Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Green vehicle task force

ALTe Powertrain Technologies

I'd like to submit for consideration an articleon this company, that is commercializing a retrofit technology for converting fleet vehicles (eg. Ford F150, E350) to plug-in hybrid. Among other distinctions, ALTe is currently engaged in a pilot program with Pacific Gas & Electric, and was chosen as a Forbes Magazine "Most Promising Company" in 2011. I hope this is the most appropriate way and place to make this suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickens13 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Are you being paid for the work you are doing on Wikipedia? Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not being paid for this, but I am also not comfortable creating the article myself as I have had a relationship with the company. I hope that if someone in this task force believes the entry is valid they can take the draft on my user page as a starting point for an article. Chickens13 (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Environment Portal additions

I've added Plug-in electric vehicle (GA) at Portal:Environment/Selected article/26. And I think we should add more high quality green vehicle content to Portal:Environment. Johnfos (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I added Nissan Leaf as it is a GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Electric vehicles

I see the vast majority of editors are interested in the electric vehicles. This is very important, because are constantly appearing new electric vehicles. --Diamondland (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Low Hybrid Electric Vehicles sales

Hybrids are much better for the environment yet a practical choice! - most often the extra up front cost is returned back in fuel savings over the life of the car. Still many new car buyers cannot see that because this information or some other information they seek (like reliability, safety, historical sales numbers) is not readily available! In my personal life I heard people say "Hybrids are too expensive", "Hybrids are a new technology so it is not reliable", "Hybrid are electric cars and have powerful battery so electromagnetic emission must be too bad for the health". When I shopped for a new car I also seek all this information. The importance of Hybrid articles is that a person who visits it will immediately see the practicality and safety of buying it! I am not trying to push my point of view but give an answer to all these new car buyer questions by sticking to the facts. Hybrids are so important for the Environment and for many other reasons. Hybrids are already here and available in huge numbers! Hybrids are much better for the environment yet a practical choice! - Let us help people see it! --Yegort (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact when people hide all this information about Hybrid vehicles (like owners lifetime cost, safety, reliability, sales etc.) - it is a hidden way of pushing their point of view against Hybrid vehicles. --Yegort (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The goal of this project should not be to promote the sale of hybrid or electric vehicles, it should be to produce encyclopedic articles. We should certainly discuss what types of information is appropriate and how it should be presented, but the goal should be to create encyclopedic content not help buyers see the light. The environmental impact of hybrid vehicles is very complex and is not clear cut. We should include a well rounded view on the matter that reflects the mainstream POV on the issues (per WP:NPOV). I don't have anything against hybrid vehicles and I am certain that they will become very common place in the near future, but I get concerned when people try to promote them at the expense of encyclopedic goals. --Daniel 19:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct in pointing out that creating encyclopedic articles must remain as one of the primary goals of this task force. Thank you for pointing that out. Another primary goal of this task force must be to make sure that environmental considerations regarding vehicles receive appropriate coverage in Wikipedia articles. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Environmental considerations should receive appropriate coverage, absolutely, this is both a buy product and a method of producing encyclopedic content. What we should work on is determining what is appropriate and what is not. My only point is that helping people see the practicality of hybrids should not be a factor in our decision making process at all. Whether hybrid are practical should be left up to the reader although if reliable sources produce notable opinions on the matter that should be included as well. --Daniel 20:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Well, the mainstream POV is that Hybrid vehicles are good for the environment and yet economically practical for the buyers. We should reflect this.---Yegort (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The mainstream view is certainly mixed. There are a number of articles from mainstream sources expressing concerns about a number of issues associated with hybrid vehicles. --Daniel 20:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a decent article discussing hybrids that presents the mixed views held by experts [1]. Some beliefs are baseless others are not and as for economically practical, it is very complex. --Daniel 20:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much point in throwing up ref's to various articles on this page, unless the article deals with a specific topic in a specific Wikipedia article currently under discussion. As noted above, "mainstream" media presents a wide variety of articles on hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles and the forthcoming crop of plug-in hybrids. No single article can legitimately claim to be "The Mainstream View." Ebikeguy (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right. This is another point - sometime there is no "The Mainstream View" - sometimes there is two conflicting views on a subject. In this case both of them must be reflected in Wikipedia article. But this is not the case in Hybrid Vehicles - "The Mainstream View" is that they good for the environment and economically practical for the buyers. Yes in early years of Hybrids there were concerns mentioned in Daniel's reference but these concerns are no more. Yegort (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

