![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I just noticed that the {{ convert}} template adds commas to numbers which I believe is against Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Example {{convert|1100|mm|in|1|abbr=on}} results in 1,100 mm (43.3 in) when 1100 mm (43.3 in) would be expected. Thoughts? Is there a way to force omission of the comma with the convert template? swa q 19:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
<--- Before trying to force the template to accept our convention, perhaps ask why the convention exists? The "no commas" convention was added by the now inactive User:Stombs way back in 2005 in one of the earliest edits to the Convention page, [1] and was then refined slightly by User:Sfoskett. [2] It doesn't seem to be grounded in anything more concrete than a very brief "ok, let's do it this way" discussion between the pair of them on the talk page, while a cursory glance around shows several car-specific media which do use the comma (e.g. Yahoo Cars UK, Edmunds.com), so it's certainly not a universal convention.
Also, I'd be careful with quoting WP:MOSNUM at the moment, since it's been the subject of such edit warring lately that it's currently edit-protected. The large number convention has been changed within the last two months ( here, with the edit summary "as per talk page" although I can't find a specific discussion about it). What I'd recommend is:
Six months later and the contradiction between the way WP:MOSNUM and {{ Convert}} handle numbers between 1,000 and 9,999 still exists. o try and resolve this, I've initiated a discussion at the MOSNUM talk page, if anyone wants to contribute: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conflict between MOSNUM and Template:Convert. Regards, -- DeLarge ( talk) 12:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the page standards are not even close to uniform between automotive pages. This makes it harder to obtain viable information for a given vehicle. An example is the Mercury Cyclone which is just 8 years of option lists. I wish to initiate a movement to add some new amendments to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions to unify and tighten the standards for all automotive pages. These amendments will help to improve upon the standards of Automotive Pages.
(A logo will be devised at a later date to be determined)
Remember, this is only a request and these are only ideas. If anyone has any suggestions as to more amendments to add or anything that should be changed, feel free to comment on this post. Autocar256 01:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have devised a sample logo for certification of articles.
Autocar256 02:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a war going on over at Lotus Esprit over the inclusion of two external links. I've counted five different IP addresses re-adding the links so far, so it is quite likely that there has been a post on the forum encouraging users to add the links. However the forum requires registration to even view posts so I can't confirm this. If you have time, take a look at the links to determine yourself whether they pass WP:EL. There was a discussion on these links back in January/February this year, but the new IP users have not discussed the links on the talk page at all. I have also started a spam report on this issue. swa q 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we have a hoaxer around in the shape of Bigguy03j. He has recently recreated Cicero BDB Maestro which I have tagged for deletion and most of his edits have now been reverted. One of his articles is Saab 9XX Concept which I am very suspicious about, is this also a hoax? A Lotus 121 racing car has also been added to Template:Lotus and I can find no evidence for the existence of such a beast.
Would someone else please have a look through his edits and see if my suspicions are correct? Malcolma ( talk) 12:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Red marquis ( talk · contribs) has uploaded a bunch of possibly copyrighted images, particular Porsche pictures, and has put them in articles. Could someone who knows more about copyright take a look at his contributions? Thanks. swa q 16:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I've come across an anonymous IP (with a questionable edit history) that's been changing "4-door wagon" and "4-door SUV" to "5-door." Is this passable? -- Sable232 ( talk) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Edmunds, Chrome, and AutoData (three of the largest automotive data suppliers in the world) classify wagons and hatchbacks as 3 and 5-door vehicles. Just a little FYI. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 05:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In the Spanish-language Wikipedia we use this criteria: if the decklid includes the rear window (it's a hatch), then it's one more door; if the decklid doesn't include the the rear window, then it's not a door. Therefore, hatchbacks, wagons and off-roaders have three or five doors; sedans, cabrios and coupés have two or four doors; and freaks like the Mini Clubman have four doors (one left, two right and one rear). The other possible criteria is to never count the rear hatch as a door (no three- or five-door cars). Counting three or four doors depending on the boot's size (hatchback vs wagon) sound ridiculous to me. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 13:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
As a WikiProject and stand alone editors, we aren't able to debate how many doors a vehicle has. This would be considered original research. What we can do is find sources that state how many doors a vehicle has. I'll re-state what I stated above. Edmunds, Chrome, and AutoData (three of the largest automotive data suppliers in the world) along with portals such as Yahoo! Autos, MSN Autos, and countless others classify wagons and hatchbacks as 3 and 5-door vehicles. These groups are not directly related to OEMs, but they report on them. This is the definition of a secondary source and Wikipedia is to always be built upon these. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Good, that sounds like an agreement with my last sentence. I'm happy to live with '5-door wagon' (which seem to be favoured both by recent primary and secondary sources) as long as it's consistently applied across articles. Stepho-wrs ( talk) 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think these are fun and I haven't been able to figure this one out myself so I thought I would see if you all could figure it out (I know you folks will be able to do it). I took this picture a month ago and the owner was being kinda of dick (he literally hit on my date right in front of me) so I didn't feel like asking for specifics. I know it is Ferrari 250 GT, but don't know the year or exact model. -- Leivick ( talk) 07:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests that abbreviations should be spelled out: Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations. There is a single editor that firmly believes that an instance such as this: EPA, is categorically wrong, incorrect, and "in violation" when the first instance in an article. Notice, that EPA is linked to it's full article. The editor contends that the first instance, without exception, can only be correct if addressed like this: United States Environmental Protection Agency or Environmental Protection Agency.
Several other editors have pointed out that this rings false, that it is no imposition on the reader to use the abbreviation + link... while always spelling out the abbreviation can interrupt the flow of the article and give the article an inappropriate, even clumsy emphasis.
Does Project Automobiles have a policy or consensus on this? The discussion here only centers on the use of EPA, but could easily expand to include other abbreviations.
Here is the discussion regarding "Abbreviations and Abbreviation Eradication". 842U ( talk) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- (outdent) On the original point, I think the edits are more or less correct. A couple of them showed up in my watchlist, and my only complaint was that rather than a straight swap of acronym for spelled-out words, the sentence might have needed rejigging to improve its readability. Having said that, it was a lousy sentence to start with, so I wasn't going to moan. In general we should indeed be spelling out acronyms on first usage; it's MOS-compliant and more reader-friendly, no doubt about it.
As for "SOFFIA vs PAFFU" (sic)... More reader-friendly? Subjective, but certainly open to discussion. Nevertheless, I'd strongly dispute the assertion that it's more professional to use the former, unless you mean in a "commercial" context as opposed to "the opposite of amateur". Businesses might use this approach if they're trying to reinforce/emphasize an acronymical brand to a reader, but all the major style guides (CMOS, Columbia, AP, Guardian, NYT, BBC, Encarta, Britannica, etc) either explicitly recommend spelling out in full in the first instance with the abbreviation in parentheses, or follow that standard routinely. I've always considered that as a tertiary source, WP should kowtow to others' standards, so I'd be opposed to such a proposal. -- DeLarge ( talk) 10:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Some time ago Wikipedia had pretty nice article on Luxury vehicles. It sure had some problems with sources, but it was a long and detaled aricle.
Until this April a couple of editors ( User:842U and User:Dino246) targeted this article. Looks like they don't like the term - and they act like they are the only ones who get the true meaning of it.
Huh? As you can see, they a detailed article was replaced with a extermely un-encylopedic message that contained an unsourced criticizm of the term itself and no encylopedic information - something that belongs to talk page, not article page in the first hand. I'd like to hear your opinions about this diff.
Later, the article [ was re-written] to look more like an article, but it is still very POV: it only reflects one particular interpretation of the term: "a subjective marketing lable for any kind of vehicle that provides subjective luxury". As any car enthusiast knows, this is NOT the most popular interpretation of the term.
While from page history it is obvious that a lot of editors disagree with such approach, User:842U and User:Dino246 keep reverting any edits they don't like. They also reject any sources that support alternative interpretations, such as "What Car?" magazine.
Fortunately for them, they were able to find ONE reference that supports their interpretation of the term. I don't think this single source should be accounted as a final truth.
Could someone who's familiar with motoring press and speciallized motoring encyclopedias both online and offline suggest luxury definitions and mentions in reliable sources? I believe there must be reliable sources that say that "luxury cars is term used to largest and most expensive sendans on the market", or "luxury vehicles are vehicles produced by particular makes". All the press I've read used term "luxury cars" as a synonym to "F-class sedans", sadly it never explicitly defined it. My own access to English-language sources is very limited.
I dont think there are enough interested people allowed to participate/flourish by art student Wiki moderators to make "automotive" consensus here worthwhile or valid. It seems being encyclopedic is now more important to Wiki than being informed. After all when I want medical advice I go to a doctor, yet here at Wiki we have to tolerate pages of automotive issues edited and policed by unqualified people brandishing "protocols" as their only justification for keeping pages sterile to the point of poorly informed. Redashhope< 23:58, 24 December 2008 (CET)
Terms like A-Segment, B-Segment, C-Segment, D-Segment, E-Segment and F-Segment are widly used even by reliable motoring magazines, but I failed to find any reliable sources that define then. Can you please help me with this? Netrat ( talk) 13:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
(indent reset) they are used regularly in European magazines..... -- Typ932 T· C 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Its seems Kieran T there are as many reliable editors in Wiki automotive as there are apparently motoring magazines in your personal "trusted source" list - but that does not stop art students still being let loose policing automotive articles they have no first hand experience or little knowledge of (in fact Iam sure some have no driving license). Classic and Sports Car by the way is not a bad old rag but there is no bible and I do think to credit it first requires a citation as to your own credentials in motoring which then might allow us to verify you as well as it as a "trustworthy source". Not enough experienced/interested users are allowed to flourish/contribute in Wiki Automotive for it ever to grow to be considered valid outside Wiki's own thin paper walls. Redashhope< 10:41, 25 December 2008 (CET)
Can this article be reassessed for WPA please. I'd suggest that importance for this WP should be at least mid as it was the first car manufactured in the UK. Mjroots ( talk) 09:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Plug-in hybrid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be like voting for an article about the invention of the pneumatic tyre. Why? As according to "the car that will change the world" Honda's FCX - a hydrogen powered unit which was recently voted just that on BBC2 Top Gear programme (the biggest selling global car show on the planet), "plugging in" every few hundred miles is now completely unnecessary. The Honda FCX is already "in-production" and the only waste product is a small amount of water, no plugs, no down-time, no batteries, no servicing, 1 moving engine part using the most abundant element on the planet. Redashhope< 10:23, 25 December 2008 (CET)
What do you think about this article name Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003-Present), I think it shoud be changed to some other, do we have any other articles with year on brackets or what would you suggest to this article name to be -- Typ932 T· C 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- (outdent) Not sure I'd like the development code idea unless it's widely used (i.e. as widely used as BMW's). I also did a little digging around and discovered this has been an ongoing issue. See the history logs of Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003), and the conversation on the article's talk page. -- DeLarge ( talk) 20:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This is still undecided what to do.... -- Typ932 T· C 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
If one generation of a car (eg Toyota Corolla E70 is produced from August 1979 to August 1984 and the next generation (eg Toyota Corolla E80 is produced from August 1984 onwards, then should the E70 have a production date 1979 to 1983 or 1979 to 1984 (assuming calendar years, not model years)? It can be argued that the E70 was being made in 1984 but it seems more logical to me if the E70 was listed as 1979-1983 and the E80 was listed as 1984 onwards (ie makes it clearer that the E70 was produced for 4 years and then the E80 took over in 1984). Any thoughts? Stepho-wrs ( talk) 01:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The old field should be there until new ones are filled, if they will never be filled... now we have thousands? of articles without a basic car info -- Typ932 T· C 11:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
We already went though a long discussion on how this was suppose to work. Although I don't agree with everything that was reached in the consensus, it is the consensus. I understand how the removal of 'production' hides the data in the articles, but it is an outdated field that we've all agreed to not use anymore. Stepho-wrs, I'm sorry you were not able to join in, but making the change you just did requires more discussion. I have reverted the edits. Now I do agree we need to migrate data from the original production field to the new fields. I have proposed setting up a bot for this with very little feedback so far. If we do decide that keeping the 'production' field live for a little while is worth it, then I think we should only do this in the template and not in the documentation so editors going forward are only using the new fields. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 20:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely do not agree. Any change should improve Wikipedia and the articles, rather than create humongous kerfuffle. Basically, the current arrangement with production years is fine but for a select number of North American vehicles. I believe the new solution should be applied only in those cases, to relieve any problems. In other cases, the transfer might take place ultimately, but will require additional information to be found (which is rather hard for certain vehicles), so let us leave that for now to individual users. A note in the description might inform the users that it is advisable to provide more accurate information whenever possible. PrinceGloria ( talk) 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- (outdent) I'm perplexed why we need two fields to display one lifespan. Especially when dealing only with years, the universal way of writing it is on one line, separated by a dash (e.g. "1998–2005"). Not just with cars, but with anything. Even adding months to those dates for greater accuracy/clarification doesn't seem to necessitate a second field. What's wrong with writing "August 1998 – May 2005" in one field? And if there's confusion between model and calendar years, just clarify by writing " MY1998–2005". Seems perfectly straightforward to me. Personally, I'd prefer an infobox format which encourages brevity, as it will by necessity force editors to actually write actual content to explain the exact dates of production. More prose, less tables and infoboxes. But even if this new system is applied, at least get the infobox coded to display it on one line with hyphenated dates so that "our" little standard resembles what the rest of the world is using, and keeps us in closer compliance with the WP:YEAR section of the MoS.
