![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Discussion from Sept 13 to Oct 14 |
---|
I'm sure I'll get some flak for this, but I'd like to bring this up. Some pages use CID to denote engine displacement while others use in³. CID is the industry standard, but it's been said in this discussion repeatedly that Wikipedia is a site for laymen. Anyone who went to school knows what "in³" stands for, but CID will require an explanation for some people. I prefer the use of in³ for this reason, but either way, I'd like to have a standardized unit.-- Flash176 ( talk) 22:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
So, considering the rpm vs. RPM discussion below, if we switch it's going to be cid then? -- Sable232 ( talk) 21:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Per MOS:SI symbols and unit abbreviations: "Squared and cubic metric-symbols are always expressed with a superscript exponent (5 km2, 2 cm3); squared imperial and US unit abbreviations may be rendered with sq, and cubic with cu (15 sq mi, 3 cu ft). They keyword being "may." So, according to WP:MOS, it appears to me that the preferred unit is expressed with a superscript exponent and an alternative for English units is written abbreviations.-- Flash176 ( talk) 06:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I cleared my cache, history, etc. The superscript still isn't working for me in the two templates I changed, but the one Scheinwerfermann fixed works just fine. Does the 3 appear in superscript on Template:Auto L and Template:Auto CID to you guys? If so, then that's fine, I just want to make sure it's only my computer having this problem and not everyone.-- Flash176 ( talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
"Just for fun, check out these google searches 351 in³ vs. 351 cu in. The automatic google converter doesn't even recogise in3 (it tries to convert it as inches), but it does recogise and convert cu in to 5.75...litres." That's because computers don't see text/numbers the way we do. You have to enter it as 351 in^3. "I can't imagine that someone would be so clueless as to not know what is meant by CID in an automotive context, especially considering that every time that they read it, it is accompanied by either cc or litre conversions-- 392 CID (6,420 cc)." Then you've never been around mechanically-challenged people. Unfortunately, tons of people don't have the first clue about cars and *might* make the jump that CID would equal engine size, but those who don't know anything about cars (and I'm guessing a significant percentage of these articles' readers) will have no idea what CID stands for. Whereas in3 is a basic unit that students are taught early in grade school and anyone should be able to recognize and understand it. Just like L for liters.-- Flash176 ( talk) 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
|
Sept 26 section break |
---|
This conversation is slowly losing its control and direction. Let's find some consensus here soon since it is such an important and widely used measurement on the vast majority of automotive related articles. Vote anyone? I'll go first. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm really quite surprised by how many editors like in3. Just doing a simple Google search yields the following results:
I know this isn't the perfect way to survey something like this, but I would think it's still a fairly decent way to determine what the popular conventions would be. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 09:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
Solution that might satisfy both needs |
---|
Fact: "CID, cid, cu in" are the common abbreviations for cubic inch (displacement) in automotive writing. Fact: Not everyone knows what "CID" stands for ("cu in" seems like a basic unit to me, however; I think I've seen far more "cu in" in grade school than "in³".). Why not add a
Oilpanhands, I'm glad to see you're making an effort to engage in this conversation in a less combative, less strident manner. However, your assertion "Sable232's solution is reasonable to all" is inappropriate; it is not for you to presume to speak for others. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 04:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards putting in a WP:RFC right now to open up this discussion to a whole lot of non-automotive editors. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 20:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
|
1 October | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I'm happy we're not using ft•lbf. lb•ft is a much more common term in the industry. This being the case, I'm very puzzled as to why cu in or CID is being rejected here in favor of in3. We chose to use lb•ft because it's a common abbreviation for foot-pound force and is widely used in the auto industry. Makes complete sense. Reapplying this same rationale and I have this. I choose to use cu in because it's a common abbreviation for cubic inch (as per that article) and is widely used in the auto industry. The same could be said for CID since the cubic inch article clearly states this is an acceptable unit. So with that rationale reapplied to in3, I have this. Although in3 is a common abbreviation for cubic inch, it is not a widely used abbreviation in the auto industry and, therefore, do not choose to use it. Am I missing something? Do I have to draw it out? Ok, I will.
And yes Flash, it shouldn't change if a consensus can't be reached. Also keep in mind I'm not the person that started this conversation by any means and I'm definitely not the only one thinking this needs to get changed. Ultimately, I think there aren't enough editors looking at this issue right now and I don't think they need to be automotive related to understand it. If we find we can't reach a consensus, I think the only way we can deal with it is putting in the WP:RFC. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Roguegeek, since cu in was always mentioned with other examples, I thought it was just that, an example of how we could write it, not a suggested alternative, but that's neither here nor there. You never did answer my question about saying CID is a common universal abbreviation and where you've seen it outside of automotive/engine writings? For me, the jury's still out on cu in vs. in3. I honestly believe part of the reason we don't see in3 more is because it's so hard to replicate on a computer, so writers tend to use something easier to write out. I'm also still considering your proposal for WP:RFC and am currently leaning towards it.-- Flash176 ( talk) 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
cu in — a new consensus? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
CID isn't, from my experience, a common abbreviation to describe general volume, but the cubic inch article clearly states it is a proper abbreviation when referring to displacement and displacement is what we're talking about here. But I've had a change in mind about CID altogether. I would prefer to use cu in over CID since it's a common abbreviation for general volume and engine displacement. Out of in3, CID, and cu in, cu in is the only abbreviation that is common for both general volume and engine displacement. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 18:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, we're moving forward, and that's good. I prefer the non-breaking space (&nbѕp;) rather than the thin space (&thinѕp;), for a multitude of reasons. The thin space is not a non-breaking space, so it can and will make ugly orphans of our abbreviation: the cu will be at the end of one line, and the in at the start of another. Also, the thin space makes the abbreviation look too much like "cuin". Keep in mind, we have a hard enough time getting people to use &nbѕp; rather than just hitting the spacebar; the &thinѕp; markup is even less well known and we'll be forever going back and fixing it, even if we alter the applicable templates. Furthermore, we are already on tenuous ground with the convert templates, as we are already deviating from MOSNUM with this convention; if we go agitate for the convert templates to spit out our cu in with a thin space, it could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back and get all our hard work washed away. See for example here. Let's see if we have true consensus for cu in and not get unnecessarily fiddly with special spaces, eh? — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 15:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Sable232, I'm in the CID camp with ya, but at least we'd be going from terrible to tolerable. So, I guess all that's left to do is to pull the trigger... Oilpanhands ( talk) 01:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
|
No cubic inches after 1980? (Discussion to 15 Oct) |
---|
