![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Under the best ' be bold' tradition of Wikipedia I'm going to try and kick-start this project. Editing automobile, hot hatch and The effect of the automobile... has attracted enough comments for me to know I'm not the only one with an interest in cars.
I'm fairly new to editing the Wikipedia, although I've floated around long enough to know a little about what is here and what isn't. I would appreciate any guidance from more senior Wikipedians on how to set up a WikiProject - as yet there seems to be no article about this.
I know there are petrolheads and vehicle connoisseurs out there - please do put your names down and we'll try to get some good stuff going.
Thanks! akaDruid 15:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I noticed other Wikiprojects have announced their start on the announcement page. My boldness doesn't extend as far as editing that page - I would appreciate some guidance on that e.g. is there a announcements/submissions or similar page?
Thanks! akaDruid 16:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There are a huge number of potential things to do in this project. Here are some ideas I've had to get started with:
I've made a quick start on a layout, see Jaguar E-type. akaDruid 12:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Here's a stub To-Do list for you guys... See Category:Automobile_stubs. It's surprising really, the number of stubs you guys have now mark up to 300+ in two months time... Just thought to drop a note. You guys seem to have a daunting task ahead. --[[User:Allyunion| AllyUnion (Talk)]] 08:50, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I recently revised most of the Lincoln Town Car article and after pondering over how to present the Trim levels built a section as well as geaphic dedicated to representing the different trim levels. This addition combined with the alredy existing article have in my opinion made the Lincoln Town Car site qualified to serve as a example of layout unitl a blank page is created Gerdbrendel 07:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I added "Premier Automotive Group" to Wikipedia. The first sentence is: "Ford Motor Company owns the Premier Automotive Group (PAG), which is presumably a self-sufficient company that combines the business operations of Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo."
I'm not sure this is accurate; if not, perhaps a WikiProject Automobiles member could re-write it. — Vespristiano 05:10, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
I've done some work on the article. In my understanding, the PAG is a division of Ford, rather than a company in its own right. Additionally, someone had added Lincoln to the list of brands in the PAG - this is not correct. Ford does sell cars under the Lincoln brand, but does not consider them part of the PAG. akaDruid 10:57, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Lincoln was actually part of the PAG at its inception. Changes in personnel and marketing strategy (and maybe some cost-cutting) later caused it to be reorganized back into the Ford/Mercury operation. Here's an article at Ward's Auto Reports that lays out the original five-brand strategy. RivGuySC 06:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. I didn't know that! akaDruid 09:54, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ward's article was correct at the time. Lincoln was pulled out of PAG primarily because of "brand-fit" issues... PAG is former independent companies, euro themed, with a whole different core customer base than Lincoln. PAG is more of an organizational subdivision -- like how the lines are drawn on the org chart --than an independent organization. Pmeisel 02:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi folks, I've set down a basic page on the classic Capri and made an assumption (based on a strong feeling) that the Capri was based on the Ford Cortina of the time. Can anybody confirm or deny this? I've struggled to find evidence on the web but I'm sure I read something along these lines in the motoring press some time ago. This is worth checking as it was me who assumed Lincoln was still in PAG and was proven wrong!! Thanks. -- Pete Richardson 12:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Can't cite a specific source but remember from the time that the Capri was a sporty version of the Cortina. I probably read it in 1960s era Road & Track magazine Pmeisel 02:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Another idea in the pot: how about a standard data box for trim levels? Also (as I've mentioned elsewhere) it wouldn't hurt to have layouts for engine specs. I may knock up something for the Ford Mondeo page to see what you guys think. -- Pete Richardson 14:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I put up a proposed automobile article naming convention in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Proposed naming convention - please look at it and comment/alter, thanks! —Morven 23:33, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
I have a copy of David Burgess Wise's The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Automobiles that I've been regurgitating (not copying outright, mind you); thus far, I'm about three-quarters of the way through the A's. The book is 12 years out of date, but it's a very good resource for many old, forgotten marques. While it's concerned more with the technical side of various cars, I think it's a good start. And it has good capsule histories of many of the major makes, including Armstrong-Siddeley (which article I added this afternoon) and Panhard & Levassor (which appears to have no article whatsoever - rather shocking considering this company's importance).
I'm going to be continuing with the thing for as long as I can; I hope it will be of some assistance. -- Boccherini's Guitar 01:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK - I just went on vacation for a week and a half, and got back last night. I went to see the Frick Collection outside of Pittsburgh, which has a nice little auto museum; I got a few pictures for some of the harder-to-find historic marques (such as American Bantam) of which they had examples on display. I should like to upload these for insertion into the articles in question; would there be any problems with this?-- 207.69.137.137 19:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention the following fun "list of..." pages. More input, as always, is appreciated!
Enjoy! -- SFoskett 13:35, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to create a new subpage talking about things like typography conventions (cc versus ml, ft.lbf, , and so on) within automobile articles. thoughts? -- SFoskett 19:54, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
Whaddya folks think of these?
-- SFoskett 19:09, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
I also like them very much. So I made Template:BMW cars. I'd approve a conversion of the Mercedes template: their W-numbers would work well in this format, although the sheer number of models might be better presented by splitting into sedans, sports and SUV. -- Hotlorp 20:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just made this as a prototype: Template_talk:Mercedes-Benz_vehicles. Compare it with the current Template:Mercedes-Benz_vehicles . Let me know what you think, on that talk page. -- Hotlorp 01:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We usually have surprisingly little mangled prose in the car articles. However, this one seems to have been machine-translated from Old High Martian: Chevrolet Citation. I could improve it--that wouldn't be hard!--but it would be better if somebody that knows the model could tear into it. I'm weak on compacts. RivGuySC 02:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We've been having a little discussion over at Talk:Honda NSX and Talk:Sports car about what is and isn't a sports car/super car. I decided to put it to a straw poll. Please take a moment to "vote" at the following articles:
Thank you. -- SFoskett 13:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
More cars to categorize:
Thanks! -- SFoskett 12:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
I've just reverted yet another rewritten car page from our mysterious page. We have to think of some way of reaching this person and trying to help them become a more productive member of the community. I have an idea:
I'd like to place a note in HTML comments at the top of some pages likely to be replaced by this person. The note would ask them to please create an account and join this project instead of merely rewriting entire pages. What do you all think of this idea? -- SFoskett 01:06, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
He's back! Now at User:81.131.76.208 so he must have gotten a new ISP or must be sitting in a coffee shop... The same MO with the "MK1" junk and UK-centric POV writing style. -- SFoskett 19:20, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
I've edited the Mazda3 page because it neglected European and Japanese versions of the cars. American bias (and to a lesser extent, British bias) seems to be a problem affecting articles on cars that originated in places outside North America. This is mainly due to lack of knowledge and lack of research, and affects mostly available engine options and renaming for different markets. British bias happens on some continental models, but to a lesser extent.