A quick hunt through about twenty car pages at random (American, German, and Japanese) showed all of them to only show years, so even if more exact dates are available and verifiable, they're not on Wikipedia right now. Is it such a bright idea to be making these wholesale changes before the data exists in front of us? Rather than arguing about whether or not exact production dates are easy to obtain, would it not be better to actually get the data and add it before rejigging the infobox? That seems like the more sensible order for these two jobs to be done since, as I explained above, such info can still be added to the current field.
Nevertheless, the biggest issue is whether to remove the production
field, as
User:Stepho-wrs asked and
User:Roguegeek tried to apply, though I can't believe this even needs to be discussed. By removing it you remove accurate information from thousands of articles for no other reason than it isn't in the exact format you like. That improves Wikipedia and benefits the reader... how? --
DeLarge (
talk)
23:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
It's been barely 36 hours since my last comment above, and I've already seen the first issues caused by this, as Bull-Doser went on one of his sprees.
First of all, the "harmless" stuff; changing from the old Production
field to the new ones without adding more specific dates; for comparison, here's
Acura MDX as rendered with
the old style compared to
the new style. Exactly the same info as before, and just as ambiguous as before (are these model years or calendar years?), except they're displayed over two lines instead of one. In fact, on my browser the Production start
and Production end
labels are too big for one line and are wrapping onto a second, so it's taking four lines to display "2001–06" instead of one. If this is an improvement I'm not seeing it.
More seriously, I've had to revert one of Bull-Doser's edits, and I've noticed others have too. In my case it was Mitsubishi Outlander:
Other editors are reverting him on other articles, presumably because what he's doing seems so unintuitive. And I don't blame them; if the world and his wife writes date ranges as "1998–2005", why are we fighting to change this by deprecating the style prescribed by the MoS?
The more this starts to roll out, the more uneasy I'm getting. The best I can suggest is that the new fields might be useful if full dates are known and article authors want that degree of detail in the infobox as well as the prose text. But until more accurate info than bare years is known, I'm strongly opposed to the deprecation of the existing Production
field; where no new info is being added we should be leaving well alone. --
DeLarge (
talk)
12:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Production
field for almost two years without a problem. If it ain't broke...? How is it an improvement to do nothing more than spread one line of information over four?(Indent reset) The "production" field should state only the years in production, with the exact date if available stated somewhere in the article prose. As PrinceGloria stated, "the infobox is for SUMMARIZING information, not presenting every possible bit thereof." In the engine field do we state the displacement in cc, engine model, engine type, power and torque? No, some of these are included, but detailed information is transferred elsewhere. So I guess this puts me (OSX) with Typ932, PrinceGloria and DeLarge. A better solution would be to cull the complex start/end fields and use the old production field in conjunction with model years if applicable. OSX ( talk • contributions) 02:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Production
field, and there hasn't been a comeback from those who support it in the last few days. In light of that, I'm going to restore the documentation for it so that it can continue to be used. I'll leave in the stuff for Production_start
and Production_end
, though to be honest they look redundant, but I'll tweak it slightly to emphasize that their usage is only optional.Model_years
, isn't that just an American/international language variation, and therefore something that can be coded into the "sp=us/uk" spelling variation parameter like we've done with kerb/curb weight? That'd save having all these extra fields. --
DeLarge (
talk)
15:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)See talk here.
According to our current infobox image standards, this image is a better image to use in the infobox over this image. Does anyone else see something fundamentally wrong here? BTW, in looking through all archives, I do not see where consensus was reach for determining parameters for infobox images. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 05:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring to this definition found on the infobox documentation which states:
Leivick, I agree with you, but the higher quality image was removed because of it "is not 3/4 front view from the height of a normal person." The problem I'm seeing here is this wording could very well not allow the best possible image used in an infobox. I'd like to fix this. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 10:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Another example I found is this image replacing this image due to the replacement image depicting "the car from the height of the average person, per image standards." Could everyone truly say in this case an image of a wet and dirty vehicle is a better image to use over the image it replaced? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 10:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
That is a ridiculous accusation and an extremely obvious flat-out lie. I had no part whatsoever in writing the image guidelines, which were in place before I joined Wikipedia. The notion that I have any less interest in helping Wikipedia than any other editor is downright offensive, especially considering you need make-believe history to make your point.
However, though I did not write it, I do agree with the height standard for the reason I explained: a low camera can offer a distorted view of the car, as is the case in the Sport Trac image I replaced, or show the hood and roof instead of the fascia, as in the case of the Mustang image I replaced. I don't care who took the photo, as long as it's appropriate for Wikipedia. The Sport Trac image was professionally taken, yes, but to show off the car rather than to show what it looks like. It's appropriate for a Ford brochure, but not the best for Wikipedia.
I again invite you to find a photo of the Sport Trac that actually does illustrate the car properly: 3/4 front view from the height of a normal person. You did this with the Mustang, and I don't recall raising the slightest objection. If you cannot find such an image, that doesn't make one that does not meet the quality standards any more appropriate. IFCAR ( talk) 20:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I have qualms about using official images, even though in this case Ford irrevocably released them into the public domain and therefore there's no licencing-related reason we shouldn't use them. Nevertheless, even with my qualms, the Ford-made images of the Sport Trac and the Mustang are very high quality, clearly-illustrative and genuinely representative 3/4-view images that do not "distort" the vehicle as IFCAR is baselessly claiming. I do not see anything about either image that precludes its use in the relevant articles, except perhaps the "eye height" stipulation.
IFCAR, you have something of a track record of trying to get priority for your own images by whatever means you can devise. In this case, you want us to construe the image convention language much more narrowly than is customarily done. I certainly hope you aren't attempting to leverage Wikipedia conventions creatively to favour your own images, but I'm finding it challenging to figure out a plausible alternate explanation for your position; a poorly-focused, overly-cropped image with other vehicles in the background of a car park cannot reasonably be called superior to the Ford-made images you object to on seemingly spurious grounds. But Wikipedia policy says to assume good faith, so I will assist you in your push for a narrow, rigid interpretation of the convention you've invoked: the Ford-made photos you object to were obviously taken from somebody's eye height, and statistically the photographer was most likely around average height. The convention does not say the average-height individual taking the photo must be standing on the same plane as the vehicle, nor does it say the photographer may not kneel or crouch, and it is silent on the topic of stepladders. Therefore, a strict interpretation of the convention does not preclude our use of the Ford-made photos. :-)
Okay, back to being serious: IFCAR may not have written the conventions, but he has definitely participated vigourously in building consensus related to image selection. See for example here, here, here, and of course here. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 23:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- (outdent) Why reword it? The only real rules and guidelines here are the five pillars, and the most important one of those is " Ignore all rules". Tthey are a means to an end, namely improving the encyclopedia. That's why an argument like "we can't have this much better, larger, sharper image because the rules don't allow it" is a logical fallacy. -- DeLarge ( talk) 12:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Well now I'm confused. If there is no standard and only tips/guidelines (which going through the wording again, I have to agree with), I'm concerned whether or not we understand there isn't a standard. The entire reason this conversation started was because I was concerned with IFCAR's push back on images being replaced and his claims that they don't fall under "the standard", which we may be finding out doesn't really exist. In most of his additions to infoboxes, he has claimed the image being replaced doesn't meet this non-existent standard. Honestly, I need some clarification on this and I really hate the fact that my lack of understanding is having to drag this out anymore than it needs to be. Is there a standard or isn't there? Are there just guidelines? If so, what are the guideline to determine what is the best possible image to appear in an infobox? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 01:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Recently I have been going around to articles and I have noticed that under the "manufacturer" spot on the infobox, it has stated the brand the car is sold under. (Example: for the Pontiac Vibe, Pontiac is listed as the manufacturer, although the car is manufactured by NUMMI). These edits have been reverted and I have been told that it is a WikiProject rule that the brand that sells and the vehicle is marketed under should be credited as the manufacturer. Excuse me for saying this, but I think this rule is incredibly dumb. I don't like the idea that Lincoln being credited as the manufacturer of the Lincoln MKS, since Lincoln is merely a brand, and the vehicle is manufactured by the Ford Motor Company at the same factory that produces the Ford Taurus, Ford Taurus X, and Mercury Sable. It is not like Lincoln has a special factory that produces the MKS. On top of that, I think it is very misleading, and people who don't know as much about cars as us will get false ideas. In a nutshell, I think that we are giving out false and/or misleading information by listing the manufacturer to be the brand the car is marketed under, instead of the company that manufactures it. I think the rule should be changed so that the manufacturer of the car is credited to the actual company that manufactures the car, not the brand that it is sold under. Karrmann ( talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Fiat Tempra | |
---|---|
Overview | |
Manufacturer |
Fiat Tofas Mekong Auto |
Production | 1990—1999 |
Assembly |
Cassino, Italy Bursa, Turkey Betim, Brazil Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam |
I've had this issue simmering on one of my mental back burners for quite some time, and now it's under active discussion again here, I agree with PrinceGloria and 93JC. Most of us agree on the guiding principle of not cramming the infobox unnecessarily. Because the vehicle brand is always the first word of the article title, it's completely superfluous in the Manufacturer field (and therefore constitutes unnecessary cramming). For the same number of infobox entries, we convey more useful information if we adopt and adhere to the "legal entity" standard for deciding what goes in the Manufacturer field.
