![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
As the result of a CCI, there are many auto photos both here and at Commons which may not be in the public domain as claimed. While they will be nominated at Possibly Unfree Files, if you can provide either proof that the photo is in the public domain or write a rationale for its non-free use, your help would be appreciated at the list. We hope ( talk) 15:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I just added two redirects. It seems to have 2 names, 67 X and 70 X or 70-X. Emails have been sent to the builders, Esso Canada (sponsors), and Schmitt cars that have some very nice images of one they sold recently. Only two of the original four are said to exist. The builder may have the vin numbers still which may help track them down. I have one vin number now. Thoughts?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 02:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The article is now within 5,500 bytes of being 100k, making it a candidate for a Size split. Discussion is here. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 13:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
At: Ford Falcon GT#FPV GT R-spec. regards. -- Falcadore ( talk) 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The template seems to think that in Britain imperial measurements even extended to measuring engines in cubic inches. How do I steer around that please? Looked everywhere for any sort of cones or stuff. Eddaido ( talk) 03:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The {{
Infobox_automobile}}
template has an 'engine' field that simply displays whatever you put in it and does no actual conversion on its own. If you put 'engine=two hogsheads' then it will display exactly 'two hogsheads'. However, the documentation page also has the {{
convert}}
template used within the infobox template. The 'convert' template can be used to convert between L, cc and cu.in. in any direction. The idea is that the number and units you put into the template comes from your reference source. In purely US specific articles (eg
Ford Mustang), the display order should be imperial followed by metric. In all other articles (including cars like
Toyota Camry, sold in both US and other countries) then display order should be metric followed by imperial. If your source doesn't match the desired display order then you can flip the display order by using '|disp=flip'. Examples using a 5.7 L / 350 cu.in engine (note that sources often round generously, so exact cc and cu.in are better then tenths of litres):
Purely US only article | Everyone else | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
reference is in L | {{convert|5.7|L|cuin|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}} | 348 cu in (5.7 L) | {{convert|5.7|L|cuin|0|abbr=on}} | 5.7 L (348 cu in) |
reference is in cc | {{convert|5735|cc|cuin|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}} | 350 cu in (5,735 cc) | {{convert|5735|cc|cuin|0|abbr=on}} | 5,735 cc (350 cu in) |
reference is in cu.in | {{convert|350|cuin|cc|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}} | 5,735 cc (350 cu in) | {{convert|350|cuin|cc|0|abbr=on}} | 350 cu in (5,735 cc) |
Note that the 'convert' template's first few params are input value (eg 5700), followed by the input units (eg converting from cc), optionally followed by the output unit (eg convert to cuin, template will choose for you if you skip this parameter), followed by many options (see {{
convert}}
). Normally it will display the input value/unit (eg 5700cc) followed by the conversion (eg 351 cuin). You can swap the display order by using '|disp=flip'.
Stepho
talk
02:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The image File:1969 Ford LTD Country Squire.jpg, used in the Ford Country Squire article, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments in the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 20#File:1969 Ford LTD Country Squire.jpg would be welcome. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the correct name on the above talk page to which I have added this:
I am really delighted to see this discussion because it brings up a matter which bothers me a lot, and often, on which WikiProject Automobiles seems hopelessly unclear when writing about — say Austin or MG.
The following things are all different (list from off the top of my head):
Wikipedia tells a reader Austin went "defunct" (a special Wiki word I think) when BMC started. This is patent nonsense - just sloppy thinking! By the same logic Jaguar should be "defunct" and the current article on the subject of current Jaguar cars should be about Tata. Imagine what all the articles about Aston Martin would be like!
We very happily muddle them all up and end up with disputes like this. Isn't it better something be done about better defining things? At least on the Jaguar talk page everyone seems to know they are discussing a corporate entity and that, it seems to me, round here is a significant advance :) Eddaido ( talk) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The ancient VW Santana had stopped its production. (Link in Simplified Chinese) http://www.csvw.com/csvw2011/xwzx/qyxw/dzxw/2013nsbn/70593.shtml This article should be modified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Santana Not confused with VW Santana Vista. And "All New Santana" (A LWB Variant of VW Polo?) http://www.svw-volkswagen.com/zh/models/NewSantana.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.158.89.164 ( talk) 15:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at the Porsche Panamera article? An IP editor has been adding the Lexus ES350 as a competitor and changing numbers (nothing is cited, by the way). I'm at 3 reverts but he keeps on going. He took it to the talk page Talk:Porsche Panamera#You can do a sweatpants (Porsche Panamera) and jeans (Lexus ES) comparison. That's ok!, but made no sense. Thanks, 72Dino ( talk) 01:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed the drag racing template omits Top Gas & the Altereds. Can somebody who knows their way around the template (I have no clue) add 'em? Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
Class of Auto racing}}
? This simple template can be edited just like an article.
