more useful with the articles split when it comes to the times there is a distinction between the cars.
For example, the Contour article has a detailed model history. It would be much less clear if at each point, it also had to mention the Mystique. If you want to read about the Contour, you don't necessarily want to also read about the Mercury equivalent, and vice versa.
The only successful combination of two separate models into one article is the Ford Freestar/Mercury Monterey, where each car has its own section. But each of those sections might as well have been their own article anyway. IFCAR (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Back on topic. Seems there's no question that the Contour/Mystique is a compact car.
However, the "successor" idea still troubles me. There seems to be the idea around here that every car must have been succeeded by another, and I seem to recall a single editor who perpetrated that a great deal. The fact is, Ford just isn't building those compact sedans anymore. Apparently there wasn't a market for them. I don't see how Ford, six years after the fact, would "replace" them with cars that are much closer in size to the Taurus. In fact, I'd venture to guess that the main reason the Fusion is a bit smaller is to push buyers toward the new FWD full-size (a plan which failed, it seems). If anything, Ford decided the Focus was large enough that it's sedan could absorb the Contour's market. --Sable232 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Add Vehicle Safety Rating to infobox:automobiles and generational infobox
The current infobox has fields for engine size, fuel consumption, range, power and the like. The infobox is meant for basic at a glance information. I would like to propose the addition of another field to the infobox, one for Car Safety Ratings.
Example:Safety Rating | 4star/30.03/37 (ANCAP)
I would suggest this field, showing star rating, the overall test score and the rating organisation be placed into the infobox:automobile below fuel consumption.
Car safety ratings are an important consideration in the purchasing of cars around the world and should be includes in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital photographer (talk • contribs) 11:49, April 26, 2008
To cut a long story short - Wikipedia should not be seen as a source for consumer advice. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I would hardly call that consumer advice PrinceGloria, it is stating a fact. These ratings are important, just like power and torque outputs, and also dimensions. A template could be developed to make the implementation of scores uniform and simple. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not quite convinced. First of all, there are multiple standards, procedures sources and organizations - we cannot simply decide EuroNCAP or ANCAP is the one and only and call it a day. Secondly, I guess we've been discussing how to SHORTEN the infobox sometime ago, so I am quite obviously against lenghtening by yet another feature. Last but not least, ratings change over time, even for the same vehicle, so the infobox could grow unweildy if it was to cater for that.
Please note we also do not specify maximum speed, which is an often talked-about topic, for many reasons, some of them similar. I believe the trump card in that case is that it is rarely encyclopedic (and when it is especially notable, it is usually quoted in the body). I believe same applies here - vehicles with some outstanding (in any way) features in that area should have them mentioned, but I am not sure we should now try to run and place stars by every infobox. At the end of the day, websites of crash-testing organizations have done that much better for us already. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with PrinceGloria here. If a crash rating is notable for a particular car then it should be mentioned but I don't think every article needs it. swaq 20:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
With something like this I think boiling it down to a single line would be a bad idea. Whether or not you think WP:NOT forbids having the information at all, the fact is that this is an encyclopedia article, its primary function is not to be a buyer's guide. That said, making note of "The safest in <insert region here> according to X" would probably be reasonable. But considering that there are multiple ratings, for head-on, offset, side-impact, rollover, etc, I really think that there are better ways to do it.
I am not at this point making any argument either way for including the information in the article. I do not, however, think the infobox is the best place for it. --Sable232 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Safety is an important data point that readers would appreciate knowing, which is a key reason to have content to begin with. If we are going to apply some sort of significance test to data in the infobox, wheelbase, length, weight, etc are all of such low significance that their removal from the infobox is warranted.198.151.13.8 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Audi R8 TDI Le Mans was created recently and I let it stay in case the creator added enough information to make it stand alone. However, as it is now there are no independent sources and not enough information that it deserves a separate article from Audi R8. Also, the article hasn't been edited in over two weeks. swaq 15:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Problems with heading names
I've gone back and forth a few times now with an anonymous editor Special:Contributions/78.32.143.113 about subject headings in the Volkswagen Jetta article. The anon claims that my designations of Mark 1, Mark 2, etc. are not proper English and "Mk" should be used. I pointed out that We don't call it the Lincoln Mk VII, it's called the Lincoln Continental Mark VII. Also, s/he says that they should be titled "Jetta Mk2, Jetta Mk3, etc". I think that's misinterpreting the WP:AUTOS standards which state that an article should used the home market name. Jetta Mk3 is in particular a violation because it was called the "Vento" in Germany and other places, while it was known as the Jetta only in North America. I would like to see what the consensus is here.--Analogue Kid (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There are people playing silly-buggers with the marks in all sorts of Ford articles too; not just the abbreviation, but also what mark various facelifts are. But for this issue in particular, I always believe it's "mark" (or with a capital letter, since it's a name, but that's yet another point!). "Mk" is wrong no matter what, because as an abbreviation it would be "Mk." — but Wikipedia says we should avoid jargon, and an "insider knowledge" abbreviation (i.e. not necessarily known to non-car fans) is jargon. Finally, I'd just add that car magazines traditionally use Roman numerals so the correct form, in my opinion would wind up being Mark VII, for example, and not Mk7. This will, however, be tediously controversial. – Kieran T(talk) 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless Mk. or Mark is part of the name given by the manufacturer shouldn't we just say something like "First generation", "Second generation", etc. and list the years to avoid jargon further. See Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Dodge Viper, etc. swaq 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, Analogue Kid, your position is correct. I will assume the anon editor is British, because "Jetta Mk2, Jetta Mk3, etc" are British terminology. The Jetta name is primarily used in the USA, and in Europe it goes by the name Bora, Jetta or Vento. A compromise could be to refer to the various versions of the Jetta as First Generation, Second Generation, and so on. The name that should be used for the article is the name that actually appears attached on the vehicle, and if different names appear on vehicles worldwide, then the article should say so. That would be proper English. (Dddike (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
(edit conflict)
One thing should be certain, that "Jetta Mk 3" is absolutely wrong. It's redundant. The title at the top of the page says "Volkswagen Jetta," obviously that's what the article is about.
North American cars are referred to by "generations" and those articles go "First generation, Second generation," etc. Now, in the interest of professionalism, it should be Mark I, Mark II, etc. We don't abbreviate to "First gen" as it is colloquial jargon. Mark ought to be that same way. removing the period and space like this IP editor is especially unprofessional. As for Roman numerals, I personally find that they work better and that's usually how I see it written elsewhere anyway. --Sable232 (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, "Mk2, Mk3," etc., are not British terminology as Dddike claims — Mark II, Mark III, etc. are. It's a fundamental distinction since it's in the original question! – Kieran T(talk) 21:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I figured as much. I'm fine with using Roman Numerals as well. Barring any sudden change in the consensus here, I think I'll use Mark I, Mark II, etc. It is duly noted for future reference that Mark I is more appropriate for European subject articles and First Generation is better for North American.--Analogue Kid (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This page 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.
.jpg)
.jpg)