There could be some minor quibbles caused by legal gamesmanship played by various corporations at various times; for example, the legal entity that manufactured the 1979 Chevrolet Caprice was not Chevrolet nor General Motors, it was GMAD, General Motors Assembly Division. In a case like that, calling GMAD the manufacturer would be unnecessarily and unhelpfully precise, and I would hope we'd all be reasonable enough to agree on putting General Motors in the field. At the other end of the scale, we will need to be thoughtful in naming the manufacturer of Holdens and Opels and Vauxhalls. In those cases, "General Motors" would be unnecessarily and unhelpfully vague, and I'd hope we'd all be reasonable enough to agree on GM Holden Ltd or GM Europe, as appropriate. What I'm getting at here is that the demarcation lines between related legal entities aren't always clear, and there may arise some such cases where we have to make a decision. But all in all, I think the "legal entity" criterion is probably the best way to proceed. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 22:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Fiat Tempra | |
---|---|
Overview | |
Manufacturer |
Fiat · Cassino, Italy · Betim, Brazil Tofas · Bursa, Turkey Mekong Auto · Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam |
Production | 1990—1999 |
manufacturer
and assembly
fields seem very "related" to each other, but the two are split by the production dates, and we're not providing the "connecting" information. That is, even when clicking on the wikilinks, you're not informed which locations are Fiat assembly plants, which are Tofas, and which are Mekong Auto.assembly
info within manufacturer
? Something like the example to the right (and note that this is just a rough idea to demonstrate the principle, I'm not suggesting this as the final version)? --
DeLarge (
talk)
15:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)I found an old photo dated 1984 with this car in it. The photo was taken in the US. What is it? (The quality's not good, I know.) IFCAR ( talk) 03:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(Indent reset) Despite the poor quality, this is the only one to show what I think is the unique U.S. headlamp setup. OSX ( talk • contributions) 23:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for the past day, and I was wondering if I could get any advice, comments, help, and so on? Basically I've been using the Maserati MC12 as my template to work off of since it's an FA article, and another sports car like the Testarossa. So far, I feel, it has received a complete overhaul compared to what the article was: Diff. It's not completely done, but I'd like to know where I stand before I get to deep into copyediting the article. I know there is Peer Review etc., but I'd like to make sure it's up to the WP:AUTOS standards and not just Wikipedia standards. El Greco( talk) 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You should also fix the units to be same so either SI-units or US/Uk units, the convention says "Unit order follows a car's major market." Im not sure if this is right, I would use the units used in the manufacturing country. -- Typ932 T· C 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
For European car we use kW and PS (metric horsepower) hp is American, just convert the mph to km/h so 0-60 mph is 0-97 km/h (0-60 mph), so you dont have to find 0-100 km/h but put km/h first. Im not sure but wheel size is used also inches in Europe (not sure every country but most I think) so "225/50 VR 16 and 255/50 VR 16" is okay -- Typ932 T· C 01:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There is new car article which I proposed for merging give you opionions here Talk:Bugatti Type 57 -- Typ932 T· C 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Many timeline templates have been moved by User:Solphusion (see user's edit history. I left a note at his talk page, since one or two are unambiguously wrong (changing "British Leyland" to "Leyland (British)", for example). Looks at first glance to be a misguided effort at standardization, but I thought I'd leave a note here before reverting everything. Regards, -- DeLarge ( talk) 11:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
There definitely needs to be discussion before you go moving all the timeline templates, given the hundreds of articles that use them and now have redirects (unless a bot changes them all). I agree that "timeline" (lower case) should appear in all the template names, but, I dislike the parentheses - you don't see them in category names much. Just use "classic timeline" instead of "timeline (classic)", for example. Also, you don't need to add "vehicle"; it's pretty much assumed by default given the brand names. -- Vossanova o< 14:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the page moves and what should be done those, revert or what. I think we need to think if we need new naming convention or not -- Typ932 T· C 07:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
(<-- outdent) OK, with a little help from a de.WP VB script I converted an Excel spreadsheet to a wikitable, showing all the template moves as below:
Template moves | |||
---|---|---|---|
Alfa Romeo timeline 1910-1949 | Alfa Romeo timeline (classic I) | ||
Alfa Romeo timeline 1950-1979 | Alfa Romeo timeline (classic II) | ||
Alfa Romeo timeline 1980 to date | Alfa Romeo timeline (modern) | ||
Aston Martin | Aston Martin vehicles timeline | Aston Martin vehicles timeline (classic,modern) | |
Audi (Europe) timeline 1970 to date | Audi vehicles timeline (Europe) | ||
Audi (North America) timeline 1970 to date | Audi vehicles timeline (North America) | ||
BMW cars | BMW vehicles (modern) | BMW vehicles timeline (modern) | |
BMW early cars | BMW vehicles (classic II) | BMW vehicles timeline (classic II) | |
BMW pre war | BMW vehicles (classic I) | BMW vehicles timeline (classic I) | |
British Car Industry | The British car industry – companies & marques | ||
British Leyland | Leyland vehicles (British) | Leyland - British Leyland car companies timeline | |
Chrysler timeline | Chrysler vehicles timeline (classic,modern) | ||
Citroën timeline 1950-1979 | Citroën vehicles (classic) | Citroën vehicles timeline (classic) | |
Citroën timeline 1980 to date | Citroën vehicles (modern) | Citroën vehicles timeline (modern) | |
Early European Ford vehicles | Ford vehicles (European early) | Ford vehicles (Europe, classic) | Ford vehicles timeline (Europe, classic) |
Ford postwar | Ford vehicles (North America, classic) | Ford vehicles timeline (North America, classic) | |
Modern European Ford vehicles | Ford vehicles (European modern) | Ford vehicles (Europe, modern) | Ford vehicles timeline (Europe, modern) |
Modern North American Ford vehicles | Ford vehicles (North American modern) | Ford vehicles (North America, modern) | Ford vehicles timeline (North America, modern) |
Early Honda vehicles | Honda vehicles (classic) | Honda vehicles timeline (classic) | |
Honda Timeline | Honda vehicles (North America) | Honda vehicles timeline (North America) | |
Honda vehicles (modern) | Honda vehicles timeline (modern) | ||
Hyundai cars | Hyundai vehicles (classic,modern) | Hyundai vehicles timeline (classic,modern) | |
Hyundai North America | Hyundai vehicles (North America) | Hyundai vehicles timeline (North America) | |
Modern Honda vehicles | Honda vehicles (modern) | ||
Jaguar | Jaguar vehicles (classic) | Jaguar vehicles timeline (classic) | |
Jaguar modern timeline | Jaguar vehicles (modern) | Jaguar vehicles timeline (modern) | |
Jeep | Jeep vehicles timeline (classic,modern) | Jeep vehicles timeline | Jeep vehicles timeline (past to present) |
Kia Motors | Kia Motors vehicles timeline (modern) | Kia Motors vehicles timeline (past to present) | |
Leyland Cars | Leyland - Leyland vehicles timeline | ||
Classic Mercedes-Benz vehicles | Mercedes-Benz vehicles (classic) | ||
Maruti Suzuki Timeline | Maruti Suzuki vehicles timeline (classic,modern) | ||
Mazda | Mazda vehicles timeline (modern) | Mazda vehicles timeline | |
Mazda RX | Mazda RX - Wankel rotary timeline | ||
Mazda vehicles (North America) | Mazda vehicles timeline (North America) | ||
Mercedes-Benz vehicles | Mercedes-Benz vehicles (modern) | ||
Mini cars | Mini · Cooper Car Company vehicles timeline | ||
Mitsubishi Motors North America timeline | Mitsubishi Motors vehicles timeline (North America) | ||
North American Mazda vehicles | Mazda vehicles (North America) | ||
Modern European Nissan vehicles | Nissan vehicles timeline (Europe) | ||
Modern North American Nissan vehicles | Nissan vehicles timeline (North America, modern) | Nissan vehicles timeline (North America) | |
Historic Plymouth Timeline | Plymouth Timeline (classic) | ||
Peugeot | Peugeot vehicles (modern) | ||
Peugeot early timeline | Peugeot vehicles (classic II) | ||
Peugeot historic timeline | Peugeot vehicles (classic I) | ||
Porsche | Porsche vehicles timeline | ||
Early Renault vehicles | Renault vehicles timeline (classic) | ||
Modern Renault vehicles | Renault vehicles timeline (modern) | ||
Saab automobiles | Saab vehicles timeline (modern) | ||
Saab early timeline | Saab vehicles timeline (classic) | ||
Smart Cars | Smart vehicles timeline | ||
Subaru | Subaru vehicles timeline | ||
Suzuki United States | Suzuki vehicles timeline (North America) | ||
Early Volvo Cars timeline | Volvo vehicles timeline (classic) | ||
Volvo cars timeline | Volvo vehicles timeline (modern) |
Bold text indicates where I've reverted to myself. To be honest, the only three I can see which I'd call an improvement are the two Audi ones ({{ Audi vehicles timeline (Europe)}} and {{ Audi vehicles timeline (North America)}}) and {{ Honda vehicles timeline (North America)}}.
Is there any objection to having everything but those three reverted? It'd probably be quickest to present this list to an admin, rather than tagging each template individuallys? User:OSX's idea is a great one, but will require a lot of work. A common naming convention is also not a bad idea in theory, but there's no guarantee we'll ever come up with one. Either way these won't be quick fixes, so to sort out the immediate problems of redirected transclusions and to restore the v • d • e links' functionality, I think a mass-revert would be better than leaving them as is. -- DeLarge ( talk) 15:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
(so future edits won't have to deal with the huge wikitable's code -- continue conversation below)
OK, I've posted a request for assistance at User talk:Anthony Appleyard. He's an admin who frequents Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, so he has plenty of experience with stuff like this. We'll hopefully get this sorted soon. After that's done I'll compile a list of templates which need quick fixing as far as capitalization, use of "modern"/"classic"/etc, and any other issues are concerned—we can organize an AWB workflow for that stuff. After all of that's out the way, we can start looking at whether a naming standard would be helpful. -- DeLarge ( talk) 09:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
(for admin's benefit, per advice at User talk:Anthony Appleyard) -- DeLarge ( talk) 23:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Consider adding that the recommended distance between steering wheel and driver's chest is a minimum 10" (25.4 cm). In a recent driver safety course, the instructor recommended that the driver position themselves, by having the wrist hit the top of the steering wheel with your arm extended straight infront. It was also suggested to adopt a eight and four o'clock hand position on the steering wheel, versus the traditional ten and two. Some newer cars have even lowered the blinker control to accomodate the 8/4 hand position (e.g., Mercedes 300). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.148.195.27 ( talk) 22:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
With thanks to User:Erik Baas and User:Rick Block, Template:Holden timeline is now scrollable with vehicles from 1948 to present in one template. There are still a couple of issues to addresses, but the foundations are there. I was wondering if anyone here knows how to default the scroll bar to the right so recent models show first? OSX ( talk • contributions) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
div style="width:112em; overflow:hidden;"
line of code.It doesn't look scrollable to me (using IE7 IE6 on WinXP) - e.g. when viewing
Holden Barina, I just see a really, really wide template at the bottom of the article.
DH85868993 (
talk)
08:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
(Indent reset) A fixed "vehicle class/type" column is now in place; so scrolling does not affect this column. OSX ( talk • contributions) 23:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we need them? What are they there for? I don't see any purpose for them. All they add is extra junk. Timelines are better suited as their own pages, don't you think? — Mr. Grim Reaper at 22:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I like timelines because they show where the vehicle sits in relation to the rest of the manufacturer's vehicles. Toyota is a prime example because we see the development from a single line in the late 1930's to a fragmented menagerie in the 2000's. Toyota sure make it hard because each model comes with numerous names. Also, names like Corolla get attached to seemingly unrelated vehicles that just happen to share the same underpinnings but look completely different. Makes it really hard to decide what goes into the timeline and what gets left out. Stepho-wrs ( talk) 10:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks, I've having a bit of an issue with keeping one of my contributions, but fear not! I am in a better mood than last time I stopped by. The image in question is of a Monroney sticker which I took myself but some have said may be copyrighted. A deletion discussion is here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_15#Image:Window_Sticker_Jetta.JPG
Although I feel that a window sticker is simply a collection of information and therefore not copyrighted per Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, some have said that it may still be protected. Does everybody think that this image should be claimed as "fair use"? I feel like it contributes substantially to the article in question and there aren't any free alternatives available that I'm aware of. I welcome your comments-- Analogue Kid ( talk) 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we have convention to use or not to use flags in car articles? I think now most are without any and I think we should not use those? I have reverted just some timeline templates made by User:Pineapple fez What are you thinking of it? -- Typ932 T· C 09:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
In the Chevrolet Suburban article and probably some others, long descriptions of many engine specs in the infobox field is stretching infoboxes across most of the page. Like "L31 5.7L Gasoline (350 cu in) 255 hp (190 kW) Vortec V8", for example.
What's the best thing to do with that sort of thing; just make it break into two lines or just cut must of the information out? IFCAR ( talk) 03:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is how it should be written (currently):
5.7 L (350 cu in)
Vortec L31
V8
255 hp (190 kW)
{{Auto CID|350}} [[Vortec#5700|''Vortec L31'']] [[V8]] <br> {{Convert|255|hp|kW|0|abbr=on}}
Gasoline shouldn't be included because it's pretty much a given on American vehicles. If an engine is diesel, I just insert "diesel" in front of "V8".-- Flash176 ( talk) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are you going after just me? Why not go after every single editor who has left cubic inches out of every single car article, thus violating the convention? I feel singled out here. Point is, please calm down. I am trying to clean up articles to make them easier to read, and have done so for quite some time, especially with these automobile articles. Forcing written convention on every edit is counterproductive. In the meantime, I suppose I will work on getting that convention changed, since I simply cannot believe that it was agreed to list cubic inches in every infobox, especially when cu in hasn't been commonly used anywhere in the world for a couple decades. -- Vossanova o< 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
at Talk:Corvette, there is a discussion going on if the warship ( Corvette (ship) or sports car Chevrolet Corvette is the primary meaning of Corvette. This is listed at WP:RM 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 12:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
A user was kind enough to nominate, and another user to delete Category:Large family cars and Category:Small family cars (see respective entries in the CfD archive: [5] and [6]). Not only was the nominator too busy to nofiy us, but apparently two comments, in one case by an anon user, were deemed enough by the admin to delete the categories outright. I've discussed the issue with both ( [7] [8]), but I admit I can hardly control my temper atm. Would anybody have the time to nominate the categories for WP:DRV, and perhaps also help with the articles (whose poor state - and outright nonexistence of one - was partially the culprit here)? PrinceGloria ( talk) 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Following on from this issue, I've discussed the solution with User:PrinceGloria and User:OSX (see their talk pages for the conversations). Basically, those who voted to delete the categories listed above didn't seem to realise that these are not merely descriptive, but official classes of cars as defined by Euro NCAP. Unfortunately, pointing that out didn't seem to sway the deleting admin, who questioned Euro NCAP as a reliable source(?!) These classes are every bit as legitimate as the North American mid-size cars, compact cars, etc. Further, one of the enduring problems at WP:CARS has been the systemic bias; we seem to treat American car classes as some kind of absolute; just read the lede of Austin Maestro as an example of the kind of problems we have.