Please use these websites on research about current and historical automobiles. They're not complete, and mainly refer to technical specifications, but they're not bad. -- Pc13 14:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Related to the above: any thoughts on the Opel Speedster and Vauxhall VX 220? I think of them as Opels, but they are made in England, so it's a fair call that the Vauxhall page leads—then, the same argument could be levelled at various Luton- and Ellesmore Port-built Opels. I would also like to raise the issue of the Simca 1307 and 1308, and the Chrysler Alpine. I had redirected the Alpine page to the Simca, as that car was released first and is known as that in more countries, but I notice that someone else had changed this so that Chrysler Alpine became the lead page again. Thoughts are welcome as I believe this is another sign of British bias. Should Vauxhall VX 220 be changed, and should Simca 1307 be the page on which Alpine data reside? Stombs 09:53, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
i have updated the General Motors Astra with details of the Opel Kadett. 82.42.151.164 Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
It's happened a few times on New Zealand-related pages, and it's a bit annoying. I vote we do not include vehicles privately imported, or those unofficially imported by used car dealers (grey imports). Exceptions should be made when the grey imports are significant and create a large following, or if they alter the official concessionaire's policy. Any thoughts? Stombs 10:53, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
Any Hyundai experts among us? I found a comment on the Toyota Corona page by a 150.204.50.38 which turned out to be bogus (viz. that there was a Toyota Alexia), and noted this user's rather major entry on the Hyundai Elantra. I'm not that au fait with the model, but knowledgeable enough to know that 2001 certainly wasn't the launch date for the countries which called the older Lantra under the Elantra name (e.g. Canada). The writer lists UK models, and I shall be interested to know if they are correct. Corrections there are welcome. Stombs 12:01, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Sources of information: www.autoweek.nl for Netherlands, various UK car websites for England and www.consumerguide.com for USA cars. Hope this helps. Apologies for the vandalism. 82.42.151.164 Jan 19, 2005
I am wondering at what we should use as a standard for naming convention among Hyundai Models. For example, there is currently a Hyundai Accent (the American Model) page, which also describes the current Verna (the Korean Model) - the reverse is true of the Hyundai Avante (the Korean Model) page, which describes the Elantra (American Model). There is also a seperate page describing older American Elantras and European Lantras - where this is essentially the same model as the Avante/Elantra of modern day. I'm wondering how we should organize these - should there be seperate pages for Korean, American, European models, or one page per model for all of them - and if that is the case, how should we name that single page? GHoosdum 15:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello-
Since I seem to have a great interest in American Automobiles, I thought I would drop in, if its OK. I'm hoping to get some help with an article that just posted to Wikipedia Mohs Automobile. Can some folks take a look at it and tell me what you think? user: stude62 user talk:stude62 04:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know I'm new, and that this probably isn't the correct fodder for this forum, but I find it amusing when cars are rolled out into a market with names that "aren't right" for that market. For example:
user: stude62 user talk:stude62 14:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've moved all the DMC-12 specific information from the De Lorean page to the De Lorean DMC-12 page. Since all that's left in the De Lorean page is a discussion of the company itself, I think it's appropriate to move it to De Lorean Motor Company, which currently redirects in. I tried to move it over with admin help, but they want a more formal call for votes—please weigh in at Talk:De Lorean if you have a moment. I'd rather this get discussed first within the WikiProject Auto community, as opposed to the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. Thanks! -- Milkmandan 07:45, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
I've noticed that in some automobile articles, names of variants of the main model are written in bold (for examples, see Aston Martin V12 Vanquish, Chevrolet Corvette and Honda NSX). The Manual of Style says: "If the subject of the article has more than one name, each new form of the name should be in bold on its first appearance.". It seems to me that variations of the article's subject (here, variations of the main automobile model) shouldn't be bolded, but I wanted to know if anyone else has an opinion on this (or cares ;-)). SamH| Talk 23:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed a bunch of pages (e.g., Jeep Wrangler, Ford Explorer, Mazda RX-7) that use the phrase, this article is part of the automobile series in the sidebar have the manufucturer crammed in there, too. This article is part of the Ford automobile series seems a bit forced, considering that we don't really have a manufacturer-specific series and, in any event, the manufacturer is clearly listed at the beginning of the bar.
Does the manufacturer name in the text serve some other purpose? I'd like to see the sidebars generalized. -- Milkmandan 16:06, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
I've added in thirty-eight (38) additional marques to the Canadian section of the List of automobile manufacturers page. I have this strange, sudden urge to rush out and buy an Acadian Beaumont ... user: stude62 user talk:stude62 16:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I noticed a link being dropped into the Cadillac Escalade page. [3] It points to a Cadillac picture gallery, but the gallery requires registration to see anything more than thumbnails.
It turns out that these links have been dumped across the Cadillac pages. ( Special:Contributions/68.215.43.208, Special:Contributions/65.11.181.194)
There's a quick discussion on the Talk:Cadillac Escalade page about it, and I'd like to suggest that we remove these across all of these pages.
It seems like links are getting dumped inconsistently across most car pages anyway. A set of guidelines of what is appropriate and what isn't seems like a really good idea. -- Milkmandan 18:44, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
I've added a FAQ because it seems like a lot of the same issues come up with new contributors. Any way to make the transition into the Wikipedia easier is, in my mind, a positive thing. The FAQ serves to address questions that are already answered in the other Auto Project (and main Wikipedia) pages, but which aren't immediately accessible due to article size. I think a FAQ would provide a vital first shot at getting the most important information to new WikiGearheads.
I haven't linked it to the main WikiProject Auto page yet because I think the concept needs to be discussed and the page needs to be expanded/edited.
What are your thoughts? Please discuss at the FAQ talk. -- Milkmandan 20:16, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
I'm trying to get Wankel engine to be a featured article. I've been modding it according to the "friendly" suggestions of the folks at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wankel engine, but think maybe some help from the folks here might be more useful. Anyone want to take a go at copyediting the History section? -- SFoskett 12:57, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
I'm a sucker for weird marques. So I just went through adding lots of info on Stutz. I especially focused on the crazy 1970s cars. Anyone care to add/edit/read? -- SFoskett 17:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that there are two pages for the Aston Martin V12 Vanquish. The more developed one is called Aston Martin V12 Vanquish. However, there is also a page simply called V12 Vanquish about the same car. Can anyone fix this? Perhaps remove the second page? Jagvar 15:12, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Attention all car experts! I have added to the page List of supercars the names of several rare, obscure supercars on which I have little information. I will continue to research these vehicles and start up as many pages as I can, but it is a daunting task to tackle all those cars myself. If you know anything about these supercars or feel like a new project, I encourage you to add. Keep up the good work everyone. -- Jagvar Apr 3, 2005
I wonder if we should try to request certain types of photographs, since so many are wide-angle shots that are substantially inferior to commercial photos of the same car. (E.g. the Ford Mondeo image) We don't need to be this bad. Perhaps by "suggesting" certain types of photo in the template (I'm thinking side view, front view, rear view, front 3/4 view, rear 3/4 view) we could start a flow of good submissions. If all these images are submitted, perhaps the template could display the side view and link to the rest, to avoid clutter and allow photos of other submodels to be shown. I'd also like to remind photographers to try to stand a good distance away and zoom in, rather than use a wide angle. And try to be as dead-on exact side-on etc. as one can manage. With well populated data, we could automatically generate nice collections of car profiles, rear ends, etc. -- Hotlorp 20:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apart from older and obscure vehicles, there are some more common modern vehicles that still need articles. Feel free to add a car you feel needs a page:
I propose that we move some of the US-specific info on that page onto the USDM Accord page, so that the Honda Accord page is a general introduction to the Accord from the fifth-generation onwards (where it first branched out into market-specific versions). Detailed info of JDM, Euro, & USDM Accords can then be inserted into their respective pages. I would also like to expand on info regarding Accords from the 1st to 4th generation on that page, as Honda basically sold similar cars worldwide. What do u think??
It has come to my attention that there is now a page called Mercedes E500. This should really be merged with Mercedes-Benz E-Class. At the very least, the person who started the page should have called it Mercedes-BENZ E500.
Who is up for the task?
-- Jagvar Apr 19, 2005
I must confess to being uncomfortable with the increasing use of magazine covers to illustrate articles.
For one thing, how solid is a "fair use" claim here? I suspect that using a magazine cover to illustrate an article on a magazine would be no problem, but to illustrate articles on cars and engines? I have a feeling that this might be pushing fair use a little too far.
For another, the images contain a lot of extraneous stuff and don't necessarily illustrate the article all that well.
Any thoughts? —Morven 18:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I understand and agree that the PR photos are artistically superior. However, Wikipedia's policy is "always use a more free alternative if one is available". See Wikipedia:Fair use for a thorough discussion. I will not object to replacing the really ugly images, but I suggest that we should try to use GFDL images if possible. -- SFoskett 01:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Now there's a topic that needed writing... History of the automobile is open for business. I expect that we'll try to keep this article concise, and will open new ones for each era, decade, or even year, as time goes by. -- SFoskett 17:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
We need to work on Supercar (car classification). The article is POV and opinionated. I rewrote it (see [4]) but another user immediately reverted it rather than discuss the contents. Can some others here please take a stab at improving this article? I don't want to get into an edit war. -- SFoskett 13:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've put in some effort writing articles on the Consulier GTP and Mosler MT900. It was hard to track details down on these cars, especially the Mosler Intruder and Mosler Raptor... Any thoughts would be welcome. -- SFoskett 14:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I've got some concerns about recent edits by Special:Contributions/Castletower. To summarize, this person has over 200 edits solely to automotive pages, all of which consist of adding links to the aforementioned site. Examples: [5] [6] [7]
I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are about adding links across whole swaths of pages—and I mean this in the general sense, not just in this specific case. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate, for a number of reasons:
I really don't think that linkbombs across multiple pages add significant value. If each auto page was linkbombed with links from three or four different auto wikis (and I'm sure more than that exist), the response would probably be pretty negative.