While changing the convention at WP:AUN, I noticed that there is some type of prohibition against using cubic inches to describe engine displacement after 1980. Granted, many engines began to be "marketed" in litres after 1980, but the specifications gave and as I had shown in many of my examples above, continue to give displacements in cubic centimetres and cubic inches. To say that cubic inches shouldn't be used for displacement is very incorrect and this needs to be changed. Perhaps, what that note means to say or should say is that for engines that were once marketed based on their displacement in cubic inches and at a later date were marketed in litres should reflect this change in the naming of the engine. The example that comes to mind is Ford's 302. Which was later marketed as a 5.0 L (althougth the real displacement was closer to 4.9 L). And as shown by this example, sometimes the name of the engine differs from the volume being displaced. Oilpanhands ( talk) 17:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, everything's debatable, if someone comes along who wants to debate whatever it is we're calling debatable, eh! :-) — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() No storms, no assumptions, just facts. Of some of the brands that Schinwerferrmann listed, many of them do list cubic inches when they list displacement in their publications and tech specs sheets and some did not list displacement at all. The ones that listed cubic inches were: VW, Volvo, Nissan, BMW, Audi, Ferrari, and Land Rover. I didn't include Ford, GM, or Chrysler because I've already shown above that those manufacturers include cubic inches when they list displacement values. I would think that that proves to be a decent sample. To be fair, Bentley, Lamborghini, Mercedes, Honda only listed cc for displacement values. Other automakers did not publish displacement values. Scheinwerfermann, your assumptions lead me to take a trip to the store today and buy some Coke. The only metric package that Coca-Cola is sold in is a 2-litre bottle. Coke is sold in 8 oz glass bottles and cans*, 12 oz glass bottles, plastic bottles*, and as you pointed out--cans, 20 oz and 24 oz plastic bottles and as noted a 2 litre bottle. I took a picture of what I bought. (*=I didn't buy these because they were in multi packs). As someone, (Bill Cosby?), once said, "Have a Coke and smile" :) and I am. Just like someone's height and weight, displacement is a measurement and for encyclopedic reasons, measurements should be converted between the systems. To prohibit a measurement that is used in the literature demonstrates a preconceived bias. As shown, this prohibition should be removed. Oilpanhands ( talk) 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. I didn't want to get back in this discussion because I'm tired of the cubic inches argument, but since you asked, I do have to agree with Oilpanhands. You're right, Scheinwerfermann, that the US isn't the world, but it does make up a significant percentage. I suck at searching, so I couldn't find any lists showing the number of cars per country, but I did find Wikipedia's List of countries by vehicles per capita. It shows the US at the top with quite a few more vehicles than the next highest country. Also, in the US, cubic inches as a unit of displacement isn't dead yet. A lot of people still compare engine size by cu in instead of liters. For instance, when designing the third generation Dodge Viper, the lead person stated he wanted the car to displace 500 cubic inches and have 500 hp & tq. Because of the prolific use of cars in the United States and the continued use of cu in here, I support having cu in as an alternative secondary measurement.-- Flash176 ( talk) 05:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sable232, That's what I'm talking about. Thank you Scheinwerfermann, so one site out of how many has used in3 and this is what you're running up the flag pole as "I gottcha"...please. Someone has already shown us a google search comparison. First you asked for a decent sample of automakers that use cubic inches to describe displacement values and you interwove how Coca-Cola is no longer available in non-metric sizes other than 12 oz cans in the US. I supplied you with a decent sample of automakers that do use cubic inches to describe displacement and I disproved your assumptions about Coke. Then, not being satisfied, you won't accept these samples because you don't like that they are all US market websites. Therefore, I threw in a couple of Canadian websites. Now, you still don't like it and won't accept this because you claim that the US and Canada are the same market--even through they are very different. N'est pas? Now, you demand samples from other parts of the world knowing full-well that in many countries the use of non-SI/metric units is prohibited and there would never be any example of cubic inches, let alone inches, gallons, or miles per hour either. By this flawed logic, Canada & the US are in a corner of the world that doesn't adhere to your standard international practise and therefore we should also ban the use of inches, pounds, gallons, and the like because the rest of the world doesn't use them. I, with your help and many examples, have shown why this is a bias part of the convention against a large part of the English-speaking world and your only defence of this is an 'I don't like it because the rest of the world doesn't do it like this' type of excuse. And no one uses furlongs-per-fortnight, so we'll skip that. Oilpanhands ( talk) 23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
What adjustment do you have in mind for the second point? — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 01:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
We would like to place the following bullet points into the convention:
Are there any objections? Oilpanhands ( talk) 10:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Since the three of us are in agreement for fixing this to ft-lb/lb-ft, I figured it would be best to start a new section. Wikipedia's the only place I've ever seen this and I work in the auto industry. The accepted format is either lb-ft or ft-lb, not ft-lbf.-- Flash176 ( talk) 00:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the consensus then and now is in favor of doing away with "lbf", I think it's ok for us to go ahead and change it. Does this need to be the standard like it was before or should it go behind Nm in parentheses? Do any countries outside of North America use lb-ft?
BTW, Scheinwerfermann, all of the Wikipedia pages I'm able to find say foot-pound instead of pound feet. Are you sure that lb-ft is correct and not just a variation?-- Flash176 ( talk) 18:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
{{Auto L|4.0}}
straight-6 engine as standard. It gets to be less clear-cut in recent years in the US market; engineering and specifications are all metric, but common nomenclature is still English. So far there hasn't been a big war over the order of units; articles on US-only vehicles (e.g.
Dodge Ram) don't spur many protests in favour of metric priority, while articles on international vehicles (e.g.
Volkswagen Golf) prioritise metrics and may not even consistently show English units. As a general rule of thumb, prioritise the units in which vehicles and components (e.g. engines) originally engineered and marketed. It's not perfect, but it's generally workable.I have specified lb·ft as the correct English torque unit in WP:AUN. While I was in there, I took the opportunity to tidy up the convention and make it a little clearer, more explicit, and more readable. Let us hope this improves the quality of articles within this project. At the very least it gives us uniform provisions for removing ft·lbf from articles where we may find it. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Flash176 ( talk · contribs) and I noticed the other day an interesting problem with Template:Auto L: it doesn't work well for engines originally engineered and designated in cubic inches and later redesignated in litres. The template was spitting out 317 in³ rather than 318 in³ for the Chrysler 5.2, for example. This is due to rounding employed in the selection of the litre designation. I played around with the litre conversion factor and sure enough, there's no factor that can be used that'll make all engines convert correctly. When I bent the conversion factor to make the 318 convert correctly, it broke the Ford 351. When I fixed the 351, the 318 broke again. (I actually ran a couple dozen known conversions through it; the 318 and 351 are only examples). Clearly that approach wasn't going to work. Besides, fudging conversion factors is an ugly way to do things anyhow. I took a look at Template:Auto L and Template:Auto CID and devised a solution: I've created a new template Template:Auto Lrev. This is specifically to correctly display the displacement of engines engineered in cubic inches, but later redesignated in litres, and for articles about American vehicles sold in metric markets back in America's cubic-inch days. It's essentially the Template:Auto CID template with inverted output. You input the known cubic inch displacement of the litre-designated engine, and you get a correctly-converted, litres-first, dual-units display like this:
{{Auto Lrev|318}} yields 5.2 L (318 cu in)
I've deployed this template in Dodge Ram and a few other articles, and it seems to work perfectly, but please report any faults you may find. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 23:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone smarter than me edit the boxout, the SSC Aero is not rear engine. Wikipedia is full of noobs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor sponge ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Currently there's no convention as to whether or not RPM should be capitalized. Pretty much all of the articles I come across have it spelled rpm, however, outside of Wikipedia, most, if not all, places that I'm aware of capitalize the initials. Do you think that there should be a convention as to the preferred spelling of RPM? Personally, I think it should always be capitalized since that seems to be the standard from what I've seen.-- Flash176 ( talk) 06:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
There are some new categories made for facelifts see eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2007_facelifts, what do you think, do we need these kind of categories?. IMO vehicles introduced in year xxxx category could be used for this. --— Typ932 T | C 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
On the Wikimedia Commons, we have got to do subcategories for those three aging Chevrolet cars (the Cavalier is discontinued). Cavalier has got 82 photos, Malibu with 83 & Impala with 136. -- Bull-Doser ( talk) 09:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I also think we need a standard for category names. Here is a varying list of how categories appear over at the Commons.
As can be seen the standards are quite chaotic. While it is not suitable for every car to be labeled the same, I think some sort of standard should be set. Both the make and model should be present, and the model code should be used in favour of "generation". OSX ( talk • contributions) 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI, {{ Auto bhp}}, {{ Auto Nm}}, {{ Auto PS}} and {{ Auto ihp}} are up for deletion. Discussion here. DH85868993 ( talk) 08:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the section headings. I've heard "Aero-Bird" before, and I can see where "Torino Bird" comes from. However, a lot of the rest is questionable ("Birds of a Feather?" What?) and it is all unsourced. Even if it were sourced and notable, I doubt it belongs in the section headings anyway.