1. This article is almost 5 years old so it much outdated. 2. Out of 7 buyers concerns only 2 authors identified as legitimate. Out of this two: 1) "Hybrids do not pay for themselves to justify their premium cost" - now major of them definitely do, 2) "Hybrids will not hold resale value" - now major of them definitely do. We will reflect this. Yegort (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to demonstrate how the mainstream view on hybrids is mixed. I'm not trying to use this reference in any articles. If the article is out of date, a newer one would certainly be welcome, but dismissing this is simply incorrect. --Daniel 21:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Let us strive to reflect and support the truth, whatever it may be in any given situation. Daniel is a skeptic, and that is a good thing because it makes us work to prove our positions rather than simply believing what we want to believe. It is only when skepticism becomes obstructionism that real problems arise, and Daniel has shown no signs of being an obstructionist. I, for one, welcome his presence in this group. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to be welcome here. I'm not really even a skeptic (actually I certainly am, just not really when it comes to this topic), hybrids and electrics are certainly the future (and to some extent the present). All I'm trying to say is that mainstream opinion is not that hybrids are always the economical (or even environmental) choice. Here is an article form last year outline the practicality or lack there of of current hybrids [2]. --Daniel 21:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

With reference to high quality encyclopedic coverage I think we are actually doing quite well, see here. Johnfos (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, Consumer Reports is the most trusted source on car values and reliabilities. Here is the Consumer Reports link with Best & worst car values: [3] Below is top value chart, where 1 means the best value in their own class: Toyota Prius - 2-nd best, Toyota Highlander Hybrid Limited - 4, Toyota Camry Hybrid - 5, Ford Fusion Hybrid - 9, Nissan Altima Hybrid - 11, Ford Escape Hybrid - 12, Honda Civic Hybrid - 15, Honda Insight EX - 29 (before Honda dropped the price by $1,700). Daniel, Thank you for making me find the link. To the rest of the task force - we should add this link to all related Hybrid Vehicles articles. Yegort (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Another very useful article from Consumer Reports "Mythbuster: EMF levels in hybrids" that measures EMF level in several Hybrids and finds them below the level of some ICE cars [4] We should add this to the related articles. Yegort (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Daniel. The second link/article you posted looks more like a press release from CarGurus (CarGurus, seriously, have you heard of it before?) than a RS. BTW, I read that HowStuffWorks is considered as a 'content farm' by some. -North wiki (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yegort, great find. I think there was a section (almost OR) about EMF in the Prius article. -North wiki (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Consumer Reports did a survey on what is really important for the new car buyers [5].
quality (88 percent),
safety (86 percent),
price (86 percent),
value (82 percent),
fuel economy (82 percent),
performance (79 percent),
“environmentally friendly or green” (51 percent),
I think we should stick to this order in Hybrid Vehicles articles when addressing car buyers concerns.Yegort (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The consumer reports article is actually an excellent example of what I am trying to say. Both buyers and experts have reservations about hybrid vehicles. The CR report details consumer concerns about hybrids. I know the second link a gave was to a press release, but cargurus.com is a major and respected (I definitely have heard of them) internet resource and qualifies as a reliable source for this topic. Although I would probably weight CR over it, both can certainly be used together. It would be good to get the actual Carguru report rather than the press release, but I haven't been able to find it. --Daniel 20:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Cargurus.com is primarily a sales/marketing/advertising channel. As such, information contained therein should be "treated with caution" per WP:RSEX. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ehem, according to the 'about us' page of 'Cargurus.com': "CarGurus works because of you - the community. CarGurus users write the reviews, post the pictures and find the articles that you see on CarGurus. Ask a question on our site and the community will answer it. The information our users post reflects their personal experience. We do not filter the information on our site: we are completely unbiased. We are not affiliated with any auto manufacturers or dealerships. So you can see that CarGurus is simply about connecting people - those in the know with those that want to know." I cannot accept this to be considered RS. -North wiki (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, car value is not a rocket science - it is real simple. Let us do a rough calculation. Let us take Toyota Prius II Base Price $23,560 MSRP. The closest comparable ICE vehicle is Toyota Matrix with comparable option package $19,870 MSRP. The difference in price is $3,690. Annual fuel cost (from government fueleconomy.com website): Toyota Prius $927, Toyota Matrix $1655. The difference is $728. Investment return time: $3,690 / $728 = 5 years. Average USA car age - 15 years. So if a car is reliable (and who is better to know that than Consumer Reports?) and the difference to ICE car is not so big - yes, most definitely Hybrids (of course not all of them but major are) are a very economically practical choice for the new car buyers! I do not see any father point in discussing this - it is a obvious fact! Yegort (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I went looking for a new car about 6 months ago and found that it wasn't so simple. My budget was AUD20,000 (roughly equivalent to USD22,000 at the time). The hybrids in Australia started at about AUD33,000 for the base model Camry (the Prius was about AUD45,000 for reasons that totally escape me). Even if it repays its self in 5 years, its money that I didn't have at the time. Even if I had the money, the features of the base model hybrids were only comparable to ICE vehicles AUD5000 cheaper. And I say this as someone who was all in the right mindset of wanting a hybrid (drove a Prius for 2 weeks and loved it in the city). Sometimes desires and financial realities don't always match up.  