What I'm going to do to resolve this is to create two sub-categories within Category:Car classifications, one for European and one for North American classes. All the American classes (compact/subcompact/mid-size, etc) will be moved, which won't affect any individual page at all. I'll also create categories for the Euro NCAP classes, and then go through the various articles to categorize the vehicles as appropriate. I'll also add a blurb within each category page which should hopefully explain their nature and prevent future deletions.
For the moment that's all I'll be doing, but in the longer term there may be Japanese and Australian sub-categories created as well. This might require category renaming, since something like "mid-size cars" may not necessarily mean the North American definition. However, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. -- DeLarge ( talk) 10:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous user, 69.65.229.151 ( talk · contribs), has been adding tables to a bunch of articles listing the number of vehicles produced for each year. The IP has been citing theautochannel.com for these numbers. This seems like a bit of overkill to me, but I thought I'd bring it up here. Thoughts? swa q 19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The Toyota Corolla and Toyota Landcruiser articles were changed as well - he/she/it added a 'US sales' section. I like the data being there but I changed it to allow international data to be added as another column. Stepho-wrs ( talk) 02:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm facing a continuous battle to keep Toyota AR engine using calendar years instead of US specific model years. The consensus among us seem to be calendar years but I can't find anywhere on the main project page to point to that actually says this. Should I edit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions page to explicitly say that calendar years are prefered and that if model years are used then they must be explicitly marked as US model years? Even better if someone else does it so that my antagonists don't blame me for changing the standard to support my own argument. Stepho-wrs ( talk) 01:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
FYI -- Typ932 T· C 07:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
For production years (in the infobox) do we count pre-production test models? For instance, the fourth generation Toyota Supra had some test models built in December of 1992, but official models weren't produced until April 1993. Should the production start date be 1992 or 1993? Thanks. swa q 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
While populating the Euro NCAP car class categories (see #Solution above), I've come across a few basic page naming problems. They're not articles I routinely visit, and given that the Euro NCAP stuff is a bit time consuming, I'm not too inclined to go off on another tidying spree in parallel. If someone else wants to get things in motion, though, I'd try and assist. I could shift the pages themselves, for example, if someone with AWB or similar wanted to follow behind and tidy up the resulting redirects.
Possibly more contentious, but I think a lot of BMW articles need moved as well. For example, individual BMW 3 Series generations are being disambiguated using their platform code, e.g. BMW E30, BMW E36, BMW E46, etc. However, people unfamiliar with the platform codes aren't going to be able to identify which BMW model they're looking at, so I'd surely expect, for the benefit of casual readers, that the best pages would be BMW 3 Series (E30), BMW 3 Series (E36), BMW 3 Series (E46), etc. It would more closely adhere to our WP:CARS naming conventions of "<make> <model> (disambiguation)", and also to the general MoS naming conventions which recommend common names as well as precision. I think all the BMW pages might need migrated. Feedback/comments on this are welcome.
Of course, page names are only the tip of the iceberg as far as problems I've seen. Endemic lack of referencing and copious fansite/forum links, anyone? It was actually quite depressing to go through all those car articles and see what a mess they're all in. Regards, -- DeLarge ( talk) 12:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "generation" should only be used where appropriate, and not necessarily as a default standard. It certainly wouldn't be the best option for either the VW Golf (Mk1, Mk2, etc) or the BMW 3 Series/ Toyota Corolla, where the platform code is more commonly known. However, in the examples above "generation" was already the preferred usage; I was only recommending moving words around and parenthesizing per the MoS, to make the pipe trick work more easily and to facilitate category sorting. As long as the "<article name> (disambiguation)" standard is followed, the specific term used to identify different generations can be decided on a case-by-case basis.
On the other hand, I know that several Mitsubishi models (Galant, Eclipse) are most commonly defined by their fanbases as being "1G", "2G", "3G", etc. I think that's too jargon-y (sic), and should only be used in the article itself as an abbreviation which has previously been spelled out (i.e. "first generation (1G)"). Writing it in full would be the best approach for daughter article names, or section headers.
Anyhoo, thanks for the page moves, everyone. -- DeLarge ( talk) 12:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I happened to notice there is no article for hydraulic hybrid vehicle, which technicaly could be covered in the article Compressed-air vehicle. I have a need for this link in the article Trucking industry in the United States. Although I feel as if it could possibly benefit from having its own article, anyone want to tackle that or should I just redirect it to compressed air? Some suggestions would be welcome, thanks. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I ran across a problem with the auto bhp template today. If I leave out the significant figures parameter I get an error. Example: {{subst:auto bhp|135}} yields '135 bhp (Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{" kW)'. When I do {{subst:auto bhp|135|0}} it is fine: 135 bhp (101 kW). Is this the desired behavior? I expected it to be a bit more robust. swa q 16:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to add front track and rear track to Template:infobox automobile. Thoughts? Stepho-wrs ( talk) 13:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the solution we've implemented at Honda S2000. Surely if an article is developed enough it can evolve its own Specifications section? I don't think shoving all that info into an infobox is good, never mind that it is hiddden by default. We should encourage article expansion, and once that is achieved I see a separate Specifications section as evolving naturally out of that process. Zunaid 20:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about BMW platforms, I think the EXX isnt platform and should be changed/removed from infobox platform field, these are more body_style numbering and series number than platform coding? Dont know why they are used as platform numbers here. For example "The E30 automobile platform was the basis" is wrong in the E30 intro... -- Typ932 T· C 15:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Mini for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
I have also listed Mini Moke ( nom) for similar reasons. OSX ( talk • contributions) 03:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Chains in FWD transmissions???? There was one in the Toronado's transmission, yes (but between the converter and the box, not between the box and the differential) and it's derivatives (Eldorado 67+, Seville II) BUT: never in any other serial-produced FWD! (Citroën, Renault, Audi, Saab, etc, etc...) In fact one can see tree main types of fwd powertrains:
1 Longitudinal behind the weels (Citroën 11 & 15, DS, SM, Renault 4, R16, R6, R5): this gave the better weight balance and the better roadholding and give space for legs along the engine. The only bad point is that is difficult to convert do 4wd transmission because the box is before the engine. Never any chain in such cars!
2 longitudinal before the weels (Citroën 2CV, GS, Saab 92, 96, 99, 900, most Audi models, R12, R18, R20, R30, R25, R21, Espace 1&2, Chrysler LH serie...). This type of powertrain can very easyly be converted to 4wd. Never any chain in such cars!
3 transversal with parallel box: Mini, Peugeot 104, 204, 304, 305... this is done in order to reduce the broadness of the powertrain in small car. The bad point is that it need additionnal gears between the engine and the box, often noisy, and with a downgrader efficiency. But no chain!
4 transversal with inline box: the cheapest and the most commonly used today. No extra gears: no extra noise or cost, but left few space to build a good front suspension. No chain in such powertrains either...
The longitudinal engine reduce the noise and vibration because the powertain is longer and thus doesn't need to strong bonds with the frameword to keep stable against the drive torque. This dimmish the noise compared to transversal engines (need stronger "silentblocs" against the drive torque and thus the noises and vibration are not well filtered) The longitunal engine let better the cooling air circulate around it and quit the front compartement: the "real" Cx of the car can be better. The longitudinal engine allow to use longer drive shafts (better for the livelength of them) and longer suspension triangles (better roadholding is possible). But longitudinal powertrains are more expensive to built because of use of conical gears inside of the transaxle. A longitudinal engine before the well need a longer car without more place for the legs. A longitudinal engine behind the wheel give the more inner space for the shorter car (the front bumper of the R4 was direct before it's wheels!) but makes difficult to use a V6 or V8 engine (this has been done in the SM, but it was a broad car). One new point is the rules about collisions with pedestrians: the center-front longituninal engine puts nothing "hard and high" in the front part of the car, so the nose can be soft despite it's very short: this had allready be constated in the 70's with the R5.
The "inline" transversal powertrain is the most used because it's the cheapest: don't search another reason! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.234.248.226 ( talk) 13:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Aftermarket fuel economy device and Fuel saving devices Your views are invited here. Petecarney ( talk) 19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:50, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Help is needed in trying to negotiate an amicable settlement with The Ford Motor Company over the use of their images. As you may or may not know, for a period of about a year Ford had licensed their high-quality PR images on Flickr with cc-by. This has been a cause of some consternation since they were also watermarked with cc-by-nc and previously had been tagged as such. Multiple attempts to contact Ford resulted in no response, thus we just went with the licensing they tagged on Flickr at the time (cc-by) since that is what the Flickr Terms of Use entitle us to do. However, now it seems that they changed their minds and so all the good images are potentially up for deletion. I think this would be a shame since these images are far better than most of the amateur images we have plus some are just one-of-a-kind. Lar and I have attempted to buy some time with the commons folk, so all we need now is someone to do the actual negotiation. Specifically, it means doing a lot of homework and finding the right person to talk to at Ford who can give us the permission we seek. This requires convincing them of how it would be in their interest to do so. The individual needs to push our clout as being in the top 5 returns on Google, sometimes even ahead of ford.com. Given the recent troubles of the car industry and given our presence on the internet, it should be a win-win proposition. However, it is important that the person doing the contact be professional and persuasive. Furthermore, it requires a good explanation as to why cc-by-nc is just not good enough for us. Thus I was hoping that maybe the Wikiproject could help spearhead this task by soliciting the wider wikiverse for volunteers (vp/mail list/etc) and assembling a task force of the best qualified individuals to carry this out. I would do it myself, but I lack the acumen and the persuasive skills to pull this off. People good with business and management is probably the kind we need. We only have one shot at this, thus the reason I bring it to you. -- Dragon695 ( talk) 11:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm declining the speedy db-spam deletion for this because I can't rule out the possibility with a Google search that they are who they say they are; paring the promotionalism; taking to AfD; notifying you guys in case you want to have a look. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 02:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the Rover 400 Series article contains a section about the RD/X60 project. This was a well-publicised MG Rover project to design a model to replace the Rover 45 and MG ZS which ran from around 2001 to 2005. [9] However the RD/X60 never entered production before MG Rover went out of business. A car using a similar platform to the RD/X60 was later produced by SAIC Roewe as the Roewe 550, but the extent to which it was based on the RD/X60 work is unclear. Keeping the section in the Rover 400 series article seems inappropriate, as the RD/X60 was mechanically unrelated to the 400/45 and had it been launched, may have had a different model name. However, I'm not sure if an unproduced car model would be considered notable enough for its own article, although it was mentioned in the motoring press on several occasions. Letdorf ( talk) 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC).
While moving the files in category:Ford Taurus (1985–1991) to category:Ford Taurus (first generation) as per the previous discussion, I was reminded that the second generation models are not all that different from the first. Because of this, I decided not to continue on with the category moves. I was going to bring this up at Talk:Ford Taurus, but found that someone else had done so already, without any success. To get to the point, "2nd gen" models appear to be major facelifts, not all-new cars. The same can be said the "3nd" and "4th gen" models. In both, the wagons remain virtually unchanged. It was defended that, "The second generation had noticeable changes outside of the sheet metal to differentiate it from the first generation, including engine differences, interior modifications, and the obvious exterior difference." Sounds like a facelift to me. Moving to generation four: "although yes, it did share body and parts from the third generation, still had differences with engine specifications, transmission, and other subtle changes that allow it to have its own generation." Subtle changes? That is called a facelift.
So, while I do think it is necessary to distinguish between the two, how can this be done using the "first generation", "second generation" naming style?