I would simply remove it all, but I'm not thinking I can deal with the fanboys alone on this one.
Thoughts? -- Sable232 ( talk) 03:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a bad idea, and if so, I apologize, but I thought maybe it might help us understand each others' viewpoints a little better if we knew what countries the other project members were from and our backgrounds.
I'm from America, born and raised, specifically Tennessee. I've always been an automotive enthusiast and attended WyoTech where I learned how to work on all the mechanical components of vehicles as well as design and build frames/roll cages and high performance engines. I received an associate's degree in automotive repair and business management and began working as a mechanic where I worked on cars sold by all the major companies in the US. Right now I'm going back to school to get degree in mechanical engineering and hope to either get a job designing trophy trucks or as a DSS agent after I graduate.
Again, I'm not trying to be nosey or anything, I just thought knowing each others' experience with cars might help us understand each other a little bit better.-- Flash176 ( talk) 01:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll play. It's kind nice seeing where everyone comes from and why they edit here. Insight never sucks. Been living in Southern California all my life. Professionally, I currently work for the largest automotive photography studio in the world as a production manager, senior digital media specialist, and product specialist. Worked in the automotive industry for over 10 years and have driven over 5500 different vehicles within that time. Member of the Motor Press Guild. Personally, I'm an avid motorcyclist, auto-geek, and photographer specializing in panorama photography. Currently own two Camaros (come from a big Camaro family), a Honda CBR600RR, Suzuki GS500E, and just bought a Honda S2000. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for articles to fix/add templates to and went into the Jeep Commander. User WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat has rigged the infobox so that you can view engine specs. I was going to remove it to make it like all other infoboxes, but decided it was unique enough to post in here to get your opinions. Thoughts?-- Flash176 ( talk) 05:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
As some of you may have noticed, a number of Ford press images have made their way onto the Commons and then into a number of Wikipedia articles. But from what little grasp I have of what is acceptable or not on Wikipedia, it seems these fall into the category of "unfree creative commons" and therefore should not be used here.
Example: Ford Flex image uploaded to the Commons via Flickr, where it had this tag. According to this, it doesn't seem to be right. But hopefully someone else who's more familiar with these policies can address it. IFCAR ( talk) 03:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm able to very easily cross-reference images like this due to a very large press photo database I am capable of accessing. The easiest thing anyone can do with images like this is to nominate for deletion. This is the arbitration process for photos over at Commons. What I do, usually because it's very easy for me to determine whether or not something is press, is I'll just change the permissions on the image and then nominate for deletion. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 09:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...I donno about that "victim of a mistake" thing. This smells funny to me: "Oops, gee, golly, boy, someone here at Ford sure messed up there with that licence...now I guess we're stuck with our slick promotional photos on Wikipedia, darnit! That means Wikipedia viewers will see high-dollar pro photos of our exciting new models, but only amateur snapshots of our competitors' cars...now what are we going to do? This is awful, just terrible!" Regardless of intent, in effect this looks to me like a tapdance around the spirit and intent of Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's image requirements. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 15:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Check out this discussion I'm having with editors over at Commons about this issue. Join in if you can. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Sable232: The Automotive image guidelines state that in order for a photo to be "useable" on Articles, the car must be the focus of the picture, and the best photos desired as ones that have little to no "background clutter." Lets pull the Ford Focus image from Ford, and the one currently on the article for the North America Version:
Ford's photo is obviously shot in a studio background, with a simple light cloth background with nothing on it, which puts the focus on the....Ford Focus. It also shows the "front ¾ view" of the car also outlined in the guidelines. Angle wise, thats debatable.
IFCAR's photo is shot in a wooded area, and has been sufficiently cropped so that the image is focused on the....Ford Focus. It also has the "front ¾ view" of the car also outlined in the guidelines. However, notice that there is two trees just above the bonnet, which sorta distracts the image abit. Also the angle looks....off. To me, the shot also looks like it tilted towards the back for some reason, like it was shot on a slope.
And since it was brought up, the Ford Flex:
(Yes, I know the first FoMoCo Flex pic was cited, but I also grabbed the other ¾ shot by Ford on Commons.)
Now this is where I think it get's sorta tricky. FoMoCo's pics look great, but there's the problem of the "front ¾ view" viewpoint. It looks like your either squatting, or approaching the Flex from a hill or some other incline in the first pic, and I don't think the second one satisfies the "front ¾ view" due to it being shot from the side and looks distant. IFCAR's again has the problem of background clutter, only this time we have several SUV's, a Chevy Express Van, and a Mitsubishi Fuso Reefer. Plus you have a guy in the driver's Seat of the Flex. Which are distractions.
Now seriously, which images would you prefer?-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
So, the images are free (despite FoMoCo "backsies") and they satisfy the Automotive Convention Guidelines for Images. Can they be put on their respective pages, or is there anymore objections?-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know how to display image caption in automobile info boxes? Other info box templates have a caption line, but when added to auto info boxes, captions do not appear. Some images could use clarifying captions any thought? -- Leivick ( talk) 04:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
|image = [[Image:Aptera Typ-1 Wallpaper.jpg|250px]]<br>Jason Hill's final Typ-1 design rendering.
(
seen here)Malcolma, you add the caption within the image listing to make the hover-over text something other than the image name. Like this: |image = [[Image:abcd1234.jpg|250px|Jason Hill's final Typ-1 design rendering]]
. Another line isn't needed.
IFCAR (
talk)
12:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not really a good infobox picture according to our convention :D PrinceGloria ( talk) 00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Ok, right, how about Porsche 944 I just uploaded a high quality image to the info box, however the image is of the Turbo model, it would be nice to clarify this in a caption. -- Leivick ( talk) 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I strongly oppose that (since you inferred there is no opposition). This is a gateway for circumventing the image quality rules, and another way to clutter the infobox IMHO. Just choose the best-quality image representing the most "standard" version possible. All information can be contained in the standard description, they are here anyway. PrinceGloria ( talk) 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I see a great need for a caption box, for example, where the only suitable (or only, totally) image is of a nonstandard, prototype, etc., version of the car. In these cases, no caption may confuse the reader further. It's no different than adding captions to any other images. — Mr. Grim Reaper at 17:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello all...
An image used in the article, specifically Image:IMG 0339 Desktop.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.-- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there some set way for defining our sister projects? I'm just wondering because some of the listed projects, such as WikiProject:Space Missions and WikiProject:Airport don't really seem to tie in to our project. I'm thinking about reorganizing the list to appear like this, but wanted to see if there were any objections.
Also, the 4 I have listed in other (aircraft, rockets, ships, and trains) - should they be listed at all as sister projects?-- Flash176 ( talk) 19:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know that car this is? Bidgee ( talk) 10:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I know this is kind of an old and tired issue, but it still seems pretty unresolved to me. I'm still finding a lot of auto articles with classifications of "supercar" and "hot hatch". I thought these were terms we were staying away from since they really aren't all that encyclopedic. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. It would make more sense to me if we took cars classified as such (or any classification within a level 2 subsection of the car classification article) and simplified it by classifying them under the more general class of "sports car" or any level 1 section of the car classification article. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick additional note, I'd like to attempt to pull out as much subjectivity to that article as possible so it could be used as a real classification guide for the infobox since it does point to that article as a references. Or what about having the class attribute wikilinking to a guide that could be found on the conventions page? Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 23:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Pony car is pretty well defined and tends to only apply to the Camaro/ Pontiac Firebird, Ford Mustang/early Mercury Cougar, AMC Javelin, and Plymouth Barracuda/ Dodge Challenger. It's basically a smaller muscle car with a long nose/short deck lid.
