![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
FYI, VegetativePup has listed Halo Vehicle for deletion. swa q 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The C1 Corvette article needs some attention. I'd make the changes myself, but I'm not very good with wiki code, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes regarding the rules.
Anyway, the way the article is now, there are only pictures of the third version (1958-1962, "quad headlight") of the C1, and there is little to no mention of the first and second versions. The casual observer would think that the car looked the same from 1953-1962, which is simply not the case. There were many changes made to the body over the course of the C1's production run, both subtle and obvious.
The first version of the C1 (or as some refer to it, the C1.1), was produced from 1953-1955), and was very different looking from it's successors. The second version (C1.2, produced from 1956-1957) and the third version (C1.3, produced from 1958-1962) looked basically the same, except for their headlights. The 1.2 had two single headlights, whereas the 1.3 had four headlights, two on each side.
I encourage you to look at pictures of the three versions (53-55, 56-57, and 58-62) to see for yourself. I honestly can't believe that an article regarding a car as popular as the Corvette has such huge gaps in information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBustah ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Some articles on cars give extensive listings of crash test ratings, usually along the lines of 'The car was given a poor rating by a 2008 survey' or some such. I think these sections are pointless and add nothing of value to an encylopaedia. Wikipaedia is not intended to be a buyer's guide ; there are other websites for such information. Furthermore, in most instances the sources quoted are very recent for cars many years old. Of what relevance is a 2008 survey of a 1982 Chevrolet Cavalier for example ? I think safety ratings should only be referred to if they were significant _at the time the vehicle was released_ - for instance, the first Chevrolet Aveo. The 1982 Cavalier was not particularly poor in safetty for its period, so the rating has no encyclopaedic value.
On some cars, such as on the Morris Marina, scrappage rates are given. Quite apart from the fact that scrappage rates for a 35 year old car are irrelevant anyway, of what value is this information ? This is really facetious and is really an opinion.
Some sections have information about Top Gear. This silly program is largely unheard of in USA (the largest English Wikipaedia audience) and will forgotten 3 weeks after it is taken off the air. It is not significant enough to be included in car articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.12 ( talk) 05:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The point about the safety ratings is that they appear to be a sort of 'buyer's guide'. The Cavalier, as an example, not the only of its type is not only unnecessary but actually misleading. The safety of a 1982 Cavalier was not 'poor or very poor', it was really higher than the average 1982 car ! 203.26.122.12 ( talk) 05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been searching for a complete list of all voice commands available with the Blue&Me system.
My Nuovo Fiat 500 manual provides a few for some settings, but not all. It also advises that if you say 'help', all available commands will be read out to you, but I know this is not true as I have tried to use additional commands, such as 'music' with success.
The main reason for my question was a recent problem where all mp3's would play over and over, and I was forced to manually advance the tracks. After a fairly extencive search on the web I found that if I used the voice command 'loop off' it would fix the problem. This is not published anywhere.
As the Blue&Me system covers many different car manufacturers and types it would be advantageous to have a complete list of available voice commands on a global forum such as wikipedia.
Can anyone help?
193.5.216.100 ( talk) 12:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC) LP
The origin of the word Cimarron is Spanish, meaning runaway slave. The reference is to Yanga, an African slave elder, who started the Cimarrons in 1609, in the southern part of Mexico and who founded the city of San Lorenzo de los Negros near Veracruz. I wonder if the designers/marketers of this model knew that. And what was the intent for branding this model of Cadillac with such history? Clearly the subsequent poor design and negative reputation garnered by this model indicates that not enough research was done on both levels and a great opportunity for Cadillac was surely missed: the chance to break away from bulky, gas-guzzling road hogs saddled with pretension and arrogance and to show that the American auto had the vision and possibly the technology or beginnings of, even way back in 1982, to produce a new type of car with the gravity/reputation of 'Cadillac' and the courage and resolve of those 'Cimarrones' to challenge the status quo of the industry. Lofty and poorly written, perhaps, but makes you think - possibly? 67.180.196.127 ( talk) 19:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I notice some inconsistency in the naming of the articles about some of the early Lotus models. Specifically:
Article title | Article lead | How displayed in Template:Lotus |
---|---|---|
Lotus Mk1 | The Lotus Mark 1 was... | Mk1 |
Lotus Mk2 | The car that came to be known as the Lotus Mk. 2... | Mk2 |
Lotus Mk3 | Lotus Mk3 was a single seated sports car ... | Mk3 |
Lotus Mk4 | Lotus Mk4 was a trials car ... | Mk4 |
Lotus Mk5 | Lotus Mk5 was... | Mk5 |
Lotus 6 | ...Colin Chapman introduced his first 'production' car, the Lotus 6, in 1952. The heart of the Mark 6, as it was called... | Mark 6 |
Lotus Seven | The Lotus Seven was a small, simple, lightweight two-seater open-top sports car... | Seven |
Lotus Mk8 | The Lotus Mark 8 (or Mark VIII) car... | Mark VIII |
Lotus Nine | The Lotus 9 or more properly Lotus Mark IX... | Mark IX |
Lotus Ten | The Lotus Mk 10 or Mark X... | (not in template) |