Additionally, I've got minor concerns about the autoguidewiki.com links:
These last points are fixable, but only if the appropriateness of these links isn't in question.
My feeling is that these need to be, at the very least, evaluated on a page-by-page basis. More reasonably, I'd rather pull them all and work them back in if it's warranted.
Thoughts? -- Milkmandan July 1, 2005 15:04 (UTC)
Hello,
My name is Robert Eaton. I am the webmaster in charge of the Autoguidewiki.com site. I just wanted link our articles to your site for more detailed information. I understand your concerns over our content not "adding" much "new" to your content. But we are in the development stages, a baby wiki so to say. We do not wish to "compete with your content", this is just a fun site for us, and we value the WikiPedia Communities feelings.
Robert Eaton
I really do not see the value of the Autoguide Wiki links in general. Most contain far less content than the article they are linked to. Plus, as far as I can tell, autoguide exists solely to create similar content to the Automobiles Project pages - that is, if autoguide was expanded to be what it looks like it wants to be, it will be entirely duplicative of what we want Wikipedia to be! Add this to the adversizing on those pages, and I suspect that autoguide is merely link farming on Wikipedia in hopes of future revenue/site traffic. I further bridle at the sheer number of links to a single site.
Therefore, I move that we remove all links to autoguide wiki unless it can be shown that each link in question provides unique and valuable content. -- SFoskett 19:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Ok... that's cool. We are sorry for the inconvience we have created for the community. Wikimanager
I am not sure if we have an explicit policy on sequence of units. Several of us seem to agree that raw data values should come before converted values. But the horsepower values are more complicated. There are difficulties with terms e.g. do we say 'PS', 'hp DIN', 'hp ISO' or something else? In this case, I am only asking for thoughts about how we decide on the sequence of the 3 possible units.
For example, the Porsche Cayman article said
This was subsequently changed to
I checked the official German website for Porsche and replaced it with their sequence and values:
This was then changed to:
My suggestion is that we should use the sequence in the home website for the car. Thus the German website for Porsche, BMW, Mercedez and the Italian website for Ferrari etc.
With this guideline in mind, I changed the Porsche article to:
What do others think? Bobblewik (talk) 3 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
We have aviation and car articles where triple units are used, for example (kW, PS, hp SAE) or (km/h, knots, mi/h). We appear to accept this convention. However, an editor amended the Manual of Style to say multiple equivalents including metric are cumbersome and shall be avoided. Thus we have opposing conventions.
Please feel free to join the discussion and raise the issues of aviation and car articles. Bobblewik (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
There is a quote of an increase in power from 170 to 172 hp in Hyundai Tiburon. I think that the power is exactly the same (see the kilowatt values). This is the sort of problem we face throughout Wikipedia with ambiguity in power units. Fortunately, the source value is first and this helped me to identify the error. Can people check those figures please? Bobblewik 11:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
This was bound to come up. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while, but I notice the Daewoo Lacetti now redirects to Chevrolet Lacetti. I thought there was an understanding here that we would use the names of the country of origin to avoid nation bias, in this case, one toward Europe. What are others' views? Stombs 02:52, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
The article on Transportation is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.-- Fenice 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
It has been proposed, in the course of a badly fractured discussion, that cars should be identified according to their brand in their country of origin. This would have the effect of moving Chevrolet Lacetti -> Daewoo Lacetti, Chevrolet Aveo -> Daewoo Kalos, Chevrolet Nubira -> Daewoo Nubira and probably others. This has been discussed on this page and on Talk:Chevrolet Lacetti, Talk:Chevrolet Aveo, Talk:Chevrolet Nubira.
These three moves had been listed on WP:RM, however looking at them as a closing administator I have found them to have been poorly announced at the respective talk pages and to have gathered inconsistent results. Because of this, I have decided to refactor this discussion to a centralized location and attempt make it clear the several issues being discussed. Dragons flight 02:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Chevrolet Lacetti -> Daewoo Lacetti
Chevrolet Nubira -> Daewoo Nubira
Chevrolet Aveo -> Daewoo Kalos
I think the proposed move could only create more confusion, because badge engineering and renaming of GM Daewoo vehicles is very extensive.
For example, the new Chevrolet Aveo model T250 is to be sold under this name everywhere in the world, but in the S.Korea only it's known as the Daewoo Gentra. Tthe previous Chevrolet Aveo model T250 is named the Chevrolet Kalos in Western Europe and the Daewoo Kalos in S.Korea. Sp, where the Chevrolet Aveo should be redirected to? Then, the Chevrolet Kalos has a European-only 3-door version that's not sold on the local market. How to deal about this? And I'm against using some fake artifical names like GM Daewoo Lacetti. Likewise, the Nubira name is not used on the Korean market anymore, so there's only the Daewoo Lacetti sedan (J200) - the later hatchback version of model J200 is not even sold there. Now how to redirect the Chevrolet Lacetti hatchback (model J200) (aka Suzuki Reno, Chevrolet Optra5 etc) - should it be redirected to Daewoo Lacetti (J200) sedan?
I suggest leaving the articles as is (that is Europe-centric) until there's a satisfactory solution. See also Talk:Chevrolet Nubira#Daewoo or Chevrolet?. -- DmitryKo 19:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree on calling the Gentra the Holden Barina. The fourth-generation Barina is actually a Kalos re-engineered for Australian conditions, not the Gentra that debuted at Shanghai. In addition, the Holden JF Viva is really the sedan, hatchback, and wagon versions of the Lacetti/Nubira/Optra/Forenza/Reno, which like the Barina is re-engineered for Australian conditions. Both of them will be offered in the 2006 model year, although the Viva webpage is up and running on Holden's website [8]. The reason why Holden is offering the New Barina and the Viva is because sales of the Commodore have fallen because of high energy prices. In addition, to Holden, it's cheaper to import a Kalos-based Barina than an Opel Corsa-based Barina simply because of price. In addition, Holden owns a bit of GMDAT. To call the Gentra the Barina is absurd, in my opinion, when the New Barina is really the Kalos. -- DanCBJMS, 23:05 EDT, Tuesday, 11 October, 2005; 03:05 GMT, Wednesday, 12 October, 2005
Pages moved to Daewoo versions as requested and double redirects fixed. Take care! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Found lots of photos of old British lorries and cars under cc-by-2.0 at http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/by-2.0/tags/lorry/ - I have got the Sentinels but thought someone'd be interested in the rest of them. Dunc| ☺ 16:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I was in the process of re-doing the Volvo V70 page when I started thinking about what to with the similar S60 and S80 pages. As these car share the same platform, doesn't it make sense to have the platform page containing ALL info, with the models based on that platform re-directing there instead? I.e. using the V70 as a template, make that generic for S60 and S80, then merge with the platform page? Obviously, this approach wouldn't work for all platforms, e.g. the Ford Mondeo and Jaguar X-Type are quite different, but when the S60 is merely the saloon form of V70 it seems daft having two distinct pages to maintain! Any thoughts? -- Pete Richardson 14:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The Volvo S80 is a different car from S60/V70, so I think the S80 deserves an own page.
Similar question with the Volvo 300 series and 400 series. Where Volvo 340, 343, 345 and 360 are bunched together at one page, while Volvo 440, 460 and 480 got one each. Although that makes a little sense, since the 300 models were more similar to each other than the 400 models. Especially I think the Volvo 480 deserves its own page. -- Boivie 14:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi there, I am one of the users who posted from 82.42.151.164 as an anon IP contributor. I will be making some useful contributions, like on the Ford Focus talk page.
Leave a message on my talk page if you want to talk about cars or anything in general with me. -- Astwell1986 11:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Can someone give a clear explanation of image policy as it pertains manufacturer's promotional photos? I can't figure it out. For example, the tag on this
seems to indicate it's OK as fair use, but this File:1973 dodge charger se press photo.jpg has an additional tag that says it's really not OK and can be used only temporarily at best. ???? RivGuySC 16:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
At talk:Volkswagen, there is a diskussion about naming VW model pages. I'd appreciate some input from other automobile interested wikipedians. -- Boivie 12:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It's unclear to me for what the "Overview" heading is. I suggest deleting it and promoting the succeeding three headings up one level. — Vespristiano 03:11, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
I really like the data box (cars are perfect for this format) and it would be a good place to include vital stats like max HP & torque, 0-60 (might be controversial, considering testing procedures), wheelbase, final drive, etc. but there are so many variables in a car it could easily turn into information overload. However, as a car enthusiast I think most of this data is rather important, and I would like to find a way to include it.