Muscle car, however, is hard to define before the 1964 Pontiac GTO, because the term applies to some older cars, but it didn't really come into being until around that time. The book I'm currently reading, " Muscle: America's Legendary Performance Cars" by Randy Leffingwell and Darwin Holmstrom, defines muscle cars as being mid-size (for the time) cars with high output engines. Basically a lot of power in a lightweight body. Because of that, they state that cars like the Chevrolet Impala don't technically fall under muscle car because of their weight and size.-- Flash176 ( talk) 14:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a discussion with CZmarlin right now specifically about the term, pony car, and would like to see other editor's comment in if possible. I might be completely wrong there and just need to see other point of views. Help requested. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 00:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to get this started again, but...
Sorry to bring this never-ending discussion up again, but concerning Model year vs production year, I just had an idea. What if we were to change Production to Sold or Years Sold? Would that help to alleviate the confusion by being a bit more specific or is this a bad idea?-- Flash176 ( talk) 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Using only model year is confusing, many people wants to compare the cars from same actual manufacturing years, not some marketing point of view, in the end you could be ending comparing cars from very different years --— Typ932 T | C 21:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Well I guess I'm not agreeing with you. ;) Ok, partially. I think both could be represented and clarification could be made with an attribute called "Production" (wikilinking to calendar year) and "Model year" (wikilinking to model year). roguegeek ( talk· cont) 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
According to this report, a new electric car has been created by RUF so shouldn't there be an article on it? Simply south ( talk) 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
A couple of weeks ago I created Category:Toyota timeline templates and added all the Toyota time lines I could find into it. I also noted that most of those time lines were specific to North America, so I created these global time lines:
I choose the year breaks to match significant turning points in the company history (1955 for when the long running Crown replaced everything else and 1985 for when most Toyota's went FWD). Do these time lines pass muster? If so, should I update the Toyota entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Templates#Toyota_2? Should I also replace the N.American time line that appears in many Toyota articles (eg Toyota) with one of my new global time lines? Stepho-wrs ( talk) 08:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ta da! One down. Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1955-1984 It's still a bit cluttered but Toyota simply made lots of models. I left off some model names like the Levin and Trueno because they are really just short names of the Corolla Levin and Sprinter Trueno. Stepho-wrs ( talk) 06:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Ta da! Two down. Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1935-1954 Only changed the decade dividers. But the third timeline is going to take a loooong time to fix :( Stepho-wrs ( talk) 07:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen some articles lately that have images identified as the wrong year (or even the wrong model) of car. I know not everyone can be expected to be able to tell the exact year at a glance, but I think whoever puts the pictures in should do a little bit of research first? That's a glaring error, as the picture is one of the first things someone looks at. Maybe you folks could set up something where other folks could positively ID a car before it goes into the article? That'd also help by being able to show an exact year rather than just a range. — Olds 403 ( talk) 20:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Saw this car and thought it might be useful for an article [21], but I can't tell what it is. Any ideas? Thanks. howcheng { chat} 04:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to unearth one of the WikiProject's pandora's boxes that I have stumbled upon lately, namely the Pontiac Vibe vs. Toyota Matrix thing. We did discuss it earlier, during some of the infobox debates, but for those less familiar - the Matrix is something of a North American equivalent to Corolla Spacio (JDM) and Verso (EUDM), a compact MPVish counterpart to the Corolla, marketed as a blend of hatchback, wagon and SUV. The Pontiac Vibe is its GM counterpart, built under the Toyota-GM agreement.
The Matrix is built in Toyota's Canadian plant, while the Vibe is manufactured by NUMMI, a Toyota-GM joint-venture in California (which also builds e.g. the Corolla, and used to build its identical twin, Chevrolet Prizm). The Vibe and Matrix share most of the interior, and looked similarly on the outside at least in the first generation (although no source was ever given to assert the sometimes-held notion that they actually share some sheetmetal).
There are now two debatable issues:
As concerns 1, I do believe they are still "related". This is not a case of an IDENTICAL vehicle being sold under two brands, the models are differentiated in the way e.g. Peugeot 104 and Talbot Samba were. I think the tendency to think of them as "akas" by some North American editors stems fro mthe tradition of outright badge engineering among American automakers, and NUMMI itself (see Corolla/Prizm example). That said, as with many GM vehicles who evolved past their "clone" stage (look at the W-bodies or Epsilons now compared to 1980s Roger Smith-era cars), I'd say the Matrix and Vibe have enough of an indentity each to be treated separately (if you are unfamiliar with them, do read their, rather short, articles to find out about some of that).
I would also say that if the vehicles are akas and are only produced simultaneously without other uses of their nameplates, it would only make sense to merge the articles.
As concerns 2, I was duly pointed to our infobox description, but I still believe we might reconsider it. Is Vibe's manufacturer Pontiac? Is Pontiac a manufacturer at all? It is now merely a brand of General Motors, has no dedicated manufacturing capacities, design and engineering facilities etc. (which some GM divisions used to have in their own time). Secondly, the vehicle is indeed built by NUMMI rather than Pontiac, GM or Toyota.
I would appreciate if the members could weigh in, especially those previously not involved in the debate. PrinceGloria ( talk) 04:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Instead of using AKA, which it certainly could be classified as save for different sheetmetal and plastic, shouldn't it be listed as "related" instead for arguments sake? For example, the Ford Focus is related to the Mazda3, and the Chrysler Crossfire is related to the Mercedes-Benz SLK in terms of the common platform being shared. There is probably an effort to cast the Pontiac Vibe in a negative light as just a warmed over Toyota Matrix, which the first generation certainly was, similar to the Geo Prizm as just a reworked Toyota Corolla. The manufacturer is Toyota/GM, and retailed by Pontiac using Toyota content, because the manufacturing facility (NUMMI) produces multiple products sold by different retailers (Toyota Tacoma, Toyota Corolla, Pontiac Vibe) . The powertrains used are identical.( Regushee ( talk) 18:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC))
EDIT: Typ932 put it more bluntly above
(<-- outdent and 2x EC) I see the aka/related fields differently:
Manufacturer... For me, using the name of the company that the general reader associates with the car adheres most closely to the principle of least astonishment. If we want to mention the name of the company in charge of a car plant, the assembly field seems most logical. Why split "NUMMI joint venture, Fremont, California" across two different fields?
And if we're overhauling the infobox (again), do we need the parent_company field? It may be relevant to the manufacturer, but I don't see how it's significant to individual vehicles (off the top of my head, cf. Jaguar XK—the car itself didn't change one iota when Ford sold the brand to Tata). Articles are supposed to be about the car itself, not the corporate structure of the company which produces it; that's what Jaguar is for. Regards, -- DeLarge ( talk) 23:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Earlier, I proposed that Noise, Vibration, and Harshness be moved to noise, vibration, and harshness, since NVH is merely a term, rather than a person, place or thing. However, Greglocock asserts that because the capitalized version is more widespread, we should retain the capitalized title. Since I " lack experience in field and have misapplied policy" I thought we better get a broader project view. OSX ( talk • contributions) 08:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to hear everyone's though on this specific subject. I come across a lot of statements within auto articles that compare a vehicle against another vehicle. This could be in terms of several aspects, but the one I see the most is performance. I usually just remove the comparison or try to balance it as much as possible. I tend to feel it's WP:OR and WP:POV because statements could be shaped to put whatever subject in a positive or negative light depending on what the editor is trying to come across with and still be technically correct.