Lotus Eleven | The Lotus Eleven was a racing car... | Eleven |
Lotus 12 | The Lotus 12 was... | 12 |
I propose that articles be renamed as follows:
and that the article leads and Template:Lotus be updated accordingly. Any objections/better ideas? DH85868993 ( talk) 03:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Recently, an IP editor ( Special:Contributions/78.43.180.34) added several Chinese cars to the AKA field in the infoboxes of several articles. Looking in to this it appears that the Chinese vehicles in question simply ripped off other vehicles and have no legitimate relation to the vehicles their designs were stolen from. Chevrolet Colorado had the "Huanghai Plutus" added, but this indicates that only the grille was copied from the Colorado, the rest of the truck's styling was stolen from others. There were also Pyeonghwa models added, but that article shows that those vehicles are based on something else. In fact, the edit on Toyota Tacoma seems to indicate that the allegedly related vehicle is indeed a knockoff and not a true rebadge of the Toyota. The Hyundai Santa Fe was alleged to be also known as the Pyeonghwa Ppeokkugi, but a Google search indicated that it's a Fiat Doblo. This all looks very sketchy and none of it is reliably sourced. I am reverting the lot of the IP's edits. -- Sable232 ( talk) 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. I've noticed two similar articles have a merge request on them since July 2009, but no action has been taken. The two articles are: Emergency Brake Assist (EBA) and Brake Assist (BA). I support the merge, but I would recommend the article be called emergency brake assist (lower-case, because it is just a 'generic' name for the technology, and not any kind of 'trade name'). As a note of caution, only one of the current articles has an activated talk page ( Brake Assist); so it might be worth merging the EBA text into the BA article; and then renaming that one. Regards 78.32.143.113 ( talk) 11:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like your help. I have recently made a request to remove the Fix it again Tony redirect, which is a blatant attack on Fiat Automobiles company. I strongly believe such redirects Fix Or Repair Daily, Biggest Metal Waste etc. should not be promoted on Wiki. Please could you help my removal request by discussing under RfD here... Redirects_for_discussion#Fix_it_again_Tony. Thank you for your support on this issue. G87 22:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Howdy all,
I'm curious what the consensus is regarding which entries to use in the automotive infobox, especially considering some are closely related? I'm thinking of things like parent_company vs. manufacturer, and production vs. model_years. Vegavairbob is doing a good job cleaning up the Chevrolet_Corvette article, but my personal opinion is that the infobox is kinda heavy. I would propose losing (only in the infobox) the General Motors reference and either the production or model_year. It's only two lines that would be saved, but its a start. The missing GM reference is easy to justify... the Chevrolet wiki article makes it clear that GM is the parent. The production vs. model_year is more tricky. You can find a multitude of use (and misuse) of these across the various automotive articles - in fact, it seems many articles are incorrect in their usage. Cadillac_XLR, for example, lists Production 2004–2009 when it should really be Model Year (since production started in 2003). Chevrolet_K5_Blazer uses both. My personal opinion is that production should not be used, and we just use model_year. But that preference could probably be swayed by a persuasive argument. Have fun! — Mrand Talk • C 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe this timeline should not exist by itself yet. 2010 is the first model year for the Ram brand, and so having a timeline for one year serves no purpose. It includes model years when the truck was under the Dodge brand, which can be confusing. I added "/ Ram" to Template:Dodge Truck Timeline so that both brands share the same timeline, for the time being. Unless sufficient arguments can be made otherwise, I think the Ram timeline should be deleted. -- Vossanova o< 14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, can anyone here identify this old car? I want to add it to an article here, but I can't identify it. Thanks! Cerebellum ( talk) 16:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone make a template for the new RAM division of Chrysler, like the one for {{ Dodge}}, {{ Plymouth}}, etc
And the Dodge one needs to move the vehicles that were shifted over to RAM to be put under "historic" production. 76.66.194.220 ( talk) 05:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
With regards to the newly created Category:Automobiles Powered By Four-Cylinder Engines, does anyone see a particular benefit of having a category that if "complete" would likely accommodate at least 40 percent of all vehicles on sale today? I liken it to Category:Automobiles with automatic transmissions, Category:Automobiles with airbags and Category:Automobiles with turbochargers. OSX ( talk • contributions) 04:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Based on the above responses, would there be any opposition if I extended the CfD to include other (in my opinion) pointless categories such as Category:Sedans, Category:Station wagons, Category:Coupes, Category:Vans, et cetera? OSX ( talk • contributions) 11:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes i think my category was pointless and should be deleted for the reasons given above. Ben 28920 ( talk) 13:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The category page has been deleted (G7), but the category is still populated. One now needs to go through and de-populate it. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
...just to inform you that "Passo Ridotto", in italian, means "Short Wheelbase" or "Reduced Wheelbase", not "Reduced pace".
Regards.
Ilidio de Assuncao -ijpdea@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.71.184 ( talk) 16:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
This has been edited out twice of the Lexus LFA page, [4] and again [5]. And I've readded it twice.