We might be able to move power figures (and possibly reduce data duplication) to a different page by making a seperate page for every engine that is used in more than 1 car (i.e. BMW's e32 740i and e34 540i both use an identical M60 engine). Gearboxes are also resued fairly often. We first need to figure out how much info to provide. I don't know how many people would care about this stuff, but I do, and the data is often hard to find. PlatinumX 10:09, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Have we come to any consensus on the data box layout yet? I've added the standard layout to the Ford Mondeo page and I'm keen to put it on some of my other pet pages? An example layout for engines (specifc or series) would be great if anyone has time to do it? I've created stubs for Duratec and Duratorq but not sure where to take them yet. Cheers! -- Pete Richardson 12:49, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry I've been absent from this space. (I didn't know I had to set my Wikipedia account to watch the "Layouts" sub-page in addition to the main project page.)
I probably should contribute my humble opinions on some issues, even though some may now be irrelevant.
— Vespristiano 02:12, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)
I really like the style of this table from another article. Could we adapt it for our use and thus make our data box look even better?
— Vespristiano 22:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Note for anyone who has used the example layout: there was a spelling error where "companents" in the data box should be "components". Please correct any articles that you have used this layout with. Thanks. -- Pete Richardson 13:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
For the Class: section on the data table, I think we should have a standard of choices to choose from. Car classification would be great, but it's currently a bit disorganized and possibly incomplete. There are many ways of classifying a car. Is 'sedan' a class or a body style (which we should also standardize)? Should we go by purpose (i.e. sports car, offroader) even if the distinctions can be fuzzy? Is the Toyota Prius an economy car, a compact car, or a hatchback? Even the EPA regulations seem a little lacking (but at least they're consistent). Just a bit to think about :) PlatinumX 23:15, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've created a custom element for VW, so you can put {{msg:VW}} into the text, and it will come out as at the bottom of the example (only with the page you are on not linked). What do people think? akaDruid 17:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please modify your template to disambiguate sedan to sedan (car). Thanks. RedWolf 04:52, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
I fail to see the point of the final line of the infobox. We've discussed it before in random pages, but we have to decide here. The final "This article is part of the automobile series" line serves no purpose - we can all tell it's an automobile. Either we add a separate series for each marque (I like this idea) or we just kill that line. Thoughts? -- SFoskett 02:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
I propose that the layout box uses sentence case to match section headings. Thus 'Body styles' instead of 'Body Styles'. Bobblewik (talk) 15:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I propose that there is a space between the unit of measure and the unit symbol. Thus '4804 mm' instead of '4804mm'. Bobblewik (talk) 15:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I propose that we make more use of the term 'to' rather than '-' for number ranges. Thus '4731 to 4804 mm' instead of '4731-4804 mm'. One reason is that characters that look like '-' also look like minus. Bobblewik (talk) 15:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gerdbrendel ( talk · contribs) has been adding "blue boxes" surrounding the engine information. What do folks think of these? I personally don't like them - they overemphasize the engine stuff and (currently) force ugly line wraps. But of course this is WikiProject Automobiles, not WikiProject Sfoskett (sadly! LOL) so I'd like other opinions. See Chevrolet Tahoe for example. -- SFoskett 18:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand that some users may not like the boxes, but I would like to explain why I came up with them. I noticed that the infoboxes on some car pages were extremely long because thay listed the engine specs for every single generation of the vehicle. On other pages such as the Lincoln Town Car the egine specs were not at all mentioned in the infobox but instead were part of the text. The Town Car is where I started the Blue Boxes to differenciate the Engine Specs and make the text appear shorter, and thus more appealing to users. So please also view the Lincoln Town Car article as it is the birthplace of the blue box. I sincerely hope we can settle our creative differences by also keeping in that these blue boxes are more than just pretty or ugly since they serve a higher purpose than that of esthetics. The Blue boxes make articles appeat better organized, easier to read and by shortening the text more appealing to users. If you can't get over their look please consider that I'd gladly change their color. On the Lincoln LS article for example I have created lightgrey boxes. Please view both the Lincoln Town Car and Lincoln LS before making up your mind. Thank you very much. Gerdbrendel 19:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Years | Model | Engine type | Displacement | Power | Torque |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Late 2006– | S 450 | M113 V8 | 4.6 L | 340 PS (335 hp/250 kW) | |
2006– | S 550 | M113 V8 | 5.5 L | 388 PS (383 hp/285 kW) | 391 ft·lbf (530 N·m) |
Early 2006– | S 600 | M275 twin-turbo V12 | 5.5 L | 517 PS (510 hp/380 kW) | |
Late 2006– | S 63 AMG | M113 V8 | 6.2 L | 510 PS (503 hp/375 kW) | |
2006– | S 65 AMG | M275 twin-turbo V12 | 6.0 L | 612 PS (604 hp/450 kW) |
Lincoln Town Car | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Overview | |
Manufacturer | Ford Motor Company |
Production | 1981–present |
Body and chassis | |
Class | Full-size luxury car |
Body style | 4-door sedan |
Platform | FR Panther |
Related | Mercury Grand Marquis |
Chronology | |
Predecessor | Lincoln Continental |
There is a new effort afoot to create a variable Template:Infobox automobile. Please feel free to contribute. I have added it to Hyundai Azera as a test. -- SFoskett 21:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's my infobox proposal (Town Car as example):
FYI I have revamped the Lincoln Town Car site. Gerdbrendel 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
HI, I have just created two articles for the Lincoln MK9 and Navicross concept models and have noticed that the standard infobox I use for cars in production doesn't really fit the concept cars. I think a new infobox should be created for Concept Cars Only that features a spaces for the year when they were presented as well as the Auto Show where they were presented. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Casting about for information about aircraft conversions of automobile engines, I decided to be bold and create a new template for automobile engines. Information fields are based on the aircraft {{ pistonspecs}}, and style is based on {{ Infobox automobile}}. Example implementations can be seen at Subaru EA engine and Suzuki G engine. McNeight 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Each car article should have a Reference section. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
To conform with layout guidelines the infobox is best placed in the body of the article and an image used in the top right. Wikipedia:Infobox templates#Design and usage and Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that a number of articles on discontinued cars start like this: "The second-generation Saab 900 (also referred to as the GM900 or NG900 among enthusiasts) was a compact executive car". Because the car still exists it can't be a "was" and should be an "is". Because all the car articles state the years a car was in production, there is no need to differentiate between "was" and "is" regarding the actual existence of the car - the car "is", but it "was" produced during certain years. So, "The second-generation Saab 900 (also referred to as the GM900 or NG900 among enthusiasts) is a compact executive car, which was produced from 1993 until 1998." SilkTork * SilkyTalk 20:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
With the implementation of a categorization mechanism in Wikipedia, we need to think about how we want to categorize automobiles.
General recommendations are to set up a category tree and categorise articles within the deepest 'leaf' category used.
For automobile models, I think one category per major manufacturer? Say, [[Category:Ford automobiles]] or [[Category:Ford vehicles]]. Automobiles or vehicles? Those should all in turn link to a top level category.
For auto manufacterers, they should link to a [[Category:Automobile manufacturers]], I think.
Comments? —Morven 05:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've started some work here without looking at thise page! Check out Category:Automobile manufacturers for some examples. I reckon lay them out like this, a subcategory for each manufacturer, with any articles related to them, including all the model articles, in one category. [[User:Akadruid|akaDruid ( Talk)]] 10:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've been categorizing using "Xxx vehicles" lately. I originally created Category:Mazda, but now I see that this was bad. I'll recategorize those... Also, I moved the vehicles categories under Automobiles instead of just Vehicles. It doesn't make sense to have Cadillac right next to lunar rover... -- Sfoskett 14:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have requested background on vehicle categorization at WP:TRANSPORT, but it seems that project is moribund, so I extend an invitation to participate to editors active here.- choster ( talk) 20:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Under the best ' be bold' tradition of Wikipedia I'm going to try and kick-start this project. Editing automobile, hot hatch and The effect of the automobile... has attracted enough comments for me to know I'm not the only one with an interest in cars.