So they are technically all correct statements, but misleading. I could come up with more examples, but I think you get the idea. Just something I was able to pull together quickly from Car and Driver stats. I suggest that comparison data of this kind is removed except in cases where the comparison is the article such as Top Gear Test Track. The reasons for removal are, to me, the same reasons we decided to remove the "similar" attribute from the infobox. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 22:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Discussion from Sept 13 to Oct 14 |
---|
I'm sure I'll get some flak for this, but I'd like to bring this up. Some pages use CID to denote engine displacement while others use in³. CID is the industry standard, but it's been said in this discussion repeatedly that Wikipedia is a site for laymen. Anyone who went to school knows what "in³" stands for, but CID will require an explanation for some people. I prefer the use of in³ for this reason, but either way, I'd like to have a standardized unit.-- Flash176 ( talk) 22:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
So, considering the rpm vs. RPM discussion below, if we switch it's going to be cid then? -- Sable232 ( talk) 21:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Per MOS:SI symbols and unit abbreviations: "Squared and cubic metric-symbols are always expressed with a superscript exponent (5 km2, 2 cm3); squared imperial and US unit abbreviations may be rendered with sq, and cubic with cu (15 sq mi, 3 cu ft). They keyword being "may." So, according to WP:MOS, it appears to me that the preferred unit is expressed with a superscript exponent and an alternative for English units is written abbreviations.-- Flash176 ( talk) 06:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I cleared my cache, history, etc. The superscript still isn't working for me in the two templates I changed, but the one Scheinwerfermann fixed works just fine. Does the 3 appear in superscript on Template:Auto L and Template:Auto CID to you guys? If so, then that's fine, I just want to make sure it's only my computer having this problem and not everyone.-- Flash176 ( talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
"Just for fun, check out these google searches 351 in³ vs. 351 cu in. The automatic google converter doesn't even recogise in3 (it tries to convert it as inches), but it does recogise and convert cu in to 5.75...litres." That's because computers don't see text/numbers the way we do. You have to enter it as 351 in^3. "I can't imagine that someone would be so clueless as to not know what is meant by CID in an automotive context, especially considering that every time that they read it, it is accompanied by either cc or litre conversions-- 392 CID (6,420 cc)." Then you've never been around mechanically-challenged people. Unfortunately, tons of people don't have the first clue about cars and *might* make the jump that CID would equal engine size, but those who don't know anything about cars (and I'm guessing a significant percentage of these articles' readers) will have no idea what CID stands for. Whereas in3 is a basic unit that students are taught early in grade school and anyone should be able to recognize and understand it. Just like L for liters.-- Flash176 ( talk) 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
|
Sept 26 section break |
---|
This conversation is slowly losing its control and direction. Let's find some consensus here soon since it is such an important and widely used measurement on the vast majority of automotive related articles. Vote anyone? I'll go first. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm really quite surprised by how many editors like in3. Just doing a simple Google search yields the following results:
I know this isn't the perfect way to survey something like this, but I would think it's still a fairly decent way to determine what the popular conventions would be. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 09:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
Solution that might satisfy both needs |
---|
Fact: "CID, cid, cu in" are the common abbreviations for cubic inch (displacement) in automotive writing. Fact: Not everyone knows what "CID" stands for ("cu in" seems like a basic unit to me, however; I think I've seen far more "cu in" in grade school than "in³".). Why not add a
Oilpanhands, I'm glad to see you're making an effort to engage in this conversation in a less combative, less strident manner. However, your assertion "Sable232's solution is reasonable to all" is inappropriate; it is not for you to presume to speak for others. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 04:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards putting in a WP:RFC right now to open up this discussion to a whole lot of non-automotive editors. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 20:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
|
1 October | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I'm happy we're not using ft•lbf. lb•ft is a much more common term in the industry. This being the case, I'm very puzzled as to why cu in or CID is being rejected here in favor of in3. We chose to use lb•ft because it's a common abbreviation for foot-pound force and is widely used in the auto industry. Makes complete sense. Reapplying this same rationale and I have this. I choose to use cu in because it's a common abbreviation for cubic inch (as per that article) and is widely used in the auto industry. The same could be said for CID since the cubic inch article clearly states this is an acceptable unit. So with that rationale reapplied to in3, I have this. Although in3 is a common abbreviation for cubic inch, it is not a widely used abbreviation in the auto industry and, therefore, do not choose to use it. Am I missing something? Do I have to draw it out? Ok, I will.
And yes Flash, it shouldn't change if a consensus can't be reached. Also keep in mind I'm not the person that started this conversation by any means and I'm definitely not the only one thinking this needs to get changed. Ultimately, I think there aren't enough editors looking at this issue right now and I don't think they need to be automotive related to understand it. If we find we can't reach a consensus, I think the only way we can deal with it is putting in the WP:RFC. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Roguegeek, since cu in was always mentioned with other examples, I thought it was just that, an example of how we could write it, not a suggested alternative, but that's neither here nor there. You never did answer my question about saying CID is a common universal abbreviation and where you've seen it outside of automotive/engine writings? For me, the jury's still out on cu in vs. in3. I honestly believe part of the reason we don't see in3 more is because it's so hard to replicate on a computer, so writers tend to use something easier to write out. I'm also still considering your proposal for WP:RFC and am currently leaning towards it.-- Flash176 ( talk) 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
cu in — a new consensus? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
CID isn't, from my experience, a common abbreviation to describe general volume, but the cubic inch article clearly states it is a proper abbreviation when referring to displacement and displacement is what we're talking about here. But I've had a change in mind about CID altogether. I would prefer to use cu in over CID since it's a common abbreviation for general volume and engine displacement. Out of in3, CID, and cu in, cu in is the only abbreviation that is common for both general volume and engine displacement. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 18:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, we're moving forward, and that's good. I prefer the non-breaking space (&nbѕp;) rather than the thin space (&thinѕp;), for a multitude of reasons. The thin space is not a non-breaking space, so it can and will make ugly orphans of our abbreviation: the cu will be at the end of one line, and the in at the start of another. Also, the thin space makes the abbreviation look too much like "cuin". Keep in mind, we have a hard enough time getting people to use &nbѕp; rather than just hitting the spacebar; the &thinѕp; markup is even less well known and we'll be forever going back and fixing it, even if we alter the applicable templates. Furthermore, we are already on tenuous ground with the convert templates, as we are already deviating from MOSNUM with this convention; if we go agitate for the convert templates to spit out our cu in with a thin space, it could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back and get all our hard work washed away. See for example here. Let's see if we have true consensus for cu in and not get unnecessarily fiddly with special spaces, eh? — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 15:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Sable232, I'm in the CID camp with ya, but at least we'd be going from terrible to tolerable. So, I guess all that's left to do is to pull the trigger... Oilpanhands ( talk) 01:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
|
No cubic inches after 1980? (Discussion to 15 Oct) |
---|