Initial provided rational for the removal, "relevance? the motor has no similarity to a flat plane, V8 motor. I can name 10 cars with a 9000prm redline" This is pure nonsense, both the 458 Italia and LFA are the only two modern road going piston engines with such a redline. Notice I'm referring to production NOT racing engines, piston NOT rotary engines, and car NOT motorcycle engines.
Secondly the number of cylinders or crankshaft layout is irrelevant as it always has been when comparing vehicle redlines. Only on wikipedia would someone raise an issue where none exists.
After readding it again it was reverted because, "the comparison of Ferrari redline is too tenuous to be notable"
Actually I'd have to say the only two production piston car engines sharing the exact same engine redline is notable. Dabbaman ( talk) 18:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Automobiles to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I decided to make a navbox for auto/motor shows because I often find myself jumping between them.
I haven't added it to any articles yet. Feedback is welcome - is this a good/bad idea? It's not meant to be a thorough list of shows; just the largest, most significant ones. I know that opens up a whole can of subjectivity. -- Vossanova o< 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason why North America gets a dedicated section? OSX ( talk • contributions) 08:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the full country names with flags (scaled down slightly). I think it should be good to use now. -- Vossanova o< 20:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
There are numerous "special", "customized", and "tribute" editions of ordinary and collector cars that are currently sold by several aftermarket firms and dealers. Anyone can put run a "limited number" of "special editions" for sale to the public. However, it seems to me that if they are not sanctioned by the original automaker, or marketed as part of an joint collaboration, then they are not worthy for having individual encyclopedia articles, or even mention in the articles about the models that they are based on. I can't find a convention statement to that effect, but from the interpretation of the guidelines that Wikipedia articles about automobiles should describe the models as produced by their original manufacturer and avoid even images of "heavily customized cars as they may not be very representative of the vehicles most common appearance." However, some contributors keep adding numerous "customized" and "reproduction" automobiles (such as the 2007 "Burt Reynolds Edition Trans Am" or the 2010 "Jim Wangers Signature Edition GTO") that are offered for sale by their customizers. Some even have "celebrity endorsements (Jim Wangers was behind the creative marketing of the original Pontiac GTO), but they are all versions with numerous modifications and aftermarket parts most often not built by the original automaker. Moreover, some of these customized versions now have extensive descriptions that exceed the Wikipedia guideline that articles" are not to serve as a means of promotion of any kind". An example of this is the modifications performed by one Ford dealer that are "limited" to 45 units (see: Ford Mustang variants#Gaffoglio Family Metalcrafters. I think there needs to be a guideline on these "special editions of vehicles" that not marketed by an automaker:
Of course, if an automaker makes a modified model part of its line up (see examples of numerous muscle cars built in collaboration with Hurst Performance) then mention should be included in the appropriate Wikipedia article (such as the Hurst SC/Rambler) or in their own article (such as the Oldsmobile Hurst/Olds). Thanks! CZmarlin ( talk) 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
With {{convert|400|cid|cc|abbr=on}} {{convert|401|cid|cc|abbr=on}}, 400 cu in (6,600 cc) 401 cu in (6,570 cc) Really? (BTW, {{convert|400.0|cid|cc|abbr=on}} gives 400.0 cu in (6,555 cc), which is correct...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
convert|400|cid|cc|2}}
400 cu in (6,554.83 cc) makes it even more accurate (although in this case we don't want false accuracy when the input value is only rounded to the nearest inch).
Stepho (
talk)
22:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Hi. I've picked up what I suspect is possible link spam. A user Carsguide comau has created an account TODAY @ 5:16 spent the next hour ONLY adding external links to the above website. I've also discovered what I strongly suspect to be a sockpuppet account operating with exactly the same pattern: Rodhalligan created 17 March 2009 and spent the next 3 months doing exactly the same thing.
What do you guys think? Deliberate spam or not? Should we just revert their edits or go through and evaluate each one? I have no comment on the merits of the website or the external links themselves, merely the deliberate and single-minded manner in which these additions are being made.
By the way, here's an interesting Google search which indicates that Rod is an avid blogger on the carsguide website, so perhaps it's not a case of sockpuppetry but merely the word spreading around that blog. What do you guys think? Zunaid 09:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have started this section as I would like to ascertain what the general consensus here is in regards to dedicated articles for "mainstream" vehicles with hybrid drivetrains. For example, Toyota Camry Hybrid, Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Accord Hybrid, Lexus RX Hybrid, Lexus LS Hybrid, Ford Escape Hybrid, and Ford Fusion Hybrid (have I missed any?). Obviously, the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight are not counted.
As far as I am concerned, these articles are largely redundant and should never have been created in the first place. A more logical solution would be to include this hybrid-related information into dedicated, single-generation model articles. We now have the awkward situation of having Toyota Camry (ACV40) and Toyota Camry Hybrid articles.