And to make the point clear before it is raised, Ford's definition of a "new generation" and the actual definition are different. OSX ( talk • contributions) 10:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
People may be interested to know that the Poll on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse ( talk) 17:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have just set-up Commons:WikiProject Automobiles for all the Wikipedia project members involved there ( User:IFCAR, User:Bull-Doser, et cetera). The page is largely based on the policies/conventions here, which isn't the best solution (English Wikipedia bias), but is at least a start. I have tried to mirror the "category standards" based on the conventions we use here for article names. Anyway, feel free to join up, the instructions to do so can be found here. OSX ( talk • contributions) 12:15, 5 April 2009 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I just noticed that the {{ convert}} template adds commas to numbers which I believe is against Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Example {{convert|1100|mm|in|1|abbr=on}} results in 1,100 mm (43.3 in) when 1100 mm (43.3 in) would be expected. Thoughts? Is there a way to force omission of the comma with the convert template? swa q 19:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
<--- Before trying to force the template to accept our convention, perhaps ask why the convention exists? The "no commas" convention was added by the now inactive User:Stombs way back in 2005 in one of the earliest edits to the Convention page, [1] and was then refined slightly by User:Sfoskett. [2] It doesn't seem to be grounded in anything more concrete than a very brief "ok, let's do it this way" discussion between the pair of them on the talk page, while a cursory glance around shows several car-specific media which do use the comma (e.g. Yahoo Cars UK, Edmunds.com), so it's certainly not a universal convention.
Also, I'd be careful with quoting WP:MOSNUM at the moment, since it's been the subject of such edit warring lately that it's currently edit-protected. The large number convention has been changed within the last two months ( here, with the edit summary "as per talk page" although I can't find a specific discussion about it). What I'd recommend is:
Six months later and the contradiction between the way WP:MOSNUM and {{ Convert}} handle numbers between 1,000 and 9,999 still exists. o try and resolve this, I've initiated a discussion at the MOSNUM talk page, if anyone wants to contribute: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conflict between MOSNUM and Template:Convert. Regards, -- DeLarge ( talk) 12:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the page standards are not even close to uniform between automotive pages. This makes it harder to obtain viable information for a given vehicle. An example is the Mercury Cyclone which is just 8 years of option lists. I wish to initiate a movement to add some new amendments to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions to unify and tighten the standards for all automotive pages. These amendments will help to improve upon the standards of Automotive Pages.
(A logo will be devised at a later date to be determined)
Remember, this is only a request and these are only ideas. If anyone has any suggestions as to more amendments to add or anything that should be changed, feel free to comment on this post. Autocar256 01:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have devised a sample logo for certification of articles.
Autocar256 02:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a war going on over at Lotus Esprit over the inclusion of two external links. I've counted five different IP addresses re-adding the links so far, so it is quite likely that there has been a post on the forum encouraging users to add the links. However the forum requires registration to even view posts so I can't confirm this. If you have time, take a look at the links to determine yourself whether they pass WP:EL. There was a discussion on these links back in January/February this year, but the new IP users have not discussed the links on the talk page at all. I have also started a spam report on this issue. swa q 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we have a hoaxer around in the shape of Bigguy03j. He has recently recreated Cicero BDB Maestro which I have tagged for deletion and most of his edits have now been reverted. One of his articles is Saab 9XX Concept which I am very suspicious about, is this also a hoax? A Lotus 121 racing car has also been added to Template:Lotus and I can find no evidence for the existence of such a beast.
Would someone else please have a look through his edits and see if my suspicions are correct? Malcolma ( talk) 12:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Red marquis ( talk · contribs) has uploaded a bunch of possibly copyrighted images, particular Porsche pictures, and has put them in articles. Could someone who knows more about copyright take a look at his contributions? Thanks. swa q 16:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I've come across an anonymous IP (with a questionable edit history) that's been changing "4-door wagon" and "4-door SUV" to "5-door." Is this passable? -- Sable232 ( talk) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Edmunds, Chrome, and AutoData (three of the largest automotive data suppliers in the world) classify wagons and hatchbacks as 3 and 5-door vehicles. Just a little FYI. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 05:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In the Spanish-language Wikipedia we use this criteria: if the decklid includes the rear window (it's a hatch), then it's one more door; if the decklid doesn't include the the rear window, then it's not a door. Therefore, hatchbacks, wagons and off-roaders have three or five doors; sedans, cabrios and coupés have two or four doors; and freaks like the Mini Clubman have four doors (one left, two right and one rear). The other possible criteria is to never count the rear hatch as a door (no three- or five-door cars). Counting three or four doors depending on the boot's size (hatchback vs wagon) sound ridiculous to me. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 13:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
As a WikiProject and stand alone editors, we aren't able to debate how many doors a vehicle has. This would be considered original research. What we can do is find sources that state how many doors a vehicle has. I'll re-state what I stated above. Edmunds, Chrome, and AutoData (three of the largest automotive data suppliers in the world) along with portals such as Yahoo! Autos, MSN Autos, and countless others classify wagons and hatchbacks as 3 and 5-door vehicles. These groups are not directly related to OEMs, but they report on them. This is the definition of a secondary source and Wikipedia is to always be built upon these. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Good, that sounds like an agreement with my last sentence. I'm happy to live with '5-door wagon' (which seem to be favoured both by recent primary and secondary sources) as long as it's consistently applied across articles. Stepho-wrs ( talk) 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think these are fun and I haven't been able to figure this one out myself so I thought I would see if you all could figure it out (I know you folks will be able to do it). I took this picture a month ago and the owner was being kinda of dick (he literally hit on my date right in front of me) so I didn't feel like asking for specifics. I know it is Ferrari 250 GT, but don't know the year or exact model. -- Leivick ( talk) 07:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests that abbreviations should be spelled out: Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations. There is a single editor that firmly believes that an instance such as this: EPA, is categorically wrong, incorrect, and "in violation" when the first instance in an article. Notice, that EPA is linked to it's full article. The editor contends that the first instance, without exception, can only be correct if addressed like this: United States Environmental Protection Agency or Environmental Protection Agency.
Several other editors have pointed out that this rings false, that it is no imposition on the reader to use the abbreviation + link... while always spelling out the abbreviation can interrupt the flow of the article and give the article an inappropriate, even clumsy emphasis.
Does Project Automobiles have a policy or consensus on this? The discussion here only centers on the use of EPA, but could easily expand to include other abbreviations.
Here is the discussion regarding "Abbreviations and Abbreviation Eradication". 842U ( talk) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- (outdent) On the original point, I think the edits are more or less correct. A couple of them showed up in my watchlist, and my only complaint was that rather than a straight swap of acronym for spelled-out words, the sentence might have needed rejigging to improve its readability. Having said that, it was a lousy sentence to start with, so I wasn't going to moan. In general we should indeed be spelling out acronyms on first usage; it's MOS-compliant and more reader-friendly, no doubt about it.
As for "SOFFIA vs PAFFU" (sic)... More reader-friendly? Subjective, but certainly open to discussion. Nevertheless, I'd strongly dispute the assertion that it's more professional to use the former, unless you mean in a "commercial" context as opposed to "the opposite of amateur". Businesses might use this approach if they're trying to reinforce/emphasize an acronymical brand to a reader, but all the major style guides (CMOS, Columbia, AP, Guardian, NYT, BBC, Encarta, Britannica, etc) either explicitly recommend spelling out in full in the first instance with the abbreviation in parentheses, or follow that standard routinely. I've always considered that as a tertiary source, WP should kowtow to others' standards, so I'd be opposed to such a proposal. -- DeLarge ( talk) 10:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Some time ago Wikipedia had pretty nice article on Luxury vehicles. It sure had some problems with sources, but it was a long and detaled aricle.
Until this April a couple of editors ( User:842U and User:Dino246) targeted this article. Looks like they don't like the term - and they act like they are the only ones who get the true meaning of it.
Huh? As you can see, they a detailed article was replaced with a extermely un-encylopedic message that contained an unsourced criticizm of the term itself and no encylopedic information - something that belongs to talk page, not article page in the first hand. I'd like to hear your opinions about this diff.
Later, the article [ was re-written] to look more like an article, but it is still very POV: it only reflects one particular interpretation of the term: "a subjective marketing lable for any kind of vehicle that provides subjective luxury". As any car enthusiast knows, this is NOT the most popular interpretation of the term.
While from page history it is obvious that a lot of editors disagree with such approach, User:842U and User:Dino246 keep reverting any edits they don't like. They also reject any sources that support alternative interpretations, such as "What Car?" magazine.
Fortunately for them, they were able to find ONE reference that supports their interpretation of the term. I don't think this single source should be accounted as a final truth.
Could someone who's familiar with motoring press and speciallized motoring encyclopedias both online and offline suggest luxury definitions and mentions in reliable sources? I believe there must be reliable sources that say that "luxury cars is term used to largest and most expensive sendans on the market", or "luxury vehicles are vehicles produced by particular makes". All the press I've read used term "luxury cars" as a synonym to "F-class sedans", sadly it never explicitly defined it. My own access to English-language sources is very limited.
I dont think there are enough interested people allowed to participate/flourish by art student Wiki moderators to make "automotive" consensus here worthwhile or valid. It seems being encyclopedic is now more important to Wiki than being informed. After all when I want medical advice I go to a doctor, yet here at Wiki we have to tolerate pages of automotive issues edited and policed by unqualified people brandishing "protocols" as their only justification for keeping pages sterile to the point of poorly informed. Redashhope< 23:58, 24 December 2008 (CET)
Terms like A-Segment, B-Segment, C-Segment, D-Segment, E-Segment and F-Segment are widly used even by reliable motoring magazines, but I failed to find any reliable sources that define then. Can you please help me with this? Netrat ( talk) 13:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
(indent reset) they are used regularly in European magazines..... -- Typ932 T· C 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Its seems Kieran T there are as many reliable editors in Wiki automotive as there are apparently motoring magazines in your personal "trusted source" list - but that does not stop art students still being let loose policing automotive articles they have no first hand experience or little knowledge of (in fact Iam sure some have no driving license). Classic and Sports Car by the way is not a bad old rag but there is no bible and I do think to credit it first requires a citation as to your own credentials in motoring which then might allow us to verify you as well as it as a "trustworthy source". Not enough experienced/interested users are allowed to flourish/contribute in Wiki Automotive for it ever to grow to be considered valid outside Wiki's own thin paper walls. Redashhope< 10:41, 25 December 2008 (CET)
Can this article be reassessed for WPA please. I'd suggest that importance for this WP should be at least mid as it was the first car manufactured in the UK. Mjroots ( talk) 09:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Plug-in hybrid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be like voting for an article about the invention of the pneumatic tyre. Why? As according to "the car that will change the world" Honda's FCX - a hydrogen powered unit which was recently voted just that on BBC2 Top Gear programme (the biggest selling global car show on the planet), "plugging in" every few hundred miles is now completely unnecessary. The Honda FCX is already "in-production" and the only waste product is a small amount of water, no plugs, no down-time, no batteries, no servicing, 1 moving engine part using the most abundant element on the planet. Redashhope< 10:23, 25 December 2008 (CET)
What do you think about this article name Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003-Present), I think it shoud be changed to some other, do we have any other articles with year on brackets or what would you suggest to this article name to be -- Typ932 T· C 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- (outdent) Not sure I'd like the development code idea unless it's widely used (i.e. as widely used as BMW's). I also did a little digging around and discovered this has been an ongoing issue. See the history logs of Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003), and the conversation on the article's talk page. -- DeLarge ( talk) 20:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This is still undecided what to do.... -- Typ932 T· C 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
If one generation of a car (eg Toyota Corolla E70 is produced from August 1979 to August 1984 and the next generation (eg Toyota Corolla E80 is produced from August 1984 onwards, then should the E70 have a production date 1979 to 1983 or 1979 to 1984 (assuming calendar years, not model years)? It can be argued that the E70 was being made in 1984 but it seems more logical to me if the E70 was listed as 1979-1983 and the E80 was listed as 1984 onwards (ie makes it clearer that the E70 was produced for 4 years and then the E80 took over in 1984). Any thoughts? Stepho-wrs ( talk) 01:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The old field should be there until new ones are filled, if they will never be filled... now we have thousands? of articles without a basic car info -- Typ932 T· C 11:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
We already went though a long discussion on how this was suppose to work. Although I don't agree with everything that was reached in the consensus, it is the consensus. I understand how the removal of 'production' hides the data in the articles, but it is an outdated field that we've all agreed to not use anymore. Stepho-wrs, I'm sorry you were not able to join in, but making the change you just did requires more discussion. I have reverted the edits. Now I do agree we need to migrate data from the original production field to the new fields. I have proposed setting up a bot for this with very little feedback so far. If we do decide that keeping the 'production' field live for a little while is worth it, then I think we should only do this in the template and not in the documentation so editors going forward are only using the new fields. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 20:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely do not agree. Any change should improve Wikipedia and the articles, rather than create humongous kerfuffle. Basically, the current arrangement with production years is fine but for a select number of North American vehicles. I believe the new solution should be applied only in those cases, to relieve any problems. In other cases, the transfer might take place ultimately, but will require additional information to be found (which is rather hard for certain vehicles), so let us leave that for now to individual users. A note in the description might inform the users that it is advisable to provide more accurate information whenever possible. PrinceGloria ( talk) 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- (outdent) I'm perplexed why we need two fields to display one lifespan. Especially when dealing only with years, the universal way of writing it is on one line, separated by a dash (e.g. "1998–2005"). Not just with cars, but with anything. Even adding months to those dates for greater accuracy/clarification doesn't seem to necessitate a second field. What's wrong with writing "August 1998 – May 2005" in one field? And if there's confusion between model and calendar years, just clarify by writing " MY1998–2005". Seems perfectly straightforward to me. Personally, I'd prefer an infobox format which encourages brevity, as it will by necessity force editors to actually write actual content to explain the exact dates of production. More prose, less tables and infoboxes. But even if this new system is applied, at least get the infobox coded to display it on one line with hyphenated dates so that "our" little standard resembles what the rest of the world is using, and keeps us in closer compliance with the WP:YEAR section of the MoS.