While changing the convention at WP:AUN, I noticed that there is some type of prohibition against using cubic inches to describe engine displacement after 1980. Granted, many engines began to be "marketed" in litres after 1980, but the specifications gave and as I had shown in many of my examples above, continue to give displacements in cubic centimetres and cubic inches. To say that cubic inches shouldn't be used for displacement is very incorrect and this needs to be changed. Perhaps, what that note means to say or should say is that for engines that were once marketed based on their displacement in cubic inches and at a later date were marketed in litres should reflect this change in the naming of the engine. The example that comes to mind is Ford's 302. Which was later marketed as a 5.0 L (althougth the real displacement was closer to 4.9 L). And as shown by this example, sometimes the name of the engine differs from the volume being displaced. Oilpanhands ( talk) 17:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, everything's debatable, if someone comes along who wants to debate whatever it is we're calling debatable, eh! :-) — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() No storms, no assumptions, just facts. Of some of the brands that Schinwerferrmann listed, many of them do list cubic inches when they list displacement in their publications and tech specs sheets and some did not list displacement at all. The ones that listed cubic inches were: VW, Volvo, Nissan, BMW, Audi, Ferrari, and Land Rover. I didn't include Ford, GM, or Chrysler because I've already shown above that those manufacturers include cubic inches when they list displacement values. I would think that that proves to be a decent sample. To be fair, Bentley, Lamborghini, Mercedes, Honda only listed cc for displacement values. Other automakers did not publish displacement values. Scheinwerfermann, your assumptions lead me to take a trip to the store today and buy some Coke. The only metric package that Coca-Cola is sold in is a 2-litre bottle. Coke is sold in 8 oz glass bottles and cans*, 12 oz glass bottles, plastic bottles*, and as you pointed out--cans, 20 oz and 24 oz plastic bottles and as noted a 2 litre bottle. I took a picture of what I bought. (*=I didn't buy these because they were in multi packs). As someone, (Bill Cosby?), once said, "Have a Coke and smile" :) and I am. Just like someone's height and weight, displacement is a measurement and for encyclopedic reasons, measurements should be converted between the systems. To prohibit a measurement that is used in the literature demonstrates a preconceived bias. As shown, this prohibition should be removed. Oilpanhands ( talk) 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. I didn't want to get back in this discussion because I'm tired of the cubic inches argument, but since you asked, I do have to agree with Oilpanhands. You're right, Scheinwerfermann, that the US isn't the world, but it does make up a significant percentage. I suck at searching, so I couldn't find any lists showing the number of cars per country, but I did find Wikipedia's List of countries by vehicles per capita. It shows the US at the top with quite a few more vehicles than the next highest country. Also, in the US, cubic inches as a unit of displacement isn't dead yet. A lot of people still compare engine size by cu in instead of liters. For instance, when designing the third generation Dodge Viper, the lead person stated he wanted the car to displace 500 cubic inches and have 500 hp & tq. Because of the prolific use of cars in the United States and the continued use of cu in here, I support having cu in as an alternative secondary measurement.-- Flash176 ( talk) 05:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sable232, That's what I'm talking about. Thank you Scheinwerfermann, so one site out of how many has used in3 and this is what you're running up the flag pole as "I gottcha"...please. Someone has already shown us a google search comparison. First you asked for a decent sample of automakers that use cubic inches to describe displacement values and you interwove how Coca-Cola is no longer available in non-metric sizes other than 12 oz cans in the US. I supplied you with a decent sample of automakers that do use cubic inches to describe displacement and I disproved your assumptions about Coke. Then, not being satisfied, you won't accept these samples because you don't like that they are all US market websites. Therefore, I threw in a couple of Canadian websites. Now, you still don't like it and won't accept this because you claim that the US and Canada are the same market--even through they are very different. N'est pas? Now, you demand samples from other parts of the world knowing full-well that in many countries the use of non-SI/metric units is prohibited and there would never be any example of cubic inches, let alone inches, gallons, or miles per hour either. By this flawed logic, Canada & the US are in a corner of the world that doesn't adhere to your standard international practise and therefore we should also ban the use of inches, pounds, gallons, and the like because the rest of the world doesn't use them. I, with your help and many examples, have shown why this is a bias part of the convention against a large part of the English-speaking world and your only defence of this is an 'I don't like it because the rest of the world doesn't do it like this' type of excuse. And no one uses furlongs-per-fortnight, so we'll skip that. Oilpanhands ( talk) 23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
What adjustment do you have in mind for the second point? — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 01:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
We would like to place the following bullet points into the convention:
Are there any objections? Oilpanhands ( talk) 10:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Since the three of us are in agreement for fixing this to ft-lb/lb-ft, I figured it would be best to start a new section. Wikipedia's the only place I've ever seen this and I work in the auto industry. The accepted format is either lb-ft or ft-lb, not ft-lbf.-- Flash176 ( talk) 00:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the consensus then and now is in favor of doing away with "lbf", I think it's ok for us to go ahead and change it. Does this need to be the standard like it was before or should it go behind Nm in parentheses? Do any countries outside of North America use lb-ft?
BTW, Scheinwerfermann, all of the Wikipedia pages I'm able to find say foot-pound instead of pound feet. Are you sure that lb-ft is correct and not just a variation?-- Flash176 ( talk) 18:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
{{Auto L|4.0}}
straight-6 engine as standard. It gets to be less clear-cut in recent years in the US market; engineering and specifications are all metric, but common nomenclature is still English. So far there hasn't been a big war over the order of units; articles on US-only vehicles (e.g.
Dodge Ram) don't spur many protests in favour of metric priority, while articles on international vehicles (e.g.
Volkswagen Golf) prioritise metrics and may not even consistently show English units. As a general rule of thumb, prioritise the units in which vehicles and components (e.g. engines) originally engineered and marketed. It's not perfect, but it's generally workable.I have specified lb·ft as the correct English torque unit in WP:AUN. While I was in there, I took the opportunity to tidy up the convention and make it a little clearer, more explicit, and more readable. Let us hope this improves the quality of articles within this project. At the very least it gives us uniform provisions for removing ft·lbf from articles where we may find it. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Flash176 ( talk · contribs) and I noticed the other day an interesting problem with Template:Auto L: it doesn't work well for engines originally engineered and designated in cubic inches and later redesignated in litres. The template was spitting out 317 in³ rather than 318 in³ for the Chrysler 5.2, for example. This is due to rounding employed in the selection of the litre designation. I played around with the litre conversion factor and sure enough, there's no factor that can be used that'll make all engines convert correctly. When I bent the conversion factor to make the 318 convert correctly, it broke the Ford 351. When I fixed the 351, the 318 broke again. (I actually ran a couple dozen known conversions through it; the 318 and 351 are only examples). Clearly that approach wasn't going to work. Besides, fudging conversion factors is an ugly way to do things anyhow. I took a look at Template:Auto L and Template:Auto CID and devised a solution: I've created a new template Template:Auto Lrev. This is specifically to correctly display the displacement of engines engineered in cubic inches, but later redesignated in litres, and for articles about American vehicles sold in metric markets back in America's cubic-inch days. It's essentially the Template:Auto CID template with inverted output. You input the known cubic inch displacement of the litre-designated engine, and you get a correctly-converted, litres-first, dual-units display like this:
{{Auto Lrev|318}} yields 5.2 L (318 cu in)
I've deployed this template in Dodge Ram and a few other articles, and it seems to work perfectly, but please report any faults you may find. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 23:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone smarter than me edit the boxout, the SSC Aero is not rear engine. Wikipedia is full of noobs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor sponge ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Currently there's no convention as to whether or not RPM should be capitalized. Pretty much all of the articles I come across have it spelled rpm, however, outside of Wikipedia, most, if not all, places that I'm aware of capitalize the initials. Do you think that there should be a convention as to the preferred spelling of RPM? Personally, I think it should always be capitalized since that seems to be the standard from what I've seen.-- Flash176 ( talk) 06:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
There are some new categories made for facelifts see eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2007_facelifts, what do you think, do we need these kind of categories?. IMO vehicles introduced in year xxxx category could be used for this. --— Typ932 T | C 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
On the Wikimedia Commons, we have got to do subcategories for those three aging Chevrolet cars (the Cavalier is discontinued). Cavalier has got 82 photos, Malibu with 83 & Impala with 136. -- Bull-Doser ( talk) 09:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I also think we need a standard for category names. Here is a varying list of how categories appear over at the Commons.
As can be seen the standards are quite chaotic. While it is not suitable for every car to be labeled the same, I think some sort of standard should be set. Both the make and model should be present, and the model code should be used in favour of "generation". OSX ( talk • contributions) 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI, {{ Auto bhp}}, {{ Auto Nm}}, {{ Auto PS}} and {{ Auto ihp}} are up for deletion. Discussion here. DH85868993 ( talk) 08:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the section headings. I've heard "Aero-Bird" before, and I can see where "Torino Bird" comes from. However, a lot of the rest is questionable ("Birds of a Feather?" What?) and it is all unsourced. Even if it were sourced and notable, I doubt it belongs in the section headings anyway.