Stepho  (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I get concerned by the non critical "raw raw" support that I'm seeing. All I'm trying to say is that it is not a clear cut issue, I'm not saying that hybrids are a bad choice. Yegort let's look at the source rather than trying to do the math ourselves which is obviously original research. Comparing like to like using your preferred source , hybrids lose to there conventional counterparts (with the exception of the Prius which doesn't have a direct equivalent). Civic, Altima, Camry, Fusion, the standard vehicles all score higher. How can you possibly say that it is obvious hybrids are the most economical source. --Daniel 03:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Stepho, sorry to hear that Hybrids are so expensive in Australia - I cannot understand why. So yes, may be they are not so economically practical in Australia but USA it is a totally different picture. If we mention values in the articles we will definitely mention the country to which it applies. Yegort (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Daniel. Articles should present a NPOV, and if some of the hybrids get enough coverage for its favorable economics (short pay back time) and reduced environmental impact (low pollution + low carbon emissions) then there is merit to include that info in the corresponding vehicle article. Almost always these are the cars with the highest MPG, such as the Prius, Civic, Fusion/Milan/MKZ, Insight and CRZ, and the clear benefit threshold seems to be near 40 mpg see this table here). On the opposite extreme, mild hybrids are very unlikely to produce any significant benefits, and actually green advocates consider them pure greenwashing, so it is not wise to make generalizations. But that is under average use. In general if annual mileage is very high, well above 20-25K mi, the pay back time is shorter, and not surpassingly many taxicabs owners in the US are buying HEVs (Prius, Escape and Camry - see hybrid taxis), just like taxi owners in the third world have a preference for natural gas vehicles, because operating costs and maintenance are key for operators of heavy use vehicles. In summary, we should follow NPOV, RS, avoid OR, and so present the advantages and disadvantages of hybrids and plug-in electric vehicles in general. If you check the latter article it presents precisely the pros and cons, and I hope in a NPOV.--Mariordo (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, I doubt the 'value score' from the list of CR is conclusive evidence that a hybrid vehicle is of more/less value than a non-hybrid variant. The vehicles on the list, for example, are not comparably equipped, making it not an apple-to-apple comparison. In general, it seems, a base model is usually of higher value, according to CR's evaluation. It puts, hybrids, usually well equipped, at a disadvantageous position. -North wiki (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't present this list a conclusive evidence of anything. Yegort presented this list saying that it shows hybrids are a "very economical" choice. I'm saying that while this may be true in some cases, it is not always a fact. Yegort seems to disagree with this saying it is so obvious there is no point in discussing it. Comparing the comparably equipped Civic EX (top of the regular model line) to the Civic Hybrid, the standard version comes out on top. In any case what Mariordo said is right. Driving patterns are a big factor. The economic viability of a fuel saving feature, in this case hybrid drive trains, goes up with the level of use (especially stop and go driving for hybrids). All I'm trying to say is that it is not a clear cut issue and there are multiple views on the matter and that it is how we should present it here. The goal of this project should not be to promote green vehicles. --Daniel 17:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, obviously this issue is looming large for you. If something has been said on the Task Force page that gives the impression that this project is here to promote green vehicles then please let me know, and I will fix it. If there is a particular article that is causing you a problem again let us know and we can discuss it. Please let's get down to specifics and sort this out. Johnfos (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Daniel is merely saying that the issue is not clear cut in favour hybrids. The issue is complex, depending on initial budget (as in my case), equipment levels, government rebates, marketing, driving habits, electricity costs and many other things.And a lot of these factors differ by country too - eg Australia has higher initial costs and lower rebates :) I will give a further example from my own experience. I drove a Prius for one week in the city (500km) and for one week along the Australian eastern coast (3000km). It was fantastic in the city, with great acceleration and used very little fuel. But it sucked big time in the countryside, with no power to overtake trucks and used the same fuel as a typical 6 cylinder car. Driving habits really do matter. Since I'm mostly a city driver, I really wanted to own one - but my available cash (ie economics) prevented me. Our task is to simply present the facts, not our desires.  Stepho  (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment Stepho, but I think Daniel has said more than "the issue is not clear cut in favour hybrids". He has posted nine times in this section. And I am asking him to now get down to specifics in relation to difficulties with particular articles or the stated aims of this Task Force so we can sort this out. Johnfos (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, I am here not to promote Green Vehicles but to point people to the information. The irony is that mainstream POV does promote green vehicles and you said that we should reflect mainstream POV (since you brought it up may be we should mention this in the articles). The purpose of my original post in this section was to point out what kind of information people seek - so we will be able to find it and provide it.