A quick hunt through about twenty car pages at random (American, German, and Japanese) showed all of them to only show years, so even if more exact dates are available and verifiable, they're not on Wikipedia right now. Is it such a bright idea to be making these wholesale changes before the data exists in front of us? Rather than arguing about whether or not exact production dates are easy to obtain, would it not be better to actually get the data and add it before rejigging the infobox? That seems like the more sensible order for these two jobs to be done since, as I explained above, such info can still be added to the current field.
Nevertheless, the biggest issue is whether to remove the production
field, as
User:Stepho-wrs asked and
User:Roguegeek tried to apply, though I can't believe this even needs to be discussed. By removing it you remove accurate information from thousands of articles for no other reason than it isn't in the exact format you like. That improves Wikipedia and benefits the reader... how? --
DeLarge (
talk)
23:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
It's been barely 36 hours since my last comment above, and I've already seen the first issues caused by this, as Bull-Doser went on one of his sprees.
First of all, the "harmless" stuff; changing from the old Production
field to the new ones without adding more specific dates; for comparison, here's
Acura MDX as rendered with
the old style compared to
the new style. Exactly the same info as before, and just as ambiguous as before (are these model years or calendar years?), except they're displayed over two lines instead of one. In fact, on my browser the Production start
and Production end
labels are too big for one line and are wrapping onto a second, so it's taking four lines to display "2001–06" instead of one. If this is an improvement I'm not seeing it.
More seriously, I've had to revert one of Bull-Doser's edits, and I've noticed others have too. In my case it was Mitsubishi Outlander:
Other editors are reverting him on other articles, presumably because what he's doing seems so unintuitive. And I don't blame them; if the world and his wife writes date ranges as "1998–2005", why are we fighting to change this by deprecating the style prescribed by the MoS?
The more this starts to roll out, the more uneasy I'm getting. The best I can suggest is that the new fields might be useful if full dates are known and article authors want that degree of detail in the infobox as well as the prose text. But until more accurate info than bare years is known, I'm strongly opposed to the deprecation of the existing Production
field; where no new info is being added we should be leaving well alone. --
DeLarge (
talk)
12:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Production
field for almost two years without a problem. If it ain't broke...? How is it an improvement to do nothing more than spread one line of information over four?(Indent reset) The "production" field should state only the years in production, with the exact date if available stated somewhere in the article prose. As PrinceGloria stated, "the infobox is for SUMMARIZING information, not presenting every possible bit thereof." In the engine field do we state the displacement in cc, engine model, engine type, power and torque? No, some of these are included, but detailed information is transferred elsewhere. So I guess this puts me (OSX) with Typ932, PrinceGloria and DeLarge. A better solution would be to cull the complex start/end fields and use the old production field in conjunction with model years if applicable. OSX ( talk • contributions) 02:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Production
field, and there hasn't been a comeback from those who support it in the last few days. In light of that, I'm going to restore the documentation for it so that it can continue to be used. I'll leave in the stuff for Production_start
and Production_end
, though to be honest they look redundant, but I'll tweak it slightly to emphasize that their usage is only optional.Model_years
, isn't that just an American/international language variation, and therefore something that can be coded into the "sp=us/uk" spelling variation parameter like we've done with kerb/curb weight? That'd save having all these extra fields. --
DeLarge (
talk)
15:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)See talk here.
According to our current infobox image standards, this image is a better image to use in the infobox over this image. Does anyone else see something fundamentally wrong here? BTW, in looking through all archives, I do not see where consensus was reach for determining parameters for infobox images. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 05:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring to this definition found on the infobox documentation which states:
Leivick, I agree with you, but the higher quality image was removed because of it "is not 3/4 front view from the height of a normal person." The problem I'm seeing here is this wording could very well not allow the best possible image used in an infobox. I'd like to fix this. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 10:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Another example I found is this image replacing this image due to the replacement image depicting "the car from the height of the average person, per image standards." Could everyone truly say in this case an image of a wet and dirty vehicle is a better image to use over the image it replaced? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 10:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
That is a ridiculous accusation and an extremely obvious flat-out lie. I had no part whatsoever in writing the image guidelines, which were in place before I joined Wikipedia. The notion that I have any less interest in helping Wikipedia than any other editor is downright offensive, especially considering you need make-believe history to make your point.
However, though I did not write it, I do agree with the height standard for the reason I explained: a low camera can offer a distorted view of the car, as is the case in the Sport Trac image I replaced, or show the hood and roof instead of the fascia, as in the case of the Mustang image I replaced. I don't care who took the photo, as long as it's appropriate for Wikipedia. The Sport Trac image was professionally taken, yes, but to show off the car rather than to show what it looks like. It's appropriate for a Ford brochure, but not the best for Wikipedia.
I again invite you to find a photo of the Sport Trac that actually does illustrate the car properly: 3/4 front view from the height of a normal person. You did this with the Mustang, and I don't recall raising the slightest objection. If you cannot find such an image, that doesn't make one that does not meet the quality standards any more appropriate. IFCAR ( talk) 20:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I have qualms about using official images, even though in this case Ford irrevocably released them into the public domain and therefore there's no licencing-related reason we shouldn't use them. Nevertheless, even with my qualms, the Ford-made images of the Sport Trac and the Mustang are very high quality, clearly-illustrative and genuinely representative 3/4-view images that do not "distort" the vehicle as IFCAR is baselessly claiming. I do not see anything about either image that precludes its use in the relevant articles, except perhaps the "eye height" stipulation.
IFCAR, you have something of a track record of trying to get priority for your own images by whatever means you can devise. In this case, you want us to construe the image convention language much more narrowly than is customarily done. I certainly hope you aren't attempting to leverage Wikipedia conventions creatively to favour your own images, but I'm finding it challenging to figure out a plausible alternate explanation for your position; a poorly-focused, overly-cropped image with other vehicles in the background of a car park cannot reasonably be called superior to the Ford-made images you object to on seemingly spurious grounds. But Wikipedia policy says to assume good faith, so I will assist you in your push for a narrow, rigid interpretation of the convention you've invoked: the Ford-made photos you object to were obviously taken from somebody's eye height, and statistically the photographer was most likely around average height. The convention does not say the average-height individual taking the photo must be standing on the same plane as the vehicle, nor does it say the photographer may not kneel or crouch, and it is silent on the topic of stepladders. Therefore, a strict interpretation of the convention does not preclude our use of the Ford-made photos. :-)
Okay, back to being serious: IFCAR may not have written the conventions, but he has definitely participated vigourously in building consensus related to image selection. See for example here, here, here, and of course here. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 23:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- (outdent) Why reword it? The only real rules and guidelines here are the five pillars, and the most important one of those is " Ignore all rules". Tthey are a means to an end, namely improving the encyclopedia. That's why an argument like "we can't have this much better, larger, sharper image because the rules don't allow it" is a logical fallacy. -- DeLarge ( talk) 12:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Well now I'm confused. If there is no standard and only tips/guidelines (which going through the wording again, I have to agree with), I'm concerned whether or not we understand there isn't a standard. The entire reason this conversation started was because I was concerned with IFCAR's push back on images being replaced and his claims that they don't fall under "the standard", which we may be finding out doesn't really exist. In most of his additions to infoboxes, he has claimed the image being replaced doesn't meet this non-existent standard. Honestly, I need some clarification on this and I really hate the fact that my lack of understanding is having to drag this out anymore than it needs to be. Is there a standard or isn't there? Are there just guidelines? If so, what are the guideline to determine what is the best possible image to appear in an infobox? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 01:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Recently I have been going around to articles and I have noticed that under the "manufacturer" spot on the infobox, it has stated the brand the car is sold under. (Example: for the Pontiac Vibe, Pontiac is listed as the manufacturer, although the car is manufactured by NUMMI). These edits have been reverted and I have been told that it is a WikiProject rule that the brand that sells and the vehicle is marketed under should be credited as the manufacturer. Excuse me for saying this, but I think this rule is incredibly dumb. I don't like the idea that Lincoln being credited as the manufacturer of the Lincoln MKS, since Lincoln is merely a brand, and the vehicle is manufactured by the Ford Motor Company at the same factory that produces the Ford Taurus, Ford Taurus X, and Mercury Sable. It is not like Lincoln has a special factory that produces the MKS. On top of that, I think it is very misleading, and people who don't know as much about cars as us will get false ideas. In a nutshell, I think that we are giving out false and/or misleading information by listing the manufacturer to be the brand the car is marketed under, instead of the company that manufactures it. I think the rule should be changed so that the manufacturer of the car is credited to the actual company that manufactures the car, not the brand that it is sold under. Karrmann ( talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Fiat Tempra | |
---|---|
Overview | |
Manufacturer |
Fiat Tofas Mekong Auto |
Production | 1990—1999 |
Assembly |
Cassino, Italy Bursa, Turkey Betim, Brazil Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam |
I've had this issue simmering on one of my mental back burners for quite some time, and now it's under active discussion again here, I agree with PrinceGloria and 93JC. Most of us agree on the guiding principle of not cramming the infobox unnecessarily. Because the vehicle brand is always the first word of the article title, it's completely superfluous in the Manufacturer field (and therefore constitutes unnecessary cramming). For the same number of infobox entries, we convey more useful information if we adopt and adhere to the "legal entity" standard for deciding what goes in the Manufacturer field.