I'm fairly new to editing the Wikipedia, although I've floated around long enough to know a little about what is here and what isn't. I would appreciate any guidance from more senior Wikipedians on how to set up a WikiProject - as yet there seems to be no article about this.
I know there are petrolheads and vehicle connoisseurs out there - please do put your names down and we'll try to get some good stuff going.
Thanks! akaDruid 15:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I noticed other Wikiprojects have announced their start on the announcement page. My boldness doesn't extend as far as editing that page - I would appreciate some guidance on that e.g. is there a announcements/submissions or similar page?
Thanks! akaDruid 16:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There are a huge number of potential things to do in this project. Here are some ideas I've had to get started with:
I've made a quick start on a layout, see Jaguar E-type. akaDruid 12:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Here's a stub To-Do list for you guys... See Category:Automobile_stubs. It's surprising really, the number of stubs you guys have now mark up to 300+ in two months time... Just thought to drop a note. You guys seem to have a daunting task ahead. --[[User:Allyunion| AllyUnion (Talk)]] 08:50, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I recently revised most of the Lincoln Town Car article and after pondering over how to present the Trim levels built a section as well as geaphic dedicated to representing the different trim levels. This addition combined with the alredy existing article have in my opinion made the Lincoln Town Car site qualified to serve as a example of layout unitl a blank page is created Gerdbrendel 07:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I added "Premier Automotive Group" to Wikipedia. The first sentence is: "Ford Motor Company owns the Premier Automotive Group (PAG), which is presumably a self-sufficient company that combines the business operations of Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo."
I'm not sure this is accurate; if not, perhaps a WikiProject Automobiles member could re-write it. — Vespristiano 05:10, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
I've done some work on the article. In my understanding, the PAG is a division of Ford, rather than a company in its own right. Additionally, someone had added Lincoln to the list of brands in the PAG - this is not correct. Ford does sell cars under the Lincoln brand, but does not consider them part of the PAG. akaDruid 10:57, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Lincoln was actually part of the PAG at its inception. Changes in personnel and marketing strategy (and maybe some cost-cutting) later caused it to be reorganized back into the Ford/Mercury operation. Here's an article at Ward's Auto Reports that lays out the original five-brand strategy. RivGuySC 06:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. I didn't know that! akaDruid 09:54, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ward's article was correct at the time. Lincoln was pulled out of PAG primarily because of "brand-fit" issues... PAG is former independent companies, euro themed, with a whole different core customer base than Lincoln. PAG is more of an organizational subdivision -- like how the lines are drawn on the org chart --than an independent organization. Pmeisel 02:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi folks, I've set down a basic page on the classic Capri and made an assumption (based on a strong feeling) that the Capri was based on the Ford Cortina of the time. Can anybody confirm or deny this? I've struggled to find evidence on the web but I'm sure I read something along these lines in the motoring press some time ago. This is worth checking as it was me who assumed Lincoln was still in PAG and was proven wrong!! Thanks. -- Pete Richardson 12:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Can't cite a specific source but remember from the time that the Capri was a sporty version of the Cortina. I probably read it in 1960s era Road & Track magazine Pmeisel 02:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Another idea in the pot: how about a standard data box for trim levels? Also (as I've mentioned elsewhere) it wouldn't hurt to have layouts for engine specs. I may knock up something for the Ford Mondeo page to see what you guys think. -- Pete Richardson 14:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I put up a proposed automobile article naming convention in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Proposed naming convention - please look at it and comment/alter, thanks! —Morven 23:33, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
I have a copy of David Burgess Wise's The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Automobiles that I've been regurgitating (not copying outright, mind you); thus far, I'm about three-quarters of the way through the A's. The book is 12 years out of date, but it's a very good resource for many old, forgotten marques. While it's concerned more with the technical side of various cars, I think it's a good start. And it has good capsule histories of many of the major makes, including Armstrong-Siddeley (which article I added this afternoon) and Panhard & Levassor (which appears to have no article whatsoever - rather shocking considering this company's importance).
I'm going to be continuing with the thing for as long as I can; I hope it will be of some assistance. -- Boccherini's Guitar 01:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK - I just went on vacation for a week and a half, and got back last night. I went to see the Frick Collection outside of Pittsburgh, which has a nice little auto museum; I got a few pictures for some of the harder-to-find historic marques (such as American Bantam) of which they had examples on display. I should like to upload these for insertion into the articles in question; would there be any problems with this?-- 207.69.137.137 19:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention the following fun "list of..." pages. More input, as always, is appreciated!
Enjoy! -- SFoskett 13:35, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to create a new subpage talking about things like typography conventions (cc versus ml, ft.lbf, , and so on) within automobile articles. thoughts? -- SFoskett 19:54, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
Whaddya folks think of these?
-- SFoskett 19:09, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
I also like them very much. So I made Template:BMW cars. I'd approve a conversion of the Mercedes template: their W-numbers would work well in this format, although the sheer number of models might be better presented by splitting into sedans, sports and SUV. -- Hotlorp 20:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just made this as a prototype: Template_talk:Mercedes-Benz_vehicles. Compare it with the current Template:Mercedes-Benz_vehicles . Let me know what you think, on that talk page. -- Hotlorp 01:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We usually have surprisingly little mangled prose in the car articles. However, this one seems to have been machine-translated from Old High Martian: Chevrolet Citation. I could improve it--that wouldn't be hard!--but it would be better if somebody that knows the model could tear into it. I'm weak on compacts. RivGuySC 02:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We've been having a little discussion over at Talk:Honda NSX and Talk:Sports car about what is and isn't a sports car/super car. I decided to put it to a straw poll. Please take a moment to "vote" at the following articles:
Thank you. -- SFoskett 13:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
More cars to categorize:
Thanks! -- SFoskett 12:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
I've just reverted yet another rewritten car page from our mysterious page. We have to think of some way of reaching this person and trying to help them become a more productive member of the community. I have an idea:
I'd like to place a note in HTML comments at the top of some pages likely to be replaced by this person. The note would ask them to please create an account and join this project instead of merely rewriting entire pages. What do you all think of this idea? -- SFoskett 01:06, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
He's back! Now at User:81.131.76.208 so he must have gotten a new ISP or must be sitting in a coffee shop... The same MO with the "MK1" junk and UK-centric POV writing style. -- SFoskett 19:20, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
I've edited the Mazda3 page because it neglected European and Japanese versions of the cars. American bias (and to a lesser extent, British bias) seems to be a problem affecting articles on cars that originated in places outside North America. This is mainly due to lack of knowledge and lack of research, and affects mostly available engine options and renaming for different markets. British bias happens on some continental models, but to a lesser extent.