I never said that all Hybrids are economically practical but many of them are. Also to be economically practical does not mean to be the best value (although Prius is) but if a car makes top 10 value list it is economically practical too. Yegort (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And here is the mainstream POV - "US Government Continues Electric Car Push with New Incentive Proposals" [6]. You cannot get more mainstream POV than this - when USA congress comes to an agreement on some issue I think you can count it as mainstream POV. Yegort (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There aren't any specific articles with problems (that I can point to). I was just concerned and still am with Yegort's statements in the first post of this section and didn't want this project to be steered by a fan boy mentality. He seems to indicate that the mainstream view point is fully in support of hybrids. I disagree, the mainstream view on hybrids is complex and multi sided and our articles should (and mostly do) reflect this. The actual irony here is that I think the current Prius article does not meet WP:NPOV because it is overly negative, containing a laundry list of issues without mentioning much of the positive reaction it has received. A couple days ago, I cleaned it up a little and posted on the talk page, but have not gotten any response. --Daniel 16:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there aren't any specific articles which are causing particular problems. Fine. And rest assured that there are many experienced editors on board here who will not let this project be driven by a "fan boy mentality". Our aim is to create and improve encyclopedic articles and already we have some recognized content. Johnfos (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Userbox template

Userboxes

This user is a member of the WikiProject Environment
Green vehicle task force.

Feel free to add the project user box to your user page:

• {{User Green vehicle task force}}

This is a temporary userbox. Please comment and propose alternative images. I am preparing a couple of mosaic images that require some heavy editing in Photoshop, but I hope I will submit them for discussion before the end of the month.--Mariordo (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mariordo, Thank you! The image looks good - it is a green vehicle :) I wish it be a green Prius but unfortunately Toyota does not offer Prius in green :( --Yegort (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work, Mariordo. --Diamondland (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternative images

The following are the three alternative images to use in the user box (and/or the task for template?) If you want to see how they look at the smaller template size you can go here and try it in the template, it just to change the filename of the image (but please do not save it until consensus is achieved here. I tried another with a giant solar panel in the background but it doesn't look as good as the two new ones. The normal image size is these templates is 40 px, in the captions I added the size I believe fits better.--Mariordo (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

Your opinions

• I would go for any of the two with a Leaf with the wind farm in the background, using the sizes indicated in the caption.--Mariordo (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As per Stepho-wrs, I vote for the second image.--Mariordo (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Mariordo, thanks for the job. Nissan Leaf is the best green vehicle and wind farm is appropriate but at 50px or 60px it is hard to say what car it is so green car image looks better for me.--Yegort (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• The first image says nothing about being electric - its just a car picture. The third image looks obviously photoshopped and jars the reader, who thinks it is a real image but is somehow wrong (no shadows, etc). The second image also looks photoshopped but since it is in an unreal environment, it doesn't jar the reader. So the second image gets my vote. Well done.  Stepho  (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• The second image gets my vote too. Johnfos (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• +1 for image 2. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Since there is majority in favor of the second image I will change it, again temporarily, to see how it looks, and if there is no additional feedback after a few days, we will just keep it as permanent.--Mariordo (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

How about the green Honda Insight? OSX (talk • contributions) 23:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles for discussion

It would be good to start some discussion on various articles. If you place an article name here please say something about what needs to happen with it and why. Johnfos (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

• Key articles in need of improvement: Green vehicle and Alternative fuel vehicle
• Honda Insight
• Honda Civic Hybrid
• Ford Escape Hybrid
• Toyota Camry Hybrid
• Toyota Highlander Hybrid
• Hyundai Sonata Hybrid
• Lexus RX Hybrid

Proposed new articles

• Orange EV, manufacturer of pure-electric terminal tractors. I am a part time contractor for Orange EV so have a conflict in writing the article, but would assist in any way appropriate (providing info, writing draft article, etc.). JBro (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Importance level

Just to let you know, the practice for this project is not to assess importance level for an article or page to avoid drama/heated discussion, which wastes time and energy. If you guys have spare time, go to Category:Environment articles by importance and remove the talk pages with importance level (except those with NA importance level), thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page}

You are right, I forgot. In most cases I repeated the importance rated for WP:AUTOS. I will remove them slowly as I come back to edit those articles.--Mariordo (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Please note that User talk:Diamondland has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. See here.--Mariordo (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, just I posted a note on Mariordo's User talk page. I have removed a great deal of Diamondland's edits, as User:Mac has long since lost his right to edit this project, and I am convinced that denying him the ability to shape Wikipedia by increments, through a succession of WP:SOCK accounts, is the only way to stop it. But as I state in my edit summaries, please do feel free to restore anything from Diamondland that you deem useful. Also, he has a particular interest in green transport, and so if someone shows up shortly making similar edits, including oddly named categories, a multitude of redirects, overpopulation of See also, spam links to corporate news, copyvio or close paraphrasing, and a poor command of English (he's Spanish), please do let me know, if you wish. regards, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A Green Vehicle Article Template