Thoughts? OSX ( talk • contributions) 14:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, we've got some mixed opinions. I tend to agree that hybrids are the "in thing" at the moment, but in 15 to 20 years time when purely electric vehicles are supposedly going to be common, I can't see hybrids as being particularly important. In the case of Toyota, the specific hybrid information should be located at Hybrid Synergy Drive, just like engine-specific information belongs on dedicated engine articles (e.g. GM High Feature engine). The visual differences from the "regular" versions tend to limited to revised grilles, head- and tail-lamp lenses, interior gauges and badging. Not enough to warrant a separate article. OSX ( talk • contributions) 10:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I went on the Toyota Sienna page, and he photographed that SAME CAR AS ME! I've got a better 3/4 angle, whereas HIS is poorly-angled! And that Ford Fiesta thingy is about roughly the same as MINE! -- Bull-Doser ( talk) 03:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Stepho-wrs has made some changes to a handful of articles that seem to be a question of precedent, regarding what years to use in the caption of a US-spec automobile. As we use exclusively model years here, that is the only way a car is marketed and it is confusing to use anything else. I do not advocate using model years throughout an article, but if a car is sold in the US, it is sold using model years. Here is an example of one of this user's compromises; I think that identifying a vehicle as US-spec is enough to make it clear that the caption is using model years without two different numbers and a garbled semi-explanation. Thoughts? IFCAR ( talk) 14:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The big problem of using model years in Wikipedia is knowing when the article is using calendar years and when it is using model years. One example is where one author copied some information from the Chevrolet Corvette article to the fuel injection article concerning the 1957 fuelie engine. Naturally the Corvette article called it a 1957 engine (with implied model years) but it remained as 1957 when copied to the fuel injection article (which uses calendar years). It's obvious that I am no fan of the model year concept but even I won't try to get the American only vehicles to change to calendar years (with the vital exception of production years in the infobox). It gets confusing when a reader is comparing data in articles when some of them are calendar dates and some are US style model years. Just saying that American articles automatically use US style model years requires training each and every reader about this convention - which is, of course, not practical. And what would we do for vehicles sold in American and non-American markets (eg Toyota Corolla). I would still like someway for the casual non-American reader to be explicitly told that this article uses model years without saying '2010 US model year' or MY2010 in every sentence. One suggestion is to use a simple template {{model year}} I created. Putting this at the top of an article will subtly bring the dating system to the readers attention. Eg
We can add options (style=US/international ?, article/section ?, flags=on ?) to it later if we like but the simple text will do for now. Hopefully this will work as a comprise that isn't too in-your-face for Americans but still gives vital info to non-Americans. Stepho ( talk) 11:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Model years:
Articles that utilize the model year format should clearly differentiate such years from calendar years. Prose dealing with model years should include the actual model year (e.g. 2006) followed by or preceded by the words "model year" (e.g. 2006 model year; model year 2006). Image captions with model years should include the abbreviated "MY" prefix (e.g. MY2006).
For international articles, I agree with you (ie unadorned years are calendar years and all references to model years have 'MY' or 'model year' qualifiers). I fully support putting it in the convention. This is what I have been doing and it seems to work well apart from the occasional new American editor throwing in unadorned years but meaning model year. But I can't see this system working on American specific articles - the Americans aren't going to put model year or MY in practically every sentence they write. I see the options as follows:
1 | Convince American editors to use calendar years. | Great for non-Americans. | Unlikely to gain American support. Requires constant watching for new American editors. |
2 | Convince American editors to pepper 'model year' or 'MY' all over their articles. | Good for non-Americans. | Works well for international articles but I keep getting reverts from American editors, even on international articles. Unlikely to gain American support. Requires constant watching for new American editors. |
3 | Teach each and every non-American reader to understand model years (without qualifiers like MY) and to recognise American specific articles without being told (eg Chevrolet Corvette use model years, Toyota Corolla uses calendar years). | Great for Americans on American articles. | Places a heavy burden on all readers (Americans reading international articles and non-Americans reading American articles). What to do with the Chevrolet Nova which is a Corolla clone made in the US? |
4 | Put a disclaimer (ie my new template) at the top of each American specific article saying this article uses model years and then use unadorned years throughout the article meaning model years. | Requires only a one off change to US specific articles. | Might be missed by a casual reader. |
Sables232's idea of putting 'model year' in the intro is similar to item 4 but is a bit too subtle and easily missed by casual readers. Thoughts? Stepho ( talk) 01:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel a disclaimer at the top of the page is a good idea. Not quite the same situation, but we don't see "This article is written in American English" or vice versa anywhere. I think OSX has the right idea, make the "model year" mention once per section (e.g. "The second-generation _____ was released for the 1997 model year..." or "The _____ entered production as a 2003 model"). I also agree that "For 2008" is preferable to "In 2008" since the latter implies a calendar year, the former implies a model year. (I generally write them this way myself.) -- Sable232 ( talk) 05:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not fully convinced but I will conceded defeat on the point of the disclaimer. I agree with OSX's proposed addition to the convention. Stepho ( talk) 10:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
From what I understood of all the above, we agreed that if the intro of American vehicles start talking about model years then the unadorned years in the rest of the section/article shall be assumed to also be model years. Eg "The XXX was released for the 2006 model year. In 2007 it got a bigger engine." But what do we do if we want to mention a specific calendar year? Eg "The XXX was released in 1969 with a 429 cubic inch engine. In 1973 the oil crisis killed all sales." Stepho ( talk) 23:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
FYI, VegetativePup has listed Halo Vehicle for deletion. swa q 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The C1 Corvette article needs some attention. I'd make the changes myself, but I'm not very good with wiki code, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes regarding the rules.