There could be some minor quibbles caused by legal gamesmanship played by various corporations at various times; for example, the legal entity that manufactured the 1979 Chevrolet Caprice was not Chevrolet nor General Motors, it was GMAD, General Motors Assembly Division. In a case like that, calling GMAD the manufacturer would be unnecessarily and unhelpfully precise, and I would hope we'd all be reasonable enough to agree on putting General Motors in the field. At the other end of the scale, we will need to be thoughtful in naming the manufacturer of Holdens and Opels and Vauxhalls. In those cases, "General Motors" would be unnecessarily and unhelpfully vague, and I'd hope we'd all be reasonable enough to agree on GM Holden Ltd or GM Europe, as appropriate. What I'm getting at here is that the demarcation lines between related legal entities aren't always clear, and there may arise some such cases where we have to make a decision. But all in all, I think the "legal entity" criterion is probably the best way to proceed. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 22:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Fiat Tempra | |
---|---|
Overview | |
Manufacturer |
Fiat · Cassino, Italy · Betim, Brazil Tofas · Bursa, Turkey Mekong Auto · Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam |
Production | 1990—1999 |
manufacturer
and assembly
fields seem very "related" to each other, but the two are split by the production dates, and we're not providing the "connecting" information. That is, even when clicking on the wikilinks, you're not informed which locations are Fiat assembly plants, which are Tofas, and which are Mekong Auto.assembly
info within manufacturer
? Something like the example to the right (and note that this is just a rough idea to demonstrate the principle, I'm not suggesting this as the final version)? --
DeLarge (
talk)
15:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)I found an old photo dated 1984 with this car in it. The photo was taken in the US. What is it? (The quality's not good, I know.) IFCAR ( talk) 03:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(Indent reset) Despite the poor quality, this is the only one to show what I think is the unique U.S. headlamp setup. OSX ( talk • contributions) 23:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for the past day, and I was wondering if I could get any advice, comments, help, and so on? Basically I've been using the Maserati MC12 as my template to work off of since it's an FA article, and another sports car like the Testarossa. So far, I feel, it has received a complete overhaul compared to what the article was: Diff. It's not completely done, but I'd like to know where I stand before I get to deep into copyediting the article. I know there is Peer Review etc., but I'd like to make sure it's up to the WP:AUTOS standards and not just Wikipedia standards. El Greco( talk) 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You should also fix the units to be same so either SI-units or US/Uk units, the convention says "Unit order follows a car's major market." Im not sure if this is right, I would use the units used in the manufacturing country. -- Typ932 T· C 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
For European car we use kW and PS (metric horsepower) hp is American, just convert the mph to km/h so 0-60 mph is 0-97 km/h (0-60 mph), so you dont have to find 0-100 km/h but put km/h first. Im not sure but wheel size is used also inches in Europe (not sure every country but most I think) so "225/50 VR 16 and 255/50 VR 16" is okay -- Typ932 T· C 01:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There is new car article which I proposed for merging give you opionions here Talk:Bugatti Type 57 -- Typ932 T· C 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Many timeline templates have been moved by User:Solphusion (see user's edit history. I left a note at his talk page, since one or two are unambiguously wrong (changing "British Leyland" to "Leyland (British)", for example). Looks at first glance to be a misguided effort at standardization, but I thought I'd leave a note here before reverting everything. Regards, -- DeLarge ( talk) 11:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
There definitely needs to be discussion before you go moving all the timeline templates, given the hundreds of articles that use them and now have redirects (unless a bot changes them all). I agree that "timeline" (lower case) should appear in all the template names, but, I dislike the parentheses - you don't see them in category names much. Just use "classic timeline" instead of "timeline (classic)", for example. Also, you don't need to add "vehicle"; it's pretty much assumed by default given the brand names. -- Vossanova o< 14:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the page moves and what should be done those, revert or what. I think we need to think if we need new naming convention or not -- Typ932 T· C 07:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
(<-- outdent) OK, with a little help from a de.WP VB script I converted an Excel spreadsheet to a wikitable, showing all the template moves as below:
Template moves | |||
---|---|---|---|
Alfa Romeo timeline 1910-1949 | Alfa Romeo timeline (classic I) | ||
Alfa Romeo timeline 1950-1979 | Alfa Romeo timeline (classic II) | ||
Alfa Romeo timeline 1980 to date | Alfa Romeo timeline (modern) | ||
Aston Martin | Aston Martin vehicles timeline | Aston Martin vehicles timeline (classic,modern) | |
Audi (Europe) timeline 1970 to date | Audi vehicles timeline (Europe) | ||
Audi (North America) timeline 1970 to date | Audi vehicles timeline (North America) | ||
BMW cars | BMW vehicles (modern) | BMW vehicles timeline (modern) | |
BMW early cars | BMW vehicles (classic II) | BMW vehicles timeline (classic II) | |
BMW pre war | BMW vehicles (classic I) | BMW vehicles timeline (classic I) | |
British Car Industry | The British car industry – companies & marques | ||
British Leyland | Leyland vehicles (British) | Leyland - British Leyland car companies timeline | |
Chrysler timeline | Chrysler vehicles timeline (classic,modern) | ||
Citroën timeline 1950-1979 | Citroën vehicles (classic) | Citroën vehicles timeline (classic) | |
Citroën timeline 1980 to date | Citroën vehicles (modern) | Citroën vehicles timeline (modern) | |
Early European Ford vehicles | Ford vehicles (European early) | Ford vehicles (Europe, classic) | Ford vehicles timeline (Europe, classic) |
Ford postwar | Ford vehicles (North America, classic) | Ford vehicles timeline (North America, classic) | |
Modern European Ford vehicles | Ford vehicles (European modern) | Ford vehicles (Europe, modern) | Ford vehicles timeline (Europe, modern) |
Modern North American Ford vehicles | Ford vehicles (North American modern) | Ford vehicles (North America, modern) | Ford vehicles timeline (North America, modern) |
Early Honda vehicles | Honda vehicles (classic) | Honda vehicles timeline (classic) | |
Honda Timeline | Honda vehicles (North America) | Honda vehicles timeline (North America) | |
Honda vehicles (modern) | Honda vehicles timeline (modern) | ||
Hyundai cars | Hyundai vehicles (classic,modern) | Hyundai vehicles timeline (classic,modern) | |
Hyundai North America | Hyundai vehicles (North America) | Hyundai vehicles timeline (North America) | |
Modern Honda vehicles | Honda vehicles (modern) | ||
Jaguar | Jaguar vehicles (classic) | Jaguar vehicles timeline (classic) | |
Jaguar modern timeline | Jaguar vehicles (modern) | Jaguar vehicles timeline (modern) | |
Jeep | Jeep vehicles timeline (classic,modern) | Jeep vehicles timeline | Jeep vehicles timeline (past to present) |
Kia Motors | Kia Motors vehicles timeline (modern) | Kia Motors vehicles timeline (past to present) | |
Leyland Cars | Leyland - Leyland vehicles timeline | ||
Classic Mercedes-Benz vehicles | Mercedes-Benz vehicles (classic) | ||
Maruti Suzuki Timeline | Maruti Suzuki vehicles timeline (classic,modern) | ||
Mazda | Mazda vehicles timeline (modern) | Mazda vehicles timeline | |
Mazda RX | Mazda RX - Wankel rotary timeline | ||
Mazda vehicles (North America) | Mazda vehicles timeline (North America) | ||
Mercedes-Benz vehicles | Mercedes-Benz vehicles (modern) | ||
Mini cars | Mini · Cooper Car Company vehicles timeline | ||
Mitsubishi Motors North America timeline | Mitsubishi Motors vehicles timeline (North America) | ||
North American Mazda vehicles | Mazda vehicles (North America) | ||
Modern European Nissan vehicles | Nissan vehicles timeline (Europe) | ||
Modern North American Nissan vehicles | Nissan vehicles timeline (North America, modern) | Nissan vehicles timeline (North America) | |
Historic Plymouth Timeline | Plymouth Timeline (classic) | ||
Peugeot | Peugeot vehicles (modern) | ||
Peugeot early timeline | Peugeot vehicles (classic II) | ||
Peugeot historic timeline | Peugeot vehicles (classic I) | ||
Porsche | Porsche vehicles timeline | ||
Early Renault vehicles | Renault vehicles timeline (classic) | ||
Modern Renault vehicles | Renault vehicles timeline (modern) | ||
Saab automobiles | Saab vehicles timeline (modern) | ||
Saab early timeline | Saab vehicles timeline (classic) | ||
Smart Cars | Smart vehicles timeline | ||
Subaru | Subaru vehicles timeline | ||
Suzuki United States | Suzuki vehicles timeline (North America) | ||
Early Volvo Cars timeline | Volvo vehicles timeline (classic) | ||
Volvo cars timeline | Volvo vehicles timeline (modern) |
Bold text indicates where I've reverted to myself. To be honest, the only three I can see which I'd call an improvement are the two Audi ones ({{ Audi vehicles timeline (Europe)}} and {{ Audi vehicles timeline (North America)}}) and {{ Honda vehicles timeline (North America)}}.
Is there any objection to having everything but those three reverted? It'd probably be quickest to present this list to an admin, rather than tagging each template individuallys? User:OSX's idea is a great one, but will require a lot of work. A common naming convention is also not a bad idea in theory, but there's no guarantee we'll ever come up with one. Either way these won't be quick fixes, so to sort out the immediate problems of redirected transclusions and to restore the v • d • e links' functionality, I think a mass-revert would be better than leaving them as is. -- DeLarge ( talk) 15:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
(so future edits won't have to deal with the huge wikitable's code -- continue conversation below)
OK, I've posted a request for assistance at User talk:Anthony Appleyard. He's an admin who frequents Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, so he has plenty of experience with stuff like this. We'll hopefully get this sorted soon. After that's done I'll compile a list of templates which need quick fixing as far as capitalization, use of "modern"/"classic"/etc, and any other issues are concerned—we can organize an AWB workflow for that stuff. After all of that's out the way, we can start looking at whether a naming standard would be helpful. -- DeLarge ( talk) 09:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
(for admin's benefit, per advice at User talk:Anthony Appleyard) -- DeLarge ( talk) 23:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Consider adding that the recommended distance between steering wheel and driver's chest is a minimum 10" (25.4 cm). In a recent driver safety course, the instructor recommended that the driver position themselves, by having the wrist hit the top of the steering wheel with your arm extended straight infront. It was also suggested to adopt a eight and four o'clock hand position on the steering wheel, versus the traditional ten and two. Some newer cars have even lowered the blinker control to accomodate the 8/4 hand position (e.g., Mercedes 300). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.148.195.27 ( talk) 22:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
With thanks to User:Erik Baas and User:Rick Block, Template:Holden timeline is now scrollable with vehicles from 1948 to present in one template. There are still a couple of issues to addresses, but the foundations are there. I was wondering if anyone here knows how to default the scroll bar to the right so recent models show first? OSX ( talk • contributions) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
div style="width:112em; overflow:hidden;"
line of code.It doesn't look scrollable to me (using IE7 IE6 on WinXP) - e.g. when viewing
Holden Barina, I just see a really, really wide template at the bottom of the article.
DH85868993 (
talk)
08:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
(Indent reset) A fixed "vehicle class/type" column is now in place; so scrolling does not affect this column. OSX ( talk • contributions) 23:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we need them? What are they there for? I don't see any purpose for them. All they add is extra junk. Timelines are better suited as their own pages, don't you think? — Mr. Grim Reaper at 22:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I like timelines because they show where the vehicle sits in relation to the rest of the manufacturer's vehicles. Toyota is a prime example because we see the development from a single line in the late 1930's to a fragmented menagerie in the 2000's. Toyota sure make it hard because each model comes with numerous names. Also, names like Corolla get attached to seemingly unrelated vehicles that just happen to share the same underpinnings but look completely different. Makes it really hard to decide what goes into the timeline and what gets left out. Stepho-wrs ( talk) 10:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks, I've having a bit of an issue with keeping one of my contributions, but fear not! I am in a better mood than last time I stopped by. The image in question is of a Monroney sticker which I took myself but some have said may be copyrighted. A deletion discussion is here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_15#Image:Window_Sticker_Jetta.JPG
Although I feel that a window sticker is simply a collection of information and therefore not copyrighted per Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, some have said that it may still be protected. Does everybody think that this image should be claimed as "fair use"? I feel like it contributes substantially to the article in question and there aren't any free alternatives available that I'm aware of. I welcome your comments-- Analogue Kid ( talk) 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we have convention to use or not to use flags in car articles? I think now most are without any and I think we should not use those? I have reverted just some timeline templates made by User:Pineapple fez What are you thinking of it? -- Typ932 T· C 09:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
In the Chevrolet Suburban article and probably some others, long descriptions of many engine specs in the infobox field is stretching infoboxes across most of the page. Like "L31 5.7L Gasoline (350 cu in) 255 hp (190 kW) Vortec V8", for example.
What's the best thing to do with that sort of thing; just make it break into two lines or just cut must of the information out? IFCAR ( talk) 03:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is how it should be written (currently):
5.7 L (350 cu in)
Vortec L31
V8
255 hp (190 kW)
{{Auto CID|350}} [[Vortec#5700|''Vortec L31'']] [[V8]] <br> {{Convert|255|hp|kW|0|abbr=on}}
Gasoline shouldn't be included because it's pretty much a given on American vehicles. If an engine is diesel, I just insert "diesel" in front of "V8".-- Flash176 ( talk) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are you going after just me? Why not go after every single editor who has left cubic inches out of every single car article, thus violating the convention? I feel singled out here. Point is, please calm down. I am trying to clean up articles to make them easier to read, and have done so for quite some time, especially with these automobile articles. Forcing written convention on every edit is counterproductive. In the meantime, I suppose I will work on getting that convention changed, since I simply cannot believe that it was agreed to list cubic inches in every infobox, especially when cu in hasn't been commonly used anywhere in the world for a couple decades. -- Vossanova o< 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
at Talk:Corvette, there is a discussion going on if the warship ( Corvette (ship) or sports car Chevrolet Corvette is the primary meaning of Corvette. This is listed at WP:RM 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 12:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
A user was kind enough to nominate, and another user to delete Category:Large family cars and Category:Small family cars (see respective entries in the CfD archive: [5] and [6]). Not only was the nominator too busy to nofiy us, but apparently two comments, in one case by an anon user, were deemed enough by the admin to delete the categories outright. I've discussed the issue with both ( [7] [8]), but I admit I can hardly control my temper atm. Would anybody have the time to nominate the categories for WP:DRV, and perhaps also help with the articles (whose poor state - and outright nonexistence of one - was partially the culprit here)? PrinceGloria ( talk) 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Following on from this issue, I've discussed the solution with User:PrinceGloria and User:OSX (see their talk pages for the conversations). Basically, those who voted to delete the categories listed above didn't seem to realise that these are not merely descriptive, but official classes of cars as defined by Euro NCAP. Unfortunately, pointing that out didn't seem to sway the deleting admin, who questioned Euro NCAP as a reliable source(?!) These classes are every bit as legitimate as the North American mid-size cars, compact cars, etc. Further, one of the enduring problems at WP:CARS has been the systemic bias; we seem to treat American car classes as some kind of absolute; just read the lede of Austin Maestro as an example of the kind of problems we have.