I would simply remove it all, but I'm not thinking I can deal with the fanboys alone on this one.
Thoughts? -- Sable232 ( talk) 03:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a bad idea, and if so, I apologize, but I thought maybe it might help us understand each others' viewpoints a little better if we knew what countries the other project members were from and our backgrounds.
I'm from America, born and raised, specifically Tennessee. I've always been an automotive enthusiast and attended WyoTech where I learned how to work on all the mechanical components of vehicles as well as design and build frames/roll cages and high performance engines. I received an associate's degree in automotive repair and business management and began working as a mechanic where I worked on cars sold by all the major companies in the US. Right now I'm going back to school to get degree in mechanical engineering and hope to either get a job designing trophy trucks or as a DSS agent after I graduate.
Again, I'm not trying to be nosey or anything, I just thought knowing each others' experience with cars might help us understand each other a little bit better.-- Flash176 ( talk) 01:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll play. It's kind nice seeing where everyone comes from and why they edit here. Insight never sucks. Been living in Southern California all my life. Professionally, I currently work for the largest automotive photography studio in the world as a production manager, senior digital media specialist, and product specialist. Worked in the automotive industry for over 10 years and have driven over 5500 different vehicles within that time. Member of the Motor Press Guild. Personally, I'm an avid motorcyclist, auto-geek, and photographer specializing in panorama photography. Currently own two Camaros (come from a big Camaro family), a Honda CBR600RR, Suzuki GS500E, and just bought a Honda S2000. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for articles to fix/add templates to and went into the Jeep Commander. User WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat has rigged the infobox so that you can view engine specs. I was going to remove it to make it like all other infoboxes, but decided it was unique enough to post in here to get your opinions. Thoughts?-- Flash176 ( talk) 05:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
As some of you may have noticed, a number of Ford press images have made their way onto the Commons and then into a number of Wikipedia articles. But from what little grasp I have of what is acceptable or not on Wikipedia, it seems these fall into the category of "unfree creative commons" and therefore should not be used here.
Example: Ford Flex image uploaded to the Commons via Flickr, where it had this tag. According to this, it doesn't seem to be right. But hopefully someone else who's more familiar with these policies can address it. IFCAR ( talk) 03:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm able to very easily cross-reference images like this due to a very large press photo database I am capable of accessing. The easiest thing anyone can do with images like this is to nominate for deletion. This is the arbitration process for photos over at Commons. What I do, usually because it's very easy for me to determine whether or not something is press, is I'll just change the permissions on the image and then nominate for deletion. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 09:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...I donno about that "victim of a mistake" thing. This smells funny to me: "Oops, gee, golly, boy, someone here at Ford sure messed up there with that licence...now I guess we're stuck with our slick promotional photos on Wikipedia, darnit! That means Wikipedia viewers will see high-dollar pro photos of our exciting new models, but only amateur snapshots of our competitors' cars...now what are we going to do? This is awful, just terrible!" Regardless of intent, in effect this looks to me like a tapdance around the spirit and intent of Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's image requirements. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 15:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Check out this discussion I'm having with editors over at Commons about this issue. Join in if you can. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Sable232: The Automotive image guidelines state that in order for a photo to be "useable" on Articles, the car must be the focus of the picture, and the best photos desired as ones that have little to no "background clutter." Lets pull the Ford Focus image from Ford, and the one currently on the article for the North America Version:
Ford's photo is obviously shot in a studio background, with a simple light cloth background with nothing on it, which puts the focus on the....Ford Focus. It also shows the "front ¾ view" of the car also outlined in the guidelines. Angle wise, thats debatable.
IFCAR's photo is shot in a wooded area, and has been sufficiently cropped so that the image is focused on the....Ford Focus. It also has the "front ¾ view" of the car also outlined in the guidelines. However, notice that there is two trees just above the bonnet, which sorta distracts the image abit. Also the angle looks....off. To me, the shot also looks like it tilted towards the back for some reason, like it was shot on a slope.
And since it was brought up, the Ford Flex:
(Yes, I know the first FoMoCo Flex pic was cited, but I also grabbed the other ¾ shot by Ford on Commons.)
Now this is where I think it get's sorta tricky. FoMoCo's pics look great, but there's the problem of the "front ¾ view" viewpoint. It looks like your either squatting, or approaching the Flex from a hill or some other incline in the first pic, and I don't think the second one satisfies the "front ¾ view" due to it being shot from the side and looks distant. IFCAR's again has the problem of background clutter, only this time we have several SUV's, a Chevy Express Van, and a Mitsubishi Fuso Reefer. Plus you have a guy in the driver's Seat of the Flex. Which are distractions.
Now seriously, which images would you prefer?-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
So, the images are free (despite FoMoCo "backsies") and they satisfy the Automotive Convention Guidelines for Images. Can they be put on their respective pages, or is there anymore objections?-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know how to display image caption in automobile info boxes? Other info box templates have a caption line, but when added to auto info boxes, captions do not appear. Some images could use clarifying captions any thought? -- Leivick ( talk) 04:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
|image = [[Image:Aptera Typ-1 Wallpaper.jpg|250px]]<br>Jason Hill's final Typ-1 design rendering.
(
seen here)Malcolma, you add the caption within the image listing to make the hover-over text something other than the image name. Like this: |image = [[Image:abcd1234.jpg|250px|Jason Hill's final Typ-1 design rendering]]
. Another line isn't needed.
IFCAR (
talk)
12:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not really a good infobox picture according to our convention :D PrinceGloria ( talk) 00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Ok, right, how about Porsche 944 I just uploaded a high quality image to the info box, however the image is of the Turbo model, it would be nice to clarify this in a caption. -- Leivick ( talk) 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I strongly oppose that (since you inferred there is no opposition). This is a gateway for circumventing the image quality rules, and another way to clutter the infobox IMHO. Just choose the best-quality image representing the most "standard" version possible. All information can be contained in the standard description, they are here anyway. PrinceGloria ( talk) 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I see a great need for a caption box, for example, where the only suitable (or only, totally) image is of a nonstandard, prototype, etc., version of the car. In these cases, no caption may confuse the reader further. It's no different than adding captions to any other images. — Mr. Grim Reaper at 17:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello all...
An image used in the article, specifically Image:IMG 0339 Desktop.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.-- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there some set way for defining our sister projects? I'm just wondering because some of the listed projects, such as WikiProject:Space Missions and WikiProject:Airport don't really seem to tie in to our project. I'm thinking about reorganizing the list to appear like this, but wanted to see if there were any objections.
Also, the 4 I have listed in other (aircraft, rockets, ships, and trains) - should they be listed at all as sister projects?-- Flash176 ( talk) 19:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know that car this is? Bidgee ( talk) 10:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I know this is kind of an old and tired issue, but it still seems pretty unresolved to me. I'm still finding a lot of auto articles with classifications of "supercar" and "hot hatch". I thought these were terms we were staying away from since they really aren't all that encyclopedic. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. It would make more sense to me if we took cars classified as such (or any classification within a level 2 subsection of the car classification article) and simplified it by classifying them under the more general class of "sports car" or any level 1 section of the car classification article. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick additional note, I'd like to attempt to pull out as much subjectivity to that article as possible so it could be used as a real classification guide for the infobox since it does point to that article as a references. Or what about having the class attribute wikilinking to a guide that could be found on the conventions page? Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 23:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Pony car is pretty well defined and tends to only apply to the Camaro/ Pontiac Firebird, Ford Mustang/early Mercury Cougar, AMC Javelin, and Plymouth Barracuda/ Dodge Challenger. It's basically a smaller muscle car with a long nose/short deck lid.