Anyway, the way the article is now, there are only pictures of the third version (1958-1962, "quad headlight") of the C1, and there is little to no mention of the first and second versions. The casual observer would think that the car looked the same from 1953-1962, which is simply not the case. There were many changes made to the body over the course of the C1's production run, both subtle and obvious.
The first version of the C1 (or as some refer to it, the C1.1), was produced from 1953-1955), and was very different looking from it's successors. The second version (C1.2, produced from 1956-1957) and the third version (C1.3, produced from 1958-1962) looked basically the same, except for their headlights. The 1.2 had two single headlights, whereas the 1.3 had four headlights, two on each side.
I encourage you to look at pictures of the three versions (53-55, 56-57, and 58-62) to see for yourself. I honestly can't believe that an article regarding a car as popular as the Corvette has such huge gaps in information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBustah ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Some articles on cars give extensive listings of crash test ratings, usually along the lines of 'The car was given a poor rating by a 2008 survey' or some such. I think these sections are pointless and add nothing of value to an encylopaedia. Wikipaedia is not intended to be a buyer's guide ; there are other websites for such information. Furthermore, in most instances the sources quoted are very recent for cars many years old. Of what relevance is a 2008 survey of a 1982 Chevrolet Cavalier for example ? I think safety ratings should only be referred to if they were significant _at the time the vehicle was released_ - for instance, the first Chevrolet Aveo. The 1982 Cavalier was not particularly poor in safetty for its period, so the rating has no encyclopaedic value.
On some cars, such as on the Morris Marina, scrappage rates are given. Quite apart from the fact that scrappage rates for a 35 year old car are irrelevant anyway, of what value is this information ? This is really facetious and is really an opinion.
Some sections have information about Top Gear. This silly program is largely unheard of in USA (the largest English Wikipaedia audience) and will forgotten 3 weeks after it is taken off the air. It is not significant enough to be included in car articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.12 ( talk) 05:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The point about the safety ratings is that they appear to be a sort of 'buyer's guide'. The Cavalier, as an example, not the only of its type is not only unnecessary but actually misleading. The safety of a 1982 Cavalier was not 'poor or very poor', it was really higher than the average 1982 car ! 203.26.122.12 ( talk) 05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been searching for a complete list of all voice commands available with the Blue&Me system.
My Nuovo Fiat 500 manual provides a few for some settings, but not all. It also advises that if you say 'help', all available commands will be read out to you, but I know this is not true as I have tried to use additional commands, such as 'music' with success.
The main reason for my question was a recent problem where all mp3's would play over and over, and I was forced to manually advance the tracks. After a fairly extencive search on the web I found that if I used the voice command 'loop off' it would fix the problem. This is not published anywhere.
As the Blue&Me system covers many different car manufacturers and types it would be advantageous to have a complete list of available voice commands on a global forum such as wikipedia.
Can anyone help?
193.5.216.100 ( talk) 12:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC) LP
The origin of the word Cimarron is Spanish, meaning runaway slave. The reference is to Yanga, an African slave elder, who started the Cimarrons in 1609, in the southern part of Mexico and who founded the city of San Lorenzo de los Negros near Veracruz. I wonder if the designers/marketers of this model knew that. And what was the intent for branding this model of Cadillac with such history? Clearly the subsequent poor design and negative reputation garnered by this model indicates that not enough research was done on both levels and a great opportunity for Cadillac was surely missed: the chance to break away from bulky, gas-guzzling road hogs saddled with pretension and arrogance and to show that the American auto had the vision and possibly the technology or beginnings of, even way back in 1982, to produce a new type of car with the gravity/reputation of 'Cadillac' and the courage and resolve of those 'Cimarrones' to challenge the status quo of the industry. Lofty and poorly written, perhaps, but makes you think - possibly? 67.180.196.127 ( talk) 19:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I notice some inconsistency in the naming of the articles about some of the early Lotus models. Specifically:
Article title | Article lead | How displayed in Template:Lotus |
---|---|---|
Lotus Mk1 | The Lotus Mark 1 was... | Mk1 |
Lotus Mk2 | The car that came to be known as the Lotus Mk. 2... | Mk2 |
Lotus Mk3 | Lotus Mk3 was a single seated sports car ... | Mk3 |
Lotus Mk4 | Lotus Mk4 was a trials car ... | Mk4 |
Lotus Mk5 | Lotus Mk5 was... | Mk5 |
Lotus 6 | ...Colin Chapman introduced his first 'production' car, the Lotus 6, in 1952. The heart of the Mark 6, as it was called... | Mark 6 |
Lotus Seven | The Lotus Seven was a small, simple, lightweight two-seater open-top sports car... | Seven |
Lotus Mk8 | The Lotus Mark 8 (or Mark VIII) car... | Mark VIII |
Lotus Nine | The Lotus 9 or more properly Lotus Mark IX... | Mark IX |
Lotus Ten | The Lotus Mk 10 or Mark X... | (not in template) |
Lotus Eleven | The Lotus Eleven was a racing car... | Eleven |
Lotus 12 | The Lotus 12 was... | 12 |
I propose that articles be renamed as follows:
and that the article leads and Template:Lotus be updated accordingly. Any objections/better ideas? DH85868993 ( talk) 03:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Recently, an IP editor ( Special:Contributions/78.43.180.34) added several Chinese cars to the AKA field in the infoboxes of several articles. Looking in to this it appears that the Chinese vehicles in question simply ripped off other vehicles and have no legitimate relation to the vehicles their designs were stolen from. Chevrolet Colorado had the "Huanghai Plutus" added, but this indicates that only the grille was copied from the Colorado, the rest of the truck's styling was stolen from others. There were also Pyeonghwa models added, but that article shows that those vehicles are based on something else. In fact, the edit on Toyota Tacoma seems to indicate that the allegedly related vehicle is indeed a knockoff and not a true rebadge of the Toyota. The Hyundai Santa Fe was alleged to be also known as the Pyeonghwa Ppeokkugi, but a Google search indicated that it's a Fiat Doblo. This all looks very sketchy and none of it is reliably sourced. I am reverting the lot of the IP's edits. -- Sable232 ( talk) 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. I've noticed two similar articles have a merge request on them since July 2009, but no action has been taken. The two articles are: Emergency Brake Assist (EBA) and Brake Assist (BA). I support the merge, but I would recommend the article be called emergency brake assist (lower-case, because it is just a 'generic' name for the technology, and not any kind of 'trade name'). As a note of caution, only one of the current articles has an activated talk page ( Brake Assist); so it might be worth merging the EBA text into the BA article; and then renaming that one. Regards 78.32.143.113 ( talk) 11:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like your help. I have recently made a request to remove the Fix it again Tony redirect, which is a blatant attack on Fiat Automobiles company. I strongly believe such redirects Fix Or Repair Daily, Biggest Metal Waste etc. should not be promoted on Wiki. Please could you help my removal request by discussing under RfD here... Redirects_for_discussion#Fix_it_again_Tony. Thank you for your support on this issue. G87 22:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Howdy all,
I'm curious what the consensus is regarding which entries to use in the automotive infobox, especially considering some are closely related? I'm thinking of things like parent_company vs. manufacturer, and production vs. model_years. Vegavairbob is doing a good job cleaning up the Chevrolet_Corvette article, but my personal opinion is that the infobox is kinda heavy. I would propose losing (only in the infobox) the General Motors reference and either the production or model_year. It's only two lines that would be saved, but its a start. The missing GM reference is easy to justify... the Chevrolet wiki article makes it clear that GM is the parent. The production vs. model_year is more tricky. You can find a multitude of use (and misuse) of these across the various automotive articles - in fact, it seems many articles are incorrect in their usage. Cadillac_XLR, for example, lists Production 2004–2009 when it should really be Model Year (since production started in 2003). Chevrolet_K5_Blazer uses both. My personal opinion is that production should not be used, and we just use model_year. But that preference could probably be swayed by a persuasive argument. Have fun! — Mrand Talk • C 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe this timeline should not exist by itself yet. 2010 is the first model year for the Ram brand, and so having a timeline for one year serves no purpose. It includes model years when the truck was under the Dodge brand, which can be confusing. I added "/ Ram" to Template:Dodge Truck Timeline so that both brands share the same timeline, for the time being. Unless sufficient arguments can be made otherwise, I think the Ram timeline should be deleted. -- Vossanova o< 14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, can anyone here identify this old car? I want to add it to an article here, but I can't identify it. Thanks! Cerebellum ( talk) 16:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone make a template for the new RAM division of Chrysler, like the one for {{ Dodge}}, {{ Plymouth}}, etc
And the Dodge one needs to move the vehicles that were shifted over to RAM to be put under "historic" production. 76.66.194.220 ( talk) 05:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
With regards to the newly created Category:Automobiles Powered By Four-Cylinder Engines, does anyone see a particular benefit of having a category that if "complete" would likely accommodate at least 40 percent of all vehicles on sale today? I liken it to Category:Automobiles with automatic transmissions, Category:Automobiles with airbags and Category:Automobiles with turbochargers. OSX ( talk • contributions) 04:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Based on the above responses, would there be any opposition if I extended the CfD to include other (in my opinion) pointless categories such as Category:Sedans, Category:Station wagons, Category:Coupes, Category:Vans, et cetera? OSX ( talk • contributions) 11:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes i think my category was pointless and should be deleted for the reasons given above. Ben 28920 ( talk) 13:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The category page has been deleted (G7), but the category is still populated. One now needs to go through and de-populate it. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
...just to inform you that "Passo Ridotto", in italian, means "Short Wheelbase" or "Reduced Wheelbase", not "Reduced pace".
Regards.
Ilidio de Assuncao -ijpdea@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.71.184 ( talk) 16:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
This has been edited out twice of the Lexus LFA page, [4] and again [5]. And I've readded it twice.