Stepho
talk
23:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Since the car articles are generally getting better and better, and the commons photo collections are expanding quickly, would it be possible to add a field to the automobile generation infobox that would link to each generation in the commons (where applicable)? I think it would be nifty. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This has been tagged for 10 months as needing help: I've done a heck of a lot of work myself, but I know it still needs far, far more. Can someone help out please? There's engines missing, specs missing, cars missing, inconsistent prose and just generally a clusterfuck of mess. Lukeno94 ( talk) 22:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I thought some of you might be interested in participating in this merge discussion opened yesterday. Cheers.-- Mariordo ( talk) 09:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the possible merging of Triumph TR7 Sprint into Triumph TR7 is currently being held at Talk:Triumph TR7#Merge proposal: Triumph TR7 Sprint into Triumph TR7. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 09:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
On the page [ [1]] for models A95, A105, A105 Vandem Plas the links go to Austin, Texas, USA, not the models described. 203.173.14.201 ( talk) 23:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)27 Feb 2013, Kerry Graf
Thanks for pointing this out, I've now redirected them to more appropriate pages. Mighty Antar ( talk) 00:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
An editor is adding AKA names to various articles from a computer game. See Peugeot 206 for an example. I have reverted a few times as I don't think it is appropriate, and added a message to the editor's talk page, but he doesn't want to discuss. Other editors may have differing views, so I'll stand back for now. Warren ( talk) 11:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Talk:Lamborghini Veneno to determine if the vehicle should have its own article or if it should be a section under Lamborghini Aventador (it is both right now.) I invite anyone interested in the discussion to join in. Thanks, 72Dino ( talk) 01:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Good Morning
I am attempting to get RAF Gaydon up to B-class and i have referenced everything apart from the Civilian use section which is mainly about British Leyland and beyond. Would it be possible for someone to pop over and have a go at referencing the section please? Gavbadger ( talk) 00:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
{{main|Jaguar Land Rover Gaydon Centre}}
and have most of this detail in an updated
Jaguar Land Rover Gaydon Centre?
Warren (
talk)
11:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)I suggest this needs some work to make it more digestible. Petecarney ( talk) 10:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please check whether the large caption in the first thumbnail of W. O. Bentley#Bentley Motors, Cricklewood, Middlesex meets the criteria of WP:CAPTION? The image and the caption are said to come " from standard coachwork catalogue". I would take the required action myself, but I am prevented from doing so. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 16:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
A new article entitled " Novelty car" had been added. This is dubious topic for an encyclopedia, and is an undefined concept. It should be removed. Just my thoughts - CZmarlin ( talk) 20:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
A different article, or a section of another article, about old models with cult followings might be worth writing about. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Does he qualify for listing in the automobile project? Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 18:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd be grateful for other editors to review recent contributions to the Porsche Boxster article; one PR style addition, and another on a contentious issue with a questionable ref. I think they need a fresh look rather than for me get into an edit war. Warren ( talk) 23:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Fansites, clubs, non-English links: Minerva_(automobile)#External_links. See WP:ELNO and WP:NONENGEL. There's quite a bit of this web directory stuff on many Automobile articles that should be cleaned up, or at least we should discourage making it worse. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just noticed that although the Peugeot Boxer and Fiat Ducato have been merged, the Citroen Relay (or Jumper to some) hasn't and has its own stub article. Does anyone have a problem with me merging the Relay into the Ducato article? They're all the same van after all. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Talk:Messerschmitt Kabinenroller#Merge proposal: Messerschmitt KR175, Messerschmitt KR200, and FMR Tg500 into Messerschmitt Kabinenroller as to whether the articles Messerschmitt KR175, Messerschmitt KR200, and FMR Tg500 should be merged at Messerschmitt Kabinenroller, which is currently a disambiguation page. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 23:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Folks, we have received a very interesting e-mail at OTRS that may shed some light on the fate of the remaining example of this Rolls Royce. The relevant text is (reproduced with permission):
I have just read the info, on your web page, regarding the above vehicle with much interest and excitement. Over the last few weeks I have been trying to find out where this car might be now.
It was discovered in pieces on a tomato farm in Adelaide South Australia in1950. It appeared in a "Stop press" in the Flying Lady No 56-5 1956 and appeared again in a fully illustrated article in No 56-6 December 1956. In 1958 it was exported back to the UK where it was fully restored by its then owner Stanley Sealy* This info courtesy of Mr David Neely.
The car suffered further damage on the voyage back to the UK. They piled many tonnes of bagged rice on top of it which bent the chassis.
Reg Eames, now 83, residing in Lusaka Zambia was one of the three or four people employed by Mr Sealy at the time who worked on restoring the car. He has many photographs from when it first arrived back in the UK to a fully restored machine. He talked about that project with a great deal of pride at one of our classic car meetings recently.
I have asked the e-mailer to ask Mr Eames whether he would be prepared to make the photos available to us and also whether he has any materials from the press, such as newspaper or magazine articles that discuss the fate of this particular Rolls Royce. If any such images and source material are forthcoming, would someone like to take on the job of adding it to the article, or if this particular car is independently notable, creating an article about it? Thanks. -- ukexpat ( talk) 14:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Can i get an opinion here please. I've spent the day making improvements to my reverted table and now i'm impatient for a reply and some opinions. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 16:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
For those that might be interested in participating in the discussion, this is to let you know that I opened a discussion here to split the section "risk of fire" from the electric car article to a new Plug-in electric vehicle fire incidents article or Electric car fire incidents.- Mariordo ( talk) 03:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
is there a difference between alignment specs for a 1999-2003 and 2004 toyota solara 14:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 69.47.69.67 ( talk)
For those of you who are interested, there is a discussion of the definition of a production car Talk:List of fastest production cars#Page protected/20 car limit - new discussion.
In particular, the question being considered:
The list currently uses the same definition as the List of automotive superlatives:
In order to keep the entries relevant, the list (except for the firsts section) is limited to automobiles built after World War II, and lists superlatives for earlier vehicles separately. The list is also limited to production road cars that:
An alternative definition from the List of fastest cars by acceleration is:
This list includes full production cars only; concept, modified, very limited-production, and race cars of any kind are not considered. If an independent time becomes available, that time will be listed over the manufacturer's time regardless if the latter is quicker. NealeFamily ( talk) 20:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Again we have 3 rebadged vans with separate articles