Based on this Consumer Reports electric cars survey [7] I would like to suggest the following Green Vehicle Article Template (sections names and their order):

1. Value (may be includes Fuel Economy)
2. Fuel Economy
3. Recharging Infrastructure (if applicable)
4. Driving Range (if applicable)
5. Sales
6. Reliability
7. Safety (includes Electromagnetic (radiation) field levels)
8. Performance
9. Battery disposal
10. Reducing dependence on foreign oil
11. Lowering emissions/air pollution/combating global warming

This is what concerns new car buyers (both conventional and green car buyers). I put Value and Fuel Economy first since High purchase price is the main concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --Yegort (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That list sounds quite reasonable. Does 'Battery disposal' cover battery lifetime and replace cost? I've been considering converting an older car but the thought of replacing AUD5000 (approx USD5000 at the moment) worth of batteries every 5 years has me worried. Of course, better batteries last longer but they also cost more. $1000 per year seems to be the industry average.  Stepho  (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. No, the battery cost should go to "Cost of Ownership" and battery lifetime should go to "Reliability". (Off topic: I never heard about this kind of battery cost and battery lifetime numbers. Where did you get those? Could you give a professional link? I do not want to go off topic here so just a link would be fine)? --Yegort (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

While reading some back issues, I happened to come across the battery cost info you asked for - Popular Mechanics Sept 1991 p102 US$3000-$5000 every 2-4 years. Of course that was back in 1991 but I read similar numbers in 2008 (wish I could remember where). This is just for background info. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just came across this recently. The information is, anecdotal, related to one single vehicle in one particular market. Near the end of last year, Honda launched Insight in that market. Therefore, the info should be current. "Honda [Australia] has moved to allay customer fears about the life of the car's battery by offering an eight-year, unlimited kilometre warranty for the car's battery. It says the battery should last up to 15 years and a replacement will cost just $1875 plus fitment costs, a figure it claims is "half the price of competitors' batteries"."[8] The claim of a hybrid's battery can last up to 15 years may be unproven and the cost quoted above does not include installation, but it is a data point and, hopefully, show the general direction of the cost and est. life of hybrid's battery. ---North wiki (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Insight battery lifetime and price seem to match that of the Prius (ie typically lasts the lifetime of the vehicle), which is good news for hybrid owners. However, I should have made it clearer that I was thinking of pure electric vehicles, which require a much larger (and expensive) battery and are often so much more demanding of that battery (ie use of deep cycles) that it has a much shorter lifetime.  Stepho  (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

After some thoughts I think that it is better to name the first section

1. Cost of Ownership (may be include Fuel Economy)

It is more specific than a more general "Value".--Yegort (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that since "Recharging Infrastructure", "Battery disposal", "Reducing dependence on foreign oil" and "Lowering emissions/air pollution/combating global warming" are not specific to a particular car model in a specific car model article we should have just a link to a general article (for example "Electric Vehicle Battery Disposal") that will cover the appropriate topic.--Yegort (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved the "Cost of Ownership" article and then found this discussion. It makes no sense to have a third-party cost of ownership study three sentences into the article. I moved it to a more appropriate location, i.e. if the reader wants to find this much detail, they can read all the way to the end. I'm guessing that 99% of readers will want to know the fuel economy and performance statistics before some third-party cost of ownership study (and a poorly conducted one at that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honda_Insight#.22Cost_of_Ownership.22_comparison