Initial provided rational for the removal, "relevance? the motor has no similarity to a flat plane, V8 motor. I can name 10 cars with a 9000prm redline" This is pure nonsense, both the 458 Italia and LFA are the only two modern road going piston engines with such a redline. Notice I'm referring to production NOT racing engines, piston NOT rotary engines, and car NOT motorcycle engines.
Secondly the number of cylinders or crankshaft layout is irrelevant as it always has been when comparing vehicle redlines. Only on wikipedia would someone raise an issue where none exists.
After readding it again it was reverted because, "the comparison of Ferrari redline is too tenuous to be notable"
Actually I'd have to say the only two production piston car engines sharing the exact same engine redline is notable. Dabbaman ( talk) 18:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Automobiles to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I decided to make a navbox for auto/motor shows because I often find myself jumping between them.
I haven't added it to any articles yet. Feedback is welcome - is this a good/bad idea? It's not meant to be a thorough list of shows; just the largest, most significant ones. I know that opens up a whole can of subjectivity. -- Vossanova o< 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason why North America gets a dedicated section? OSX ( talk • contributions) 08:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the full country names with flags (scaled down slightly). I think it should be good to use now. -- Vossanova o< 20:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
There are numerous "special", "customized", and "tribute" editions of ordinary and collector cars that are currently sold by several aftermarket firms and dealers. Anyone can put run a "limited number" of "special editions" for sale to the public. However, it seems to me that if they are not sanctioned by the original automaker, or marketed as part of an joint collaboration, then they are not worthy for having individual encyclopedia articles, or even mention in the articles about the models that they are based on. I can't find a convention statement to that effect, but from the interpretation of the guidelines that Wikipedia articles about automobiles should describe the models as produced by their original manufacturer and avoid even images of "heavily customized cars as they may not be very representative of the vehicles most common appearance." However, some contributors keep adding numerous "customized" and "reproduction" automobiles (such as the 2007 "Burt Reynolds Edition Trans Am" or the 2010 "Jim Wangers Signature Edition GTO") that are offered for sale by their customizers. Some even have "celebrity endorsements (Jim Wangers was behind the creative marketing of the original Pontiac GTO), but they are all versions with numerous modifications and aftermarket parts most often not built by the original automaker. Moreover, some of these customized versions now have extensive descriptions that exceed the Wikipedia guideline that articles" are not to serve as a means of promotion of any kind". An example of this is the modifications performed by one Ford dealer that are "limited" to 45 units (see: Ford Mustang variants#Gaffoglio Family Metalcrafters. I think there needs to be a guideline on these "special editions of vehicles" that not marketed by an automaker:
Of course, if an automaker makes a modified model part of its line up (see examples of numerous muscle cars built in collaboration with Hurst Performance) then mention should be included in the appropriate Wikipedia article (such as the Hurst SC/Rambler) or in their own article (such as the Oldsmobile Hurst/Olds). Thanks! CZmarlin ( talk) 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
With {{convert|400|cid|cc|abbr=on}} {{convert|401|cid|cc|abbr=on}}, 400 cu in (6,600 cc) 401 cu in (6,570 cc) Really? (BTW, {{convert|400.0|cid|cc|abbr=on}} gives 400.0 cu in (6,555 cc), which is correct...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
convert|400|cid|cc|2}}
400 cu in (6,554.83 cc) makes it even more accurate (although in this case we don't want false accuracy when the input value is only rounded to the nearest inch).
Stepho (
talk)
22:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Hi. I've picked up what I suspect is possible link spam. A user Carsguide comau has created an account TODAY @ 5:16 spent the next hour ONLY adding external links to the above website. I've also discovered what I strongly suspect to be a sockpuppet account operating with exactly the same pattern: Rodhalligan created 17 March 2009 and spent the next 3 months doing exactly the same thing.
What do you guys think? Deliberate spam or not? Should we just revert their edits or go through and evaluate each one? I have no comment on the merits of the website or the external links themselves, merely the deliberate and single-minded manner in which these additions are being made.
By the way, here's an interesting Google search which indicates that Rod is an avid blogger on the carsguide website, so perhaps it's not a case of sockpuppetry but merely the word spreading around that blog. What do you guys think? Zunaid 09:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have started this section as I would like to ascertain what the general consensus here is in regards to dedicated articles for "mainstream" vehicles with hybrid drivetrains. For example, Toyota Camry Hybrid, Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Accord Hybrid, Lexus RX Hybrid, Lexus LS Hybrid, Ford Escape Hybrid, and Ford Fusion Hybrid (have I missed any?). Obviously, the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight are not counted.
As far as I am concerned, these articles are largely redundant and should never have been created in the first place. A more logical solution would be to include this hybrid-related information into dedicated, single-generation model articles. We now have the awkward situation of having Toyota Camry (ACV40) and Toyota Camry Hybrid articles.