Please use these websites on research about current and historical automobiles. They're not complete, and mainly refer to technical specifications, but they're not bad. -- Pc13 14:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Related to the above: any thoughts on the Opel Speedster and Vauxhall VX 220? I think of them as Opels, but they are made in England, so it's a fair call that the Vauxhall page leads—then, the same argument could be levelled at various Luton- and Ellesmore Port-built Opels. I would also like to raise the issue of the Simca 1307 and 1308, and the Chrysler Alpine. I had redirected the Alpine page to the Simca, as that car was released first and is known as that in more countries, but I notice that someone else had changed this so that Chrysler Alpine became the lead page again. Thoughts are welcome as I believe this is another sign of British bias. Should Vauxhall VX 220 be changed, and should Simca 1307 be the page on which Alpine data reside? Stombs 09:53, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
i have updated the General Motors Astra with details of the Opel Kadett. 82.42.151.164 Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
It's happened a few times on New Zealand-related pages, and it's a bit annoying. I vote we do not include vehicles privately imported, or those unofficially imported by used car dealers (grey imports). Exceptions should be made when the grey imports are significant and create a large following, or if they alter the official concessionaire's policy. Any thoughts? Stombs 10:53, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
Any Hyundai experts among us? I found a comment on the Toyota Corona page by a 150.204.50.38 which turned out to be bogus (viz. that there was a Toyota Alexia), and noted this user's rather major entry on the Hyundai Elantra. I'm not that au fait with the model, but knowledgeable enough to know that 2001 certainly wasn't the launch date for the countries which called the older Lantra under the Elantra name (e.g. Canada). The writer lists UK models, and I shall be interested to know if they are correct. Corrections there are welcome. Stombs 12:01, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Sources of information: www.autoweek.nl for Netherlands, various UK car websites for England and www.consumerguide.com for USA cars. Hope this helps. Apologies for the vandalism. 82.42.151.164 Jan 19, 2005
I am wondering at what we should use as a standard for naming convention among Hyundai Models. For example, there is currently a Hyundai Accent (the American Model) page, which also describes the current Verna (the Korean Model) - the reverse is true of the Hyundai Avante (the Korean Model) page, which describes the Elantra (American Model). There is also a seperate page describing older American Elantras and European Lantras - where this is essentially the same model as the Avante/Elantra of modern day. I'm wondering how we should organize these - should there be seperate pages for Korean, American, European models, or one page per model for all of them - and if that is the case, how should we name that single page? GHoosdum 15:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello-
Since I seem to have a great interest in American Automobiles, I thought I would drop in, if its OK. I'm hoping to get some help with an article that just posted to Wikipedia Mohs Automobile. Can some folks take a look at it and tell me what you think? user: stude62 user talk:stude62 04:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know I'm new, and that this probably isn't the correct fodder for this forum, but I find it amusing when cars are rolled out into a market with names that "aren't right" for that market. For example:
user: stude62 user talk:stude62 14:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've moved all the DMC-12 specific information from the De Lorean page to the De Lorean DMC-12 page. Since all that's left in the De Lorean page is a discussion of the company itself, I think it's appropriate to move it to De Lorean Motor Company, which currently redirects in. I tried to move it over with admin help, but they want a more formal call for votes—please weigh in at Talk:De Lorean if you have a moment. I'd rather this get discussed first within the WikiProject Auto community, as opposed to the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. Thanks! -- Milkmandan 07:45, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
I've noticed that in some automobile articles, names of variants of the main model are written in bold (for examples, see Aston Martin V12 Vanquish, Chevrolet Corvette and Honda NSX). The Manual of Style says: "If the subject of the article has more than one name, each new form of the name should be in bold on its first appearance.". It seems to me that variations of the article's subject (here, variations of the main automobile model) shouldn't be bolded, but I wanted to know if anyone else has an opinion on this (or cares ;-)). SamH| Talk 23:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed a bunch of pages (e.g., Jeep Wrangler, Ford Explorer, Mazda RX-7) that use the phrase, this article is part of the automobile series in the sidebar have the manufucturer crammed in there, too. This article is part of the Ford automobile series seems a bit forced, considering that we don't really have a manufacturer-specific series and, in any event, the manufacturer is clearly listed at the beginning of the bar.
Does the manufacturer name in the text serve some other purpose? I'd like to see the sidebars generalized. -- Milkmandan 16:06, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
I've added in thirty-eight (38) additional marques to the Canadian section of the List of automobile manufacturers page. I have this strange, sudden urge to rush out and buy an Acadian Beaumont ... user: stude62 user talk:stude62 16:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I noticed a link being dropped into the Cadillac Escalade page. [3] It points to a Cadillac picture gallery, but the gallery requires registration to see anything more than thumbnails.
It turns out that these links have been dumped across the Cadillac pages. ( Special:Contributions/68.215.43.208, Special:Contributions/65.11.181.194)
There's a quick discussion on the Talk:Cadillac Escalade page about it, and I'd like to suggest that we remove these across all of these pages.
It seems like links are getting dumped inconsistently across most car pages anyway. A set of guidelines of what is appropriate and what isn't seems like a really good idea. -- Milkmandan 18:44, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
I've added a FAQ because it seems like a lot of the same issues come up with new contributors. Any way to make the transition into the Wikipedia easier is, in my mind, a positive thing. The FAQ serves to address questions that are already answered in the other Auto Project (and main Wikipedia) pages, but which aren't immediately accessible due to article size. I think a FAQ would provide a vital first shot at getting the most important information to new WikiGearheads.
I haven't linked it to the main WikiProject Auto page yet because I think the concept needs to be discussed and the page needs to be expanded/edited.
What are your thoughts? Please discuss at the FAQ talk. -- Milkmandan 20:16, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
I'm trying to get Wankel engine to be a featured article. I've been modding it according to the "friendly" suggestions of the folks at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wankel engine, but think maybe some help from the folks here might be more useful. Anyone want to take a go at copyediting the History section? -- SFoskett 12:57, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
I'm a sucker for weird marques. So I just went through adding lots of info on Stutz. I especially focused on the crazy 1970s cars. Anyone care to add/edit/read? -- SFoskett 17:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that there are two pages for the Aston Martin V12 Vanquish. The more developed one is called Aston Martin V12 Vanquish. However, there is also a page simply called V12 Vanquish about the same car. Can anyone fix this? Perhaps remove the second page? Jagvar 15:12, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Attention all car experts! I have added to the page List of supercars the names of several rare, obscure supercars on which I have little information. I will continue to research these vehicles and start up as many pages as I can, but it is a daunting task to tackle all those cars myself. If you know anything about these supercars or feel like a new project, I encourage you to add. Keep up the good work everyone. -- Jagvar Apr 3, 2005
I wonder if we should try to request certain types of photographs, since so many are wide-angle shots that are substantially inferior to commercial photos of the same car. (E.g. the Ford Mondeo image) We don't need to be this bad. Perhaps by "suggesting" certain types of photo in the template (I'm thinking side view, front view, rear view, front 3/4 view, rear 3/4 view) we could start a flow of good submissions. If all these images are submitted, perhaps the template could display the side view and link to the rest, to avoid clutter and allow photos of other submodels to be shown. I'd also like to remind photographers to try to stand a good distance away and zoom in, rather than use a wide angle. And try to be as dead-on exact side-on etc. as one can manage. With well populated data, we could automatically generate nice collections of car profiles, rear ends, etc. -- Hotlorp 20:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apart from older and obscure vehicles, there are some more common modern vehicles that still need articles. Feel free to add a car you feel needs a page:
I propose that we move some of the US-specific info on that page onto the USDM Accord page, so that the Honda Accord page is a general introduction to the Accord from the fifth-generation onwards (where it first branched out into market-specific versions). Detailed info of JDM, Euro, & USDM Accords can then be inserted into their respective pages. I would also like to expand on info regarding Accords from the 1st to 4th generation on that page, as Honda basically sold similar cars worldwide. What do u think??
It has come to my attention that there is now a page called Mercedes E500. This should really be merged with Mercedes-Benz E-Class. At the very least, the person who started the page should have called it Mercedes-BENZ E500.
Who is up for the task?
-- Jagvar Apr 19, 2005
I must confess to being uncomfortable with the increasing use of magazine covers to illustrate articles.
For one thing, how solid is a "fair use" claim here? I suspect that using a magazine cover to illustrate an article on a magazine would be no problem, but to illustrate articles on cars and engines? I have a feeling that this might be pushing fair use a little too far.
For another, the images contain a lot of extraneous stuff and don't necessarily illustrate the article all that well.
Any thoughts? —Morven 18:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I understand and agree that the PR photos are artistically superior. However, Wikipedia's policy is "always use a more free alternative if one is available". See Wikipedia:Fair use for a thorough discussion. I will not object to replacing the really ugly images, but I suggest that we should try to use GFDL images if possible. -- SFoskett 01:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Now there's a topic that needed writing... History of the automobile is open for business. I expect that we'll try to keep this article concise, and will open new ones for each era, decade, or even year, as time goes by. -- SFoskett 17:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
We need to work on Supercar (car classification). The article is POV and opinionated. I rewrote it (see [4]) but another user immediately reverted it rather than discuss the contents. Can some others here please take a stab at improving this article? I don't want to get into an edit war. -- SFoskett 13:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've put in some effort writing articles on the Consulier GTP and Mosler MT900. It was hard to track details down on these cars, especially the Mosler Intruder and Mosler Raptor... Any thoughts would be welcome. -- SFoskett 14:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I've got some concerns about recent edits by Special:Contributions/Castletower. To summarize, this person has over 200 edits solely to automotive pages, all of which consist of adding links to the aforementioned site. Examples: [5] [6] [7]
I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are about adding links across whole swaths of pages—and I mean this in the general sense, not just in this specific case. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate, for a number of reasons:
I really don't think that linkbombs across multiple pages add significant value. If each auto page was linkbombed with links from three or four different auto wikis (and I'm sure more than that exist), the response would probably be pretty negative.