I think that using a third-party cost of ownership study such as this one in the first section of every "green car" page is a terribly bad idea for Wikipedia. Especially if it's such a poor comparison as the one I linked and commented on. Bdc101 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You do not need to be guessing - the studies [9] have shown what is car buyers number one concern - cost of ownership - above fuel economy and performance so it has to be in the first place. About this particular cost of ownership study I have written in Honda Insight discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honda_Insight#.22Cost_of_Ownership.22_comparison --Yegort (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT and see my other post on the Insight talk page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool for potential car buyers. Bdc101 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia is not a buyers guide. We should not be ordering information with the needs of buyers as the guiding factor. However, I see no problem is including cost of ownership comparisons from reliable sources in appropriate sections within these article. If reliable sources make these comparisons they are likely to be relevant. As I have said on the Insight talk page, they should be in prose and avoid using tables. On the other hand I do take issue with some of the proposed template items. "Reducing dependence on foreign oil" is particularly problematic. 1. It is a trait of all fuel efficient vehicles not some particular hybrid, 2.I doubt many reliable sources discuss a particular hybrid's ability to reduce oil dependence especially in quantitative way and 3. It is US centric as a number of nations do not rely on foreign oil. Most of these points can also be applied the section labeled " Lowering emissions/air pollution/combating global warming." Green vehicles are still vehicles and we should use standard automotive templates while adding necessary information and sections where required. --Daniel 20:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1) I agree with Daniel regarding content related to "Reducing dependence on foreign oil" and "Lowering emissions/air pollution/combating global warming" As me and other editors in this task force have already done/reversed in specific green car articles, these subjects belong to the general articles such as "electric car", "plug-in hybrid", ... and not to the specific car article. With this in mind I also created the article plug-in electric vehicle precisely to have a summary in one place of all of these advantages and also the disadvantages shared by electric-drive vehicles. Also there is plenty of room to explore these issues in the green vehicle article. 2) As for using tables, I disagree with Daniel. There is nothing better for presenting a comparison than a well structured table, prose is to dense for the readers. But to me, it is a matter of style. 3) As for the oil dependence issue being US centric I completely disagree, and just as an example, for many developing nations the drain in public finances is a huge burden to these poor economies, it is not just a national security issue (which probably is indeed US centric). Take into consideration that there ares just a handful of countries out of 200 that produce significant amounts of oil, so oil dependence is indeed an issue for most of the world, just with different flavors.--Mariordo (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well we can agree to disagree on the table issue in theory, but I think the tables suggested by Yegort coming from Vincentric might be copyright violations as they directly duplicate information from their study. I might be mistaken but it should probably be brought up at the appropriate noticeboard where people might have a better idea about it. As for the US centric issue, Mariordo might be right (although I think dependence on foreign oil is unlikely to be brought up by sources in reference to countries outside of Europe, the US and maybe China), but the other two points still stand and I think we can agree that they are not needed outside of overview article like Green vehicle and plug in hybrid where they are clearly relevant. --Daniel 02:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually to add to the table issue, my main concern (aside from copyright) is crufty unneeded data. I think the results of these comparisons should be summarized concisely we don't need to show the raw comparison data for the same reason that medical articles don't show the raw data from a efficacy study. There is an issue of undue weight, table take up a lot of room and economic viability is should not be the focus of vehicle articles green or otherwise. --Daniel 03:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In the particular case of the Insight table, most of the variables produce negligible savings so probably the information is better presented to the reader in prose summarizing the key factors. I believe the use of comparison tables should be assess case by case, without making generalizations on either side. For example, many automobile articles have tables showing the main engine features from several trims. As suggested in the non concluded discussion here, a good balance could be to present the different powertrains together with a couple of the associated key environmental parameters/features such as fuel economy and carbon footprint.

Daniel, if you agree, I would like to open a new section to recap all the issues that have been raise in the WP Autos/Mass merge and here, with a short explanation, so that we can target exactly where we disagree and on which issues we agree. I will use a bullet format that in principle will simplify the discussion (this is a technique used in formal negotiations). If you want, I can prepare a draft in a sandbox and you could jump in so that together we develop this template to attempt a more orderly discussion to finally reach some conclusions. Of course, Wikipedia is flexible, there will be always special cases, but at least we can avoid arguing in circles about the same issues again and again.--Mariordo (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mariordo, that sounds really good. I think we all can actually agree on a lot, but the last discussion got so contentious it was impossible to move forward. I think starting over with what you are suggesting is a great idea. Go ahead and draft it up and I will comment and then we can seek further input. --Daniel 03:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I will try to work it out during this weekend and provide you with the link once it is in a decent shape. After we agree on the content I think the best way to open a wide discussion is to put a notice here and in WP:AUTO for those editors that might be interested in participating, let's hope in a constructive way.--Mariordo (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Vincentric 2010 Hybrids Analysis