Thoughts? OSX ( talk • contributions) 14:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, we've got some mixed opinions. I tend to agree that hybrids are the "in thing" at the moment, but in 15 to 20 years time when purely electric vehicles are supposedly going to be common, I can't see hybrids as being particularly important. In the case of Toyota, the specific hybrid information should be located at Hybrid Synergy Drive, just like engine-specific information belongs on dedicated engine articles (e.g. GM High Feature engine). The visual differences from the "regular" versions tend to limited to revised grilles, head- and tail-lamp lenses, interior gauges and badging. Not enough to warrant a separate article. OSX ( talk • contributions) 10:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I went on the Toyota Sienna page, and he photographed that SAME CAR AS ME! I've got a better 3/4 angle, whereas HIS is poorly-angled! And that Ford Fiesta thingy is about roughly the same as MINE! -- Bull-Doser ( talk) 03:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Stepho-wrs has made some changes to a handful of articles that seem to be a question of precedent, regarding what years to use in the caption of a US-spec automobile. As we use exclusively model years here, that is the only way a car is marketed and it is confusing to use anything else. I do not advocate using model years throughout an article, but if a car is sold in the US, it is sold using model years. Here is an example of one of this user's compromises; I think that identifying a vehicle as US-spec is enough to make it clear that the caption is using model years without two different numbers and a garbled semi-explanation. Thoughts? IFCAR ( talk) 14:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The big problem of using model years in Wikipedia is knowing when the article is using calendar years and when it is using model years. One example is where one author copied some information from the Chevrolet Corvette article to the fuel injection article concerning the 1957 fuelie engine. Naturally the Corvette article called it a 1957 engine (with implied model years) but it remained as 1957 when copied to the fuel injection article (which uses calendar years). It's obvious that I am no fan of the model year concept but even I won't try to get the American only vehicles to change to calendar years (with the vital exception of production years in the infobox). It gets confusing when a reader is comparing data in articles when some of them are calendar dates and some are US style model years. Just saying that American articles automatically use US style model years requires training each and every reader about this convention - which is, of course, not practical. And what would we do for vehicles sold in American and non-American markets (eg Toyota Corolla). I would still like someway for the casual non-American reader to be explicitly told that this article uses model years without saying '2010 US model year' or MY2010 in every sentence. One suggestion is to use a simple template {{model year}} I created. Putting this at the top of an article will subtly bring the dating system to the readers attention. Eg
We can add options (style=US/international ?, article/section ?, flags=on ?) to it later if we like but the simple text will do for now. Hopefully this will work as a comprise that isn't too in-your-face for Americans but still gives vital info to non-Americans. Stepho ( talk) 11:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Model years:
Articles that utilize the model year format should clearly differentiate such years from calendar years. Prose dealing with model years should include the actual model year (e.g. 2006) followed by or preceded by the words "model year" (e.g. 2006 model year; model year 2006). Image captions with model years should include the abbreviated "MY" prefix (e.g. MY2006).
For international articles, I agree with you (ie unadorned years are calendar years and all references to model years have 'MY' or 'model year' qualifiers). I fully support putting it in the convention. This is what I have been doing and it seems to work well apart from the occasional new American editor throwing in unadorned years but meaning model year. But I can't see this system working on American specific articles - the Americans aren't going to put model year or MY in practically every sentence they write. I see the options as follows:
1 | Convince American editors to use calendar years. | Great for non-Americans. | Unlikely to gain American support. Requires constant watching for new American editors. |
2 | Convince American editors to pepper 'model year' or 'MY' all over their articles. | Good for non-Americans. | Works well for international articles but I keep getting reverts from American editors, even on international articles. Unlikely to gain American support. Requires constant watching for new American editors. |
3 | Teach each and every non-American reader to understand model years (without qualifiers like MY) and to recognise American specific articles without being told (eg Chevrolet Corvette use model years, Toyota Corolla uses calendar years). | Great for Americans on American articles. | Places a heavy burden on all readers (Americans reading international articles and non-Americans reading American articles). What to do with the Chevrolet Nova which is a Corolla clone made in the US? |
4 | Put a disclaimer (ie my new template) at the top of each American specific article saying this article uses model years and then use unadorned years throughout the article meaning model years. | Requires only a one off change to US specific articles. | Might be missed by a casual reader. |
Sables232's idea of putting 'model year' in the intro is similar to item 4 but is a bit too subtle and easily missed by casual readers. Thoughts? Stepho ( talk) 01:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel a disclaimer at the top of the page is a good idea. Not quite the same situation, but we don't see "This article is written in American English" or vice versa anywhere. I think OSX has the right idea, make the "model year" mention once per section (e.g. "The second-generation _____ was released for the 1997 model year..." or "The _____ entered production as a 2003 model"). I also agree that "For 2008" is preferable to "In 2008" since the latter implies a calendar year, the former implies a model year. (I generally write them this way myself.) -- Sable232 ( talk) 05:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not fully convinced but I will conceded defeat on the point of the disclaimer. I agree with OSX's proposed addition to the convention. Stepho ( talk) 10:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
From what I understood of all the above, we agreed that if the intro of American vehicles start talking about model years then the unadorned years in the rest of the section/article shall be assumed to also be model years. Eg "The XXX was released for the 2006 model year. In 2007 it got a bigger engine." But what do we do if we want to mention a specific calendar year? Eg "The XXX was released in 1969 with a 429 cubic inch engine. In 1973 the oil crisis killed all sales." Stepho ( talk) 23:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)