Additionally, I've got minor concerns about the autoguidewiki.com links:
These last points are fixable, but only if the appropriateness of these links isn't in question.
My feeling is that these need to be, at the very least, evaluated on a page-by-page basis. More reasonably, I'd rather pull them all and work them back in if it's warranted.
Thoughts? -- Milkmandan July 1, 2005 15:04 (UTC)
Hello,
My name is Robert Eaton. I am the webmaster in charge of the Autoguidewiki.com site. I just wanted link our articles to your site for more detailed information. I understand your concerns over our content not "adding" much "new" to your content. But we are in the development stages, a baby wiki so to say. We do not wish to "compete with your content", this is just a fun site for us, and we value the WikiPedia Communities feelings.
Robert Eaton
I really do not see the value of the Autoguide Wiki links in general. Most contain far less content than the article they are linked to. Plus, as far as I can tell, autoguide exists solely to create similar content to the Automobiles Project pages - that is, if autoguide was expanded to be what it looks like it wants to be, it will be entirely duplicative of what we want Wikipedia to be! Add this to the adversizing on those pages, and I suspect that autoguide is merely link farming on Wikipedia in hopes of future revenue/site traffic. I further bridle at the sheer number of links to a single site.
Therefore, I move that we remove all links to autoguide wiki unless it can be shown that each link in question provides unique and valuable content. -- SFoskett 19:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Ok... that's cool. We are sorry for the inconvience we have created for the community. Wikimanager
I am not sure if we have an explicit policy on sequence of units. Several of us seem to agree that raw data values should come before converted values. But the horsepower values are more complicated. There are difficulties with terms e.g. do we say 'PS', 'hp DIN', 'hp ISO' or something else? In this case, I am only asking for thoughts about how we decide on the sequence of the 3 possible units.
For example, the Porsche Cayman article said
This was subsequently changed to
I checked the official German website for Porsche and replaced it with their sequence and values:
This was then changed to:
My suggestion is that we should use the sequence in the home website for the car. Thus the German website for Porsche, BMW, Mercedez and the Italian website for Ferrari etc.
With this guideline in mind, I changed the Porsche article to:
What do others think? Bobblewik (talk) 3 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
We have aviation and car articles where triple units are used, for example (kW, PS, hp SAE) or (km/h, knots, mi/h). We appear to accept this convention. However, an editor amended the Manual of Style to say multiple equivalents including metric are cumbersome and shall be avoided. Thus we have opposing conventions.
Please feel free to join the discussion and raise the issues of aviation and car articles. Bobblewik (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
There is a quote of an increase in power from 170 to 172 hp in Hyundai Tiburon. I think that the power is exactly the same (see the kilowatt values). This is the sort of problem we face throughout Wikipedia with ambiguity in power units. Fortunately, the source value is first and this helped me to identify the error. Can people check those figures please? Bobblewik 11:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
This was bound to come up. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while, but I notice the Daewoo Lacetti now redirects to Chevrolet Lacetti. I thought there was an understanding here that we would use the names of the country of origin to avoid nation bias, in this case, one toward Europe. What are others' views? Stombs 02:52, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
The article on Transportation is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.-- Fenice 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
It has been proposed, in the course of a badly fractured discussion, that cars should be identified according to their brand in their country of origin. This would have the effect of moving Chevrolet Lacetti -> Daewoo Lacetti, Chevrolet Aveo -> Daewoo Kalos, Chevrolet Nubira -> Daewoo Nubira and probably others. This has been discussed on this page and on Talk:Chevrolet Lacetti, Talk:Chevrolet Aveo, Talk:Chevrolet Nubira.
These three moves had been listed on WP:RM, however looking at them as a closing administator I have found them to have been poorly announced at the respective talk pages and to have gathered inconsistent results. Because of this, I have decided to refactor this discussion to a centralized location and attempt make it clear the several issues being discussed. Dragons flight 02:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Chevrolet Lacetti -> Daewoo Lacetti
Chevrolet Nubira -> Daewoo Nubira
Chevrolet Aveo -> Daewoo Kalos
I think the proposed move could only create more confusion, because badge engineering and renaming of GM Daewoo vehicles is very extensive.
For example, the new Chevrolet Aveo model T250 is to be sold under this name everywhere in the world, but in the S.Korea only it's known as the Daewoo Gentra. Tthe previous Chevrolet Aveo model T250 is named the Chevrolet Kalos in Western Europe and the Daewoo Kalos in S.Korea. Sp, where the Chevrolet Aveo should be redirected to? Then, the Chevrolet Kalos has a European-only 3-door version that's not sold on the local market. How to deal about this? And I'm against using some fake artifical names like GM Daewoo Lacetti. Likewise, the Nubira name is not used on the Korean market anymore, so there's only the Daewoo Lacetti sedan (J200) - the later hatchback version of model J200 is not even sold there. Now how to redirect the Chevrolet Lacetti hatchback (model J200) (aka Suzuki Reno, Chevrolet Optra5 etc) - should it be redirected to Daewoo Lacetti (J200) sedan?
I suggest leaving the articles as is (that is Europe-centric) until there's a satisfactory solution. See also Talk:Chevrolet Nubira#Daewoo or Chevrolet?. -- DmitryKo 19:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree on calling the Gentra the Holden Barina. The fourth-generation Barina is actually a Kalos re-engineered for Australian conditions, not the Gentra that debuted at Shanghai. In addition, the Holden JF Viva is really the sedan, hatchback, and wagon versions of the Lacetti/Nubira/Optra/Forenza/Reno, which like the Barina is re-engineered for Australian conditions. Both of them will be offered in the 2006 model year, although the Viva webpage is up and running on Holden's website [8]. The reason why Holden is offering the New Barina and the Viva is because sales of the Commodore have fallen because of high energy prices. In addition, to Holden, it's cheaper to import a Kalos-based Barina than an Opel Corsa-based Barina simply because of price. In addition, Holden owns a bit of GMDAT. To call the Gentra the Barina is absurd, in my opinion, when the New Barina is really the Kalos. -- DanCBJMS, 23:05 EDT, Tuesday, 11 October, 2005; 03:05 GMT, Wednesday, 12 October, 2005
Pages moved to Daewoo versions as requested and double redirects fixed. Take care! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Found lots of photos of old British lorries and cars under cc-by-2.0 at http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/by-2.0/tags/lorry/ - I have got the Sentinels but thought someone'd be interested in the rest of them. Dunc| ☺ 16:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I was in the process of re-doing the Volvo V70 page when I started thinking about what to with the similar S60 and S80 pages. As these car share the same platform, doesn't it make sense to have the platform page containing ALL info, with the models based on that platform re-directing there instead? I.e. using the V70 as a template, make that generic for S60 and S80, then merge with the platform page? Obviously, this approach wouldn't work for all platforms, e.g. the Ford Mondeo and Jaguar X-Type are quite different, but when the S60 is merely the saloon form of V70 it seems daft having two distinct pages to maintain! Any thoughts? -- Pete Richardson 14:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The Volvo S80 is a different car from S60/V70, so I think the S80 deserves an own page.
Similar question with the Volvo 300 series and 400 series. Where Volvo 340, 343, 345 and 360 are bunched together at one page, while Volvo 440, 460 and 480 got one each. Although that makes a little sense, since the 300 models were more similar to each other than the 400 models. Especially I think the Volvo 480 deserves its own page. -- Boivie 14:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi there, I am one of the users who posted from 82.42.151.164 as an anon IP contributor. I will be making some useful contributions, like on the Ford Focus talk page.
Leave a message on my talk page if you want to talk about cars or anything in general with me. -- Astwell1986 11:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Can someone give a clear explanation of image policy as it pertains manufacturer's promotional photos? I can't figure it out. For example, the tag on this
seems to indicate it's OK as fair use, but this File:1973 dodge charger se press photo.jpg has an additional tag that says it's really not OK and can be used only temporarily at best. ???? RivGuySC 16:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
At talk:Volkswagen, there is a diskussion about naming VW model pages. I'd appreciate some input from other automobile interested wikipedians. -- Boivie 12:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It's unclear to me for what the "Overview" heading is. I suggest deleting it and promoting the succeeding three headings up one level. — Vespristiano 03:11, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
I really like the data box (cars are perfect for this format) and it would be a good place to include vital stats like max HP & torque, 0-60 (might be controversial, considering testing procedures), wheelbase, final drive, etc. but there are so many variables in a car it could easily turn into information overload. However, as a car enthusiast I think most of this data is rather important, and I would like to find a way to include it.