I have found a great Cost of Ownership Hybrid Analysis - [10]! It is from the Vincentric company. This company provides state by state cost of ownership data to major car manufactures - General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Toyota, Audi and Mercedes-Benz so it is to be most trusted. In the study there is the comparison of Hybrids to the most closest all gas counterparts. As other studies [11] have shown Cost of Ownership is the most important concern for Green Vehicles car buyer. For four Hybrids 5-year cost of ownership is below to their all gas counterparts. For seven other Hybrids 5-year cost of ownership is within $2000 to all gas counterparts. I already added the results of this study to Honda Insight article [12]. I think we should add the results of this study to all appropriate Hybrid articles. --Yegort (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: The user Bdc101 deleted the whole section that I created in Honda Insight article. I am moving the discussion here because I wanted to put this info in all related Hybrids articles. The accusations against section (see the accusation against the section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honda_Insight#.22Cost_of_Ownership.22_comparison): 1) "Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to be used to compare the prices of competing products. Wikipedia is not a sales or pricing directory". My response: I do not use Vincentric Analysis to compare the prices of competing products but the purpose is to debunk the myth that Hybrids are too expensive to own (as seen for example in this survey - the main people's concern is still price [13]). Vincentric Analysis is a study on this subject that by the nature of the subject has to include a cost comparison. 2) "table is a borderline copyright violation" My response: I believe we are fine here because it is essentially not a long text excerpt. Accroding to Wikipedia rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, blockquote, or a similar method" and here "Unacceptable use: Excessively long copyrighted excerpts." This text table is not even long. 3) "get rid of all the meaningless and speculative fields like maintenance, repairs, insurance, and "opportunity" cost so that you can give it some credibility", "table is is pretty crufty". My response: This is a top professional company that displays top professional data. This is what in reality the cost of ownership is. This is how for example Forbes displays it in their famous car comparisons (by the way they are using Vincentric data) [14]. Are you calling Forbes comparisons "meaningless", "speculative" and "crafty"? --Yegort (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"the purpose is to debunk the myth that Hybrids are too expensive to own" -- Drawing your own conclusion, or using other sources to promote a point of view, is a big no-no in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research, and specifically, WP:SYNTHESIS. If you find a reliable source that states this viewpoint itself, feel free to mention it. In other words, the conclusion should already be drawn in the source, not just here. Also, I understand the desire to move this discussion to a group, but by moving the discussion here, the responses are being swayed toward a pro-green-car stance, regardless of Wikipedia policies -- not quite WP:Canvassing, but close. It would be more balanced to add this to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles discussion as well. --Vossanova ^o< 21:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Some editors in both groups might be biased, so I believe the neutral place to discuss this issue is the article talk page. My suggestion is to continue the discussion there where it began.--Mariordo (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Vincentric study, my initial reactions: 1. Is it a RS? 2. How objective the comparisons are? At this stage, I am against including such info. unless they are widely reported. (As they are widely reported, chance of any flaw in the study to be noticed would increase substantially. I remember there was a similar comparison/study by Consumer Reports [in the U.S.] in which a flaw was found and CR had to amend it.) ---North wiki (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Honda Insight - Monthly U.S. sales number

There is a discussion about monthly U.S. sales information in the Honda Insight article here. Feel free to join the discussion. --North wiki (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this discussion has shifted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Monthly sales figures.  Stepho  (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

2012-2016 CAFE standards

This is to call the attention of any interested editors to contribute in updating the Corporate Average Fuel Economy article. Please see my comment here. The article needs some major work to remove a lot of outdated material, merge the content in the two future section, and add the content of the new 2012-2016 standards (which is nicely summarized here).--Mariordo (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Mass article merger

There are some merge proposals here involving green vehicle articles that have not yet been closed. It seems clear that consensus was not reached and the articles should be kept separate. Probably an uninvolved Admin should do the closures and finalise this matter. Johnfos (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I did close the discussions. No admin showed up and most of the discussions were close or more than 3 months old.--Mariordo (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Solar-charged vehicle

I believe the article Solar-charged vehicle is a classical example of original research through WP:Synthesis and a candidate for deletion. Nevertheless, I would like to hear your opinions before moving forward with a formal AfD request. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is to let you know that I already proceeded with the AfD nomination. If any editor is interested in participating go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar-charged vehicle.--Mariordo (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Automobile propulsion technologies

Also I would like your opinion on Automobile propulsion technologies. I already tried the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion but one editor removed the tag without much explanation. This article repeats a lot of the content in Alternative fuel vehicle. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Now redirected. Johnfos (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ford Focus BEV

This is to let you know that Ford Focus BEV article was moved (merged) today to Ford Focus (third generation) against the result of the merge discussion that was closed just 3 months ago to keep the article. Here is the general discussion that motivated the merge without proper discussion/procedure. I already contacted an admin to restore the article. The move cannot be simply reverted because it will destroy new content.--Mariordo (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: The Focus Electric content was actually split in two:

• One part is here: Ford Focus (second generation, Europe)#Focus BEV
• The other one here: Ford Focus (third generation)#Focus Electric