What I'm going to do to resolve this is to create two sub-categories within Category:Car classifications, one for European and one for North American classes. All the American classes (compact/subcompact/mid-size, etc) will be moved, which won't affect any individual page at all. I'll also create categories for the Euro NCAP classes, and then go through the various articles to categorize the vehicles as appropriate. I'll also add a blurb within each category page which should hopefully explain their nature and prevent future deletions.
For the moment that's all I'll be doing, but in the longer term there may be Japanese and Australian sub-categories created as well. This might require category renaming, since something like "mid-size cars" may not necessarily mean the North American definition. However, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. -- DeLarge ( talk) 10:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous user, 69.65.229.151 ( talk · contribs), has been adding tables to a bunch of articles listing the number of vehicles produced for each year. The IP has been citing theautochannel.com for these numbers. This seems like a bit of overkill to me, but I thought I'd bring it up here. Thoughts? swa q 19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The Toyota Corolla and Toyota Landcruiser articles were changed as well - he/she/it added a 'US sales' section. I like the data being there but I changed it to allow international data to be added as another column. Stepho-wrs ( talk) 02:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm facing a continuous battle to keep Toyota AR engine using calendar years instead of US specific model years. The consensus among us seem to be calendar years but I can't find anywhere on the main project page to point to that actually says this. Should I edit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions page to explicitly say that calendar years are prefered and that if model years are used then they must be explicitly marked as US model years? Even better if someone else does it so that my antagonists don't blame me for changing the standard to support my own argument. Stepho-wrs ( talk) 01:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
FYI -- Typ932 T· C 07:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
For production years (in the infobox) do we count pre-production test models? For instance, the fourth generation Toyota Supra had some test models built in December of 1992, but official models weren't produced until April 1993. Should the production start date be 1992 or 1993? Thanks. swa q 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
While populating the Euro NCAP car class categories (see #Solution above), I've come across a few basic page naming problems. They're not articles I routinely visit, and given that the Euro NCAP stuff is a bit time consuming, I'm not too inclined to go off on another tidying spree in parallel. If someone else wants to get things in motion, though, I'd try and assist. I could shift the pages themselves, for example, if someone with AWB or similar wanted to follow behind and tidy up the resulting redirects.
Possibly more contentious, but I think a lot of BMW articles need moved as well. For example, individual BMW 3 Series generations are being disambiguated using their platform code, e.g. BMW E30, BMW E36, BMW E46, etc. However, people unfamiliar with the platform codes aren't going to be able to identify which BMW model they're looking at, so I'd surely expect, for the benefit of casual readers, that the best pages would be BMW 3 Series (E30), BMW 3 Series (E36), BMW 3 Series (E46), etc. It would more closely adhere to our WP:CARS naming conventions of "<make> <model> (disambiguation)", and also to the general MoS naming conventions which recommend common names as well as precision. I think all the BMW pages might need migrated. Feedback/comments on this are welcome.
Of course, page names are only the tip of the iceberg as far as problems I've seen. Endemic lack of referencing and copious fansite/forum links, anyone? It was actually quite depressing to go through all those car articles and see what a mess they're all in. Regards, -- DeLarge ( talk) 12:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "generation" should only be used where appropriate, and not necessarily as a default standard. It certainly wouldn't be the best option for either the VW Golf (Mk1, Mk2, etc) or the BMW 3 Series/ Toyota Corolla, where the platform code is more commonly known. However, in the examples above "generation" was already the preferred usage; I was only recommending moving words around and parenthesizing per the MoS, to make the pipe trick work more easily and to facilitate category sorting. As long as the "<article name> (disambiguation)" standard is followed, the specific term used to identify different generations can be decided on a case-by-case basis.
On the other hand, I know that several Mitsubishi models (Galant, Eclipse) are most commonly defined by their fanbases as being "1G", "2G", "3G", etc. I think that's too jargon-y (sic), and should only be used in the article itself as an abbreviation which has previously been spelled out (i.e. "first generation (1G)"). Writing it in full would be the best approach for daughter article names, or section headers.
Anyhoo, thanks for the page moves, everyone. -- DeLarge ( talk) 12:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I happened to notice there is no article for hydraulic hybrid vehicle, which technicaly could be covered in the article Compressed-air vehicle. I have a need for this link in the article Trucking industry in the United States. Although I feel as if it could possibly benefit from having its own article, anyone want to tackle that or should I just redirect it to compressed air? Some suggestions would be welcome, thanks. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I ran across a problem with the auto bhp template today. If I leave out the significant figures parameter I get an error. Example: {{subst:auto bhp|135}} yields '135 bhp (Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{" kW)'. When I do {{subst:auto bhp|135|0}} it is fine: 135 bhp (101 kW). Is this the desired behavior? I expected it to be a bit more robust. swa q 16:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to add front track and rear track to Template:infobox automobile. Thoughts? Stepho-wrs ( talk) 13:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the solution we've implemented at Honda S2000. Surely if an article is developed enough it can evolve its own Specifications section? I don't think shoving all that info into an infobox is good, never mind that it is hiddden by default. We should encourage article expansion, and once that is achieved I see a separate Specifications section as evolving naturally out of that process. Zunaid 20:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about BMW platforms, I think the EXX isnt platform and should be changed/removed from infobox platform field, these are more body_style numbering and series number than platform coding? Dont know why they are used as platform numbers here. For example "The E30 automobile platform was the basis" is wrong in the E30 intro... -- Typ932 T· C 15:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Mini for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
I have also listed Mini Moke ( nom) for similar reasons. OSX ( talk • contributions) 03:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Chains in FWD transmissions???? There was one in the Toronado's transmission, yes (but between the converter and the box, not between the box and the differential) and it's derivatives (Eldorado 67+, Seville II) BUT: never in any other serial-produced FWD! (Citroën, Renault, Audi, Saab, etc, etc...) In fact one can see tree main types of fwd powertrains:
1 Longitudinal behind the weels (Citroën 11 & 15, DS, SM, Renault 4, R16, R6, R5): this gave the better weight balance and the better roadholding and give space for legs along the engine. The only bad point is that is difficult to convert do 4wd transmission because the box is before the engine. Never any chain in such cars!
2 longitudinal before the weels (Citroën 2CV, GS, Saab 92, 96, 99, 900, most Audi models, R12, R18, R20, R30, R25, R21, Espace 1&2, Chrysler LH serie...). This type of powertrain can very easyly be converted to 4wd. Never any chain in such cars!
3 transversal with parallel box: Mini, Peugeot 104, 204, 304, 305... this is done in order to reduce the broadness of the powertrain in small car. The bad point is that it need additionnal gears between the engine and the box, often noisy, and with a downgrader efficiency. But no chain!
4 transversal with inline box: the cheapest and the most commonly used today. No extra gears: no extra noise or cost, but left few space to build a good front suspension. No chain in such powertrains either...
The longitudinal engine reduce the noise and vibration because the powertain is longer and thus doesn't need to strong bonds with the frameword to keep stable against the drive torque. This dimmish the noise compared to transversal engines (need stronger "silentblocs" against the drive torque and thus the noises and vibration are not well filtered) The longitunal engine let better the cooling air circulate around it and quit the front compartement: the "real" Cx of the car can be better. The longitudinal engine allow to use longer drive shafts (better for the livelength of them) and longer suspension triangles (better roadholding is possible). But longitudinal powertrains are more expensive to built because of use of conical gears inside of the transaxle. A longitudinal engine before the well need a longer car without more place for the legs. A longitudinal engine behind the wheel give the more inner space for the shorter car (the front bumper of the R4 was direct before it's wheels!) but makes difficult to use a V6 or V8 engine (this has been done in the SM, but it was a broad car). One new point is the rules about collisions with pedestrians: the center-front longituninal engine puts nothing "hard and high" in the front part of the car, so the nose can be soft despite it's very short: this had allready be constated in the 70's with the R5.
The "inline" transversal powertrain is the most used because it's the cheapest: don't search another reason! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.234.248.226 ( talk) 13:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Aftermarket fuel economy device and Fuel saving devices Your views are invited here. Petecarney ( talk) 19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:50, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Help is needed in trying to negotiate an amicable settlement with The Ford Motor Company over the use of their images. As you may or may not know, for a period of about a year Ford had licensed their high-quality PR images on Flickr with cc-by. This has been a cause of some consternation since they were also watermarked with cc-by-nc and previously had been tagged as such. Multiple attempts to contact Ford resulted in no response, thus we just went with the licensing they tagged on Flickr at the time (cc-by) since that is what the Flickr Terms of Use entitle us to do. However, now it seems that they changed their minds and so all the good images are potentially up for deletion. I think this would be a shame since these images are far better than most of the amateur images we have plus some are just one-of-a-kind. Lar and I have attempted to buy some time with the commons folk, so all we need now is someone to do the actual negotiation. Specifically, it means doing a lot of homework and finding the right person to talk to at Ford who can give us the permission we seek. This requires convincing them of how it would be in their interest to do so. The individual needs to push our clout as being in the top 5 returns on Google, sometimes even ahead of ford.com. Given the recent troubles of the car industry and given our presence on the internet, it should be a win-win proposition. However, it is important that the person doing the contact be professional and persuasive. Furthermore, it requires a good explanation as to why cc-by-nc is just not good enough for us. Thus I was hoping that maybe the Wikiproject could help spearhead this task by soliciting the wider wikiverse for volunteers (vp/mail list/etc) and assembling a task force of the best qualified individuals to carry this out. I would do it myself, but I lack the acumen and the persuasive skills to pull this off. People good with business and management is probably the kind we need. We only have one shot at this, thus the reason I bring it to you. -- Dragon695 ( talk) 11:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm declining the speedy db-spam deletion for this because I can't rule out the possibility with a Google search that they are who they say they are; paring the promotionalism; taking to AfD; notifying you guys in case you want to have a look. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 02:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the Rover 400 Series article contains a section about the RD/X60 project. This was a well-publicised MG Rover project to design a model to replace the Rover 45 and MG ZS which ran from around 2001 to 2005. [9] However the RD/X60 never entered production before MG Rover went out of business. A car using a similar platform to the RD/X60 was later produced by SAIC Roewe as the Roewe 550, but the extent to which it was based on the RD/X60 work is unclear. Keeping the section in the Rover 400 series article seems inappropriate, as the RD/X60 was mechanically unrelated to the 400/45 and had it been launched, may have had a different model name. However, I'm not sure if an unproduced car model would be considered notable enough for its own article, although it was mentioned in the motoring press on several occasions. Letdorf ( talk) 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC).
While moving the files in category:Ford Taurus (1985–1991) to category:Ford Taurus (first generation) as per the previous discussion, I was reminded that the second generation models are not all that different from the first. Because of this, I decided not to continue on with the category moves. I was going to bring this up at Talk:Ford Taurus, but found that someone else had done so already, without any success. To get to the point, "2nd gen" models appear to be major facelifts, not all-new cars. The same can be said the "3nd" and "4th gen" models. In both, the wagons remain virtually unchanged. It was defended that, "The second generation had noticeable changes outside of the sheet metal to differentiate it from the first generation, including engine differences, interior modifications, and the obvious exterior difference." Sounds like a facelift to me. Moving to generation four: "although yes, it did share body and parts from the third generation, still had differences with engine specifications, transmission, and other subtle changes that allow it to have its own generation." Subtle changes? That is called a facelift.
So, while I do think it is necessary to distinguish between the two, how can this be done using the "first generation", "second generation" naming style?
And to make the point clear before it is raised, Ford's definition of a "new generation" and the actual definition are different. OSX ( talk • contributions) 10:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
People may be interested to know that the Poll on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse ( talk) 17:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have just set-up Commons:WikiProject Automobiles for all the Wikipedia project members involved there ( User:IFCAR, User:Bull-Doser, et cetera). The page is largely based on the policies/conventions here, which isn't the best solution (English Wikipedia bias), but is at least a start. I have tried to mirror the "category standards" based on the conventions we use here for article names. Anyway, feel free to join up, the instructions to do so can be found here. OSX ( talk • contributions) 12:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)