We might be able to move power figures (and possibly reduce data duplication) to a different page by making a seperate page for every engine that is used in more than 1 car (i.e. BMW's e32 740i and e34 540i both use an identical M60 engine). Gearboxes are also resued fairly often. We first need to figure out how much info to provide. I don't know how many people would care about this stuff, but I do, and the data is often hard to find. PlatinumX 10:09, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Have we come to any consensus on the data box layout yet? I've added the standard layout to the Ford Mondeo page and I'm keen to put it on some of my other pet pages? An example layout for engines (specifc or series) would be great if anyone has time to do it? I've created stubs for Duratec and Duratorq but not sure where to take them yet. Cheers! -- Pete Richardson 12:49, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry I've been absent from this space. (I didn't know I had to set my Wikipedia account to watch the "Layouts" sub-page in addition to the main project page.)
I probably should contribute my humble opinions on some issues, even though some may now be irrelevant.
— Vespristiano 02:12, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)
I really like the style of this table from another article. Could we adapt it for our use and thus make our data box look even better?
— Vespristiano 22:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Note for anyone who has used the example layout: there was a spelling error where "companents" in the data box should be "components". Please correct any articles that you have used this layout with. Thanks. -- Pete Richardson 13:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
For the Class: section on the data table, I think we should have a standard of choices to choose from. Car classification would be great, but it's currently a bit disorganized and possibly incomplete. There are many ways of classifying a car. Is 'sedan' a class or a body style (which we should also standardize)? Should we go by purpose (i.e. sports car, offroader) even if the distinctions can be fuzzy? Is the Toyota Prius an economy car, a compact car, or a hatchback? Even the EPA regulations seem a little lacking (but at least they're consistent). Just a bit to think about :) PlatinumX 23:15, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've created a custom element for VW, so you can put {{msg:VW}} into the text, and it will come out as at the bottom of the example (only with the page you are on not linked). What do people think? akaDruid 17:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please modify your template to disambiguate sedan to sedan (car). Thanks. RedWolf 04:52, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
I fail to see the point of the final line of the infobox. We've discussed it before in random pages, but we have to decide here. The final "This article is part of the automobile series" line serves no purpose - we can all tell it's an automobile. Either we add a separate series for each marque (I like this idea) or we just kill that line. Thoughts? -- SFoskett 02:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
I propose that the layout box uses sentence case to match section headings. Thus 'Body styles' instead of 'Body Styles'. Bobblewik (talk) 15:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I propose that there is a space between the unit of measure and the unit symbol. Thus '4804 mm' instead of '4804mm'. Bobblewik (talk) 15:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I propose that we make more use of the term 'to' rather than '-' for number ranges. Thus '4731 to 4804 mm' instead of '4731-4804 mm'. One reason is that characters that look like '-' also look like minus. Bobblewik (talk) 15:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gerdbrendel ( talk · contribs) has been adding "blue boxes" surrounding the engine information. What do folks think of these? I personally don't like them - they overemphasize the engine stuff and (currently) force ugly line wraps. But of course this is WikiProject Automobiles, not WikiProject Sfoskett (sadly! LOL) so I'd like other opinions. See Chevrolet Tahoe for example. -- SFoskett 18:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand that some users may not like the boxes, but I would like to explain why I came up with them. I noticed that the infoboxes on some car pages were extremely long because thay listed the engine specs for every single generation of the vehicle. On other pages such as the Lincoln Town Car the egine specs were not at all mentioned in the infobox but instead were part of the text. The Town Car is where I started the Blue Boxes to differenciate the Engine Specs and make the text appear shorter, and thus more appealing to users. So please also view the Lincoln Town Car article as it is the birthplace of the blue box. I sincerely hope we can settle our creative differences by also keeping in that these blue boxes are more than just pretty or ugly since they serve a higher purpose than that of esthetics. The Blue boxes make articles appeat better organized, easier to read and by shortening the text more appealing to users. If you can't get over their look please consider that I'd gladly change their color. On the Lincoln LS article for example I have created lightgrey boxes. Please view both the Lincoln Town Car and Lincoln LS before making up your mind. Thank you very much. Gerdbrendel 19:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Years | Model | Engine type | Displacement | Power | Torque |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Late 2006– | S 450 | M113 V8 | 4.6 L | 340 PS (335 hp/250 kW) | |
2006– | S 550 | M113 V8 | 5.5 L | 388 PS (383 hp/285 kW) | 391 ft·lbf (530 N·m) |
Early 2006– | S 600 | M275 twin-turbo V12 | 5.5 L | 517 PS (510 hp/380 kW) | |
Late 2006– | S 63 AMG | M113 V8 | 6.2 L | 510 PS (503 hp/375 kW) | |
2006– | S 65 AMG | M275 twin-turbo V12 | 6.0 L | 612 PS (604 hp/450 kW) |
Lincoln Town Car | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Overview | |
Manufacturer | Ford Motor Company |
Production | 1981–present |
Body and chassis | |
Class | Full-size luxury car |
Body style | 4-door sedan |
Platform | FR Panther |
Related | Mercury Grand Marquis |
Chronology | |
Predecessor | Lincoln Continental |
There is a new effort afoot to create a variable Template:Infobox automobile. Please feel free to contribute. I have added it to Hyundai Azera as a test. -- SFoskett 21:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's my infobox proposal (Town Car as example):
FYI I have revamped the Lincoln Town Car site. Gerdbrendel 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
HI, I have just created two articles for the Lincoln MK9 and Navicross concept models and have noticed that the standard infobox I use for cars in production doesn't really fit the concept cars. I think a new infobox should be created for Concept Cars Only that features a spaces for the year when they were presented as well as the Auto Show where they were presented. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Casting about for information about aircraft conversions of automobile engines, I decided to be bold and create a new template for automobile engines. Information fields are based on the aircraft {{ pistonspecs}}, and style is based on {{ Infobox automobile}}. Example implementations can be seen at Subaru EA engine and Suzuki G engine. McNeight 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Each car article should have a Reference section. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
To conform with layout guidelines the infobox is best placed in the body of the article and an image used in the top right. Wikipedia:Infobox templates#Design and usage and Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that a number of articles on discontinued cars start like this: "The second-generation Saab 900 (also referred to as the GM900 or NG900 among enthusiasts) was a compact executive car". Because the car still exists it can't be a "was" and should be an "is". Because all the car articles state the years a car was in production, there is no need to differentiate between "was" and "is" regarding the actual existence of the car - the car "is", but it "was" produced during certain years. So, "The second-generation Saab 900 (also referred to as the GM900 or NG900 among enthusiasts) is a compact executive car, which was produced from 1993 until 1998." SilkTork * SilkyTalk 20:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
With the implementation of a categorization mechanism in Wikipedia, we need to think about how we want to categorize automobiles.
General recommendations are to set up a category tree and categorise articles within the deepest 'leaf' category used.
For automobile models, I think one category per major manufacturer? Say, [[Category:Ford automobiles]] or [[Category:Ford vehicles]]. Automobiles or vehicles? Those should all in turn link to a top level category.
For auto manufacterers, they should link to a [[Category:Automobile manufacturers]], I think.
Comments? —Morven 05:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've started some work here without looking at thise page! Check out Category:Automobile manufacturers for some examples. I reckon lay them out like this, a subcategory for each manufacturer, with any articles related to them, including all the model articles, in one category. [[User:Akadruid|akaDruid ( Talk)]] 10:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've been categorizing using "Xxx vehicles" lately. I originally created Category:Mazda, but now I see that this was bad. I'll recategorize those... Also, I moved the vehicles categories under Automobiles instead of just Vehicles. It doesn't make sense to have Cadillac right next to lunar rover... -- Sfoskett 14:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have requested background on vehicle categorization at WP:TRANSPORT, but it seems that project is moribund, so I extend an invitation to participate to editors active here.- choster ( talk) 20:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)