And for those who missed it, the merge discussion that resulted in keeping the Focus Electric article separate is archived here.--Mariordo (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As you say, the re-organization of the Focus articles is fine, except that we have got rid of the Focus Electric article, against the result of the merge discussion. The whole reorganization could have been done without touching the BEV article. Johnfos (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, I indeed supported the reorganization and also make clear that there was no need to move/merge/get rid of the BEV article, but instead be part of the family of Focus articles.--Mariordo (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is to let you know that after consulting with an admin (here) he recommended to do a cut and paste to restored the article content. Since a reversal of the move would have resulted in losing part of the content of the new Focus third generation article, a cut and paste was the less destructive approach, but the original history of the Focus BEV article remains in that article (and that is the purpose of the special tags I put above both articles). Also, I took the opportunity to restore it under Ford Focus Electric, considering that Ford changed the electric car name from Focus BEV to Focus Electric when the production version was unveiled in early 2011. Let's take this incident as an opportunity to expand and improve this article, which is as relevant as the Nissan Leaf, Mitsubishi i MiEV and the Chevrolet Volt. I already did a re-write of the lead and some other minor adjustments. Also another admin recommended opening an ANI against OSX, which I will open soon.--Mariordo (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that User:OSX has started an edit war in an attempt to delete the restored article. Any help in containing his attempts to delete this content would be greatly appreciated. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for recreating and maintaining the Ford Focus Electric page. Looks good. Johnfos (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Units in ethanol related articles

This is to let you know that there is an ongoing discussion about the conversion units in articles dealing with ethanol fuel and multiple changes being made by a bot here. For those interested please drop by to participate in the discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Blue Car

This is to invite any interested editors in the merge discussion of the Pininfarina B0 article as a section of the Bolloré Blue Car. See the structure of the French Wikipedia article here.--Mariordo (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Hiriko

This is to invite any interested editors in the merge discussion of the Hiriko article as a section of the CityCar article.--Mariordo (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Split Chevrolet Volt

This is to invite any interested editors to participate in the ongoing discussion to split the Opel Ampera into a stand alone article branching from the Chevrolet Volt.--Mariordo (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename EVs in the US

This is to invite any interested editors to participate in the discussion I opened here to rename the article Electric vehicles in the United States to Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States.--Mariordo (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

New Edits at Wheel hub motor

Hi All,

I would appreciate any of your thoughts, comments and edits in response to a large number of new edits at Wheel hub motor by an anonymous IP editor. Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

AfD Sustainable energy vehicle

For any editor interested in participating in the discussion, this is to let you know that I have opened an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainable energy vehicle.--Mariordo (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reasons to buy an electric car in 2013

Here's a new article that you might want to cite in appropriate articles: <ref>Kramer, Felix Max Baumhefner. [http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mbaumhefner/good_and_green_reasons_to_cons.html "Good and Green Reasons to Consider an Electric Car This Year"], ''Switchboard'', Natural Resources Defense Council, March 5, 2013</ref> -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Electric car fire incidents

For those that might be interested in participating in the discussion, this is to let you know that I opened a split proposal here to split the section "risk of fire" from the electric car article to a new Plug-in electric vehicle fire incidents article or Electric car fire incidents.--Mariordo (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment: Electric vehicle warning sounds

For those that might be interested in participating in the discussion, this is to let you know that here a discussion has been opened to reassess the GA quality of the above mentioned article.--Mariordo (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article bicycle (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Community GA reassessment of Nissan Leaf

Nissan Leaf, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Electric cars

Hello, the article Electric car did not mention fuel cell vehicles at all. I added a short text on the introduction, but the rest of the article describes exclusively battery electric cars. Can you help to fix this? --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Chevrolet Volt

Chevrolet Volt, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Plug-in electric vehicle

Plug-in electric vehicle, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal transporter requested move notice

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Personal transporter#Requested move 7 June 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Related WikiProjects

WikiProject Automobiles and WikiProject Energy would both also have an obvious interest in this task force, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Plug-in electric vehicle into Battery electric vehicle

If you are interested please discuss at Talk:Battery_electric_vehicle#Merger_proposal Chidgk1 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Proposal closed as "No consensus" in Feb. 2021. Jusdafax (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

BrightDrop COI edit requests

Hi! I'm a COI editor BrightDrop (a subsidiary of GM, a client of my employer). I've posted some edit requests to the talk page for that article. If anyone here has time to take a look, I'd appreciate it! Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like your request has been addressed, please feel free to update if there are any further changes you are looking to make. - Indefensible (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Flexible-fuel vehicle

Flexible-fuel vehicle has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels

Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal: List of modern production plug-in electric vehicles into List of production battery electric vehicles (and List of hybrid vehicles).

Context: There's a greater discussion of deprecating all 'list of electric vehicle' pages as they become untenable over the next few years, but in the meantime merging is a good first step.

Please see discussion and full proposal over at Talk:List_of_production_battery_electric_vehicles#Merger_proposal:_Integrate_List_of_modern_production_plug-in_electric_vehicles. --No coffee, please. (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil

Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

History of ethanol fuel in Brazil

History of ethanol fuel in Brazil has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mitsubishi i-MiEV

Mitsubishi i-MiEV has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)