Muscle car, however, is hard to define before the 1964 Pontiac GTO, because the term applies to some older cars, but it didn't really come into being until around that time. The book I'm currently reading, " Muscle: America's Legendary Performance Cars" by Randy Leffingwell and Darwin Holmstrom, defines muscle cars as being mid-size (for the time) cars with high output engines. Basically a lot of power in a lightweight body. Because of that, they state that cars like the Chevrolet Impala don't technically fall under muscle car because of their weight and size.-- Flash176 ( talk) 14:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a discussion with CZmarlin right now specifically about the term, pony car, and would like to see other editor's comment in if possible. I might be completely wrong there and just need to see other point of views. Help requested. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 00:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to get this started again, but...
Sorry to bring this never-ending discussion up again, but concerning Model year vs production year, I just had an idea. What if we were to change Production to Sold or Years Sold? Would that help to alleviate the confusion by being a bit more specific or is this a bad idea?-- Flash176 ( talk) 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Using only model year is confusing, many people wants to compare the cars from same actual manufacturing years, not some marketing point of view, in the end you could be ending comparing cars from very different years --— Typ932 T | C 21:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Well I guess I'm not agreeing with you. ;) Ok, partially. I think both could be represented and clarification could be made with an attribute called "Production" (wikilinking to calendar year) and "Model year" (wikilinking to model year). roguegeek ( talk· cont) 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
According to this report, a new electric car has been created by RUF so shouldn't there be an article on it? Simply south ( talk) 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
A couple of weeks ago I created Category:Toyota timeline templates and added all the Toyota time lines I could find into it. I also noted that most of those time lines were specific to North America, so I created these global time lines:
I choose the year breaks to match significant turning points in the company history (1955 for when the long running Crown replaced everything else and 1985 for when most Toyota's went FWD). Do these time lines pass muster? If so, should I update the Toyota entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Templates#Toyota_2? Should I also replace the N.American time line that appears in many Toyota articles (eg Toyota) with one of my new global time lines? Stepho-wrs ( talk) 08:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ta da! One down. Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1955-1984 It's still a bit cluttered but Toyota simply made lots of models. I left off some model names like the Levin and Trueno because they are really just short names of the Corolla Levin and Sprinter Trueno. Stepho-wrs ( talk) 06:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Ta da! Two down. Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1935-1954 Only changed the decade dividers. But the third timeline is going to take a loooong time to fix :( Stepho-wrs ( talk) 07:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen some articles lately that have images identified as the wrong year (or even the wrong model) of car. I know not everyone can be expected to be able to tell the exact year at a glance, but I think whoever puts the pictures in should do a little bit of research first? That's a glaring error, as the picture is one of the first things someone looks at. Maybe you folks could set up something where other folks could positively ID a car before it goes into the article? That'd also help by being able to show an exact year rather than just a range. — Olds 403 ( talk) 20:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Saw this car and thought it might be useful for an article [21], but I can't tell what it is. Any ideas? Thanks. howcheng { chat} 04:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to unearth one of the WikiProject's pandora's boxes that I have stumbled upon lately, namely the Pontiac Vibe vs. Toyota Matrix thing. We did discuss it earlier, during some of the infobox debates, but for those less familiar - the Matrix is something of a North American equivalent to Corolla Spacio (JDM) and Verso (EUDM), a compact MPVish counterpart to the Corolla, marketed as a blend of hatchback, wagon and SUV. The Pontiac Vibe is its GM counterpart, built under the Toyota-GM agreement.
The Matrix is built in Toyota's Canadian plant, while the Vibe is manufactured by NUMMI, a Toyota-GM joint-venture in California (which also builds e.g. the Corolla, and used to build its identical twin, Chevrolet Prizm). The Vibe and Matrix share most of the interior, and looked similarly on the outside at least in the first generation (although no source was ever given to assert the sometimes-held notion that they actually share some sheetmetal).
There are now two debatable issues:
As concerns 1, I do believe they are still "related". This is not a case of an IDENTICAL vehicle being sold under two brands, the models are differentiated in the way e.g. Peugeot 104 and Talbot Samba were. I think the tendency to think of them as "akas" by some North American editors stems fro mthe tradition of outright badge engineering among American automakers, and NUMMI itself (see Corolla/Prizm example). That said, as with many GM vehicles who evolved past their "clone" stage (look at the W-bodies or Epsilons now compared to 1980s Roger Smith-era cars), I'd say the Matrix and Vibe have enough of an indentity each to be treated separately (if you are unfamiliar with them, do read their, rather short, articles to find out about some of that).
I would also say that if the vehicles are akas and are only produced simultaneously without other uses of their nameplates, it would only make sense to merge the articles.
As concerns 2, I was duly pointed to our infobox description, but I still believe we might reconsider it. Is Vibe's manufacturer Pontiac? Is Pontiac a manufacturer at all? It is now merely a brand of General Motors, has no dedicated manufacturing capacities, design and engineering facilities etc. (which some GM divisions used to have in their own time). Secondly, the vehicle is indeed built by NUMMI rather than Pontiac, GM or Toyota.
I would appreciate if the members could weigh in, especially those previously not involved in the debate. PrinceGloria ( talk) 04:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Instead of using AKA, which it certainly could be classified as save for different sheetmetal and plastic, shouldn't it be listed as "related" instead for arguments sake? For example, the Ford Focus is related to the Mazda3, and the Chrysler Crossfire is related to the Mercedes-Benz SLK in terms of the common platform being shared. There is probably an effort to cast the Pontiac Vibe in a negative light as just a warmed over Toyota Matrix, which the first generation certainly was, similar to the Geo Prizm as just a reworked Toyota Corolla. The manufacturer is Toyota/GM, and retailed by Pontiac using Toyota content, because the manufacturing facility (NUMMI) produces multiple products sold by different retailers (Toyota Tacoma, Toyota Corolla, Pontiac Vibe) . The powertrains used are identical.( Regushee ( talk) 18:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC))
EDIT: Typ932 put it more bluntly above
(<-- outdent and 2x EC) I see the aka/related fields differently:
Manufacturer... For me, using the name of the company that the general reader associates with the car adheres most closely to the principle of least astonishment. If we want to mention the name of the company in charge of a car plant, the assembly field seems most logical. Why split "NUMMI joint venture, Fremont, California" across two different fields?
And if we're overhauling the infobox (again), do we need the parent_company field? It may be relevant to the manufacturer, but I don't see how it's significant to individual vehicles (off the top of my head, cf. Jaguar XK—the car itself didn't change one iota when Ford sold the brand to Tata). Articles are supposed to be about the car itself, not the corporate structure of the company which produces it; that's what Jaguar is for. Regards, -- DeLarge ( talk) 23:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Earlier, I proposed that Noise, Vibration, and Harshness be moved to noise, vibration, and harshness, since NVH is merely a term, rather than a person, place or thing. However, Greglocock asserts that because the capitalized version is more widespread, we should retain the capitalized title. Since I " lack experience in field and have misapplied policy" I thought we better get a broader project view. OSX ( talk • contributions) 08:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to hear everyone's though on this specific subject. I come across a lot of statements within auto articles that compare a vehicle against another vehicle. This could be in terms of several aspects, but the one I see the most is performance. I usually just remove the comparison or try to balance it as much as possible. I tend to feel it's WP:OR and WP:POV because statements could be shaped to put whatever subject in a positive or negative light depending on what the editor is trying to come across with and still be technically correct.
So they are technically all correct statements, but misleading. I could come up with more examples, but I think you get the idea. Just something I was able to pull together quickly from Car and Driver stats. I suggest that comparison data of this kind is removed except in cases where the comparison is the article such as Top Gear Test Track. The reasons for removal are, to me, the same reasons we decided to remove the "similar" attribute from the infobox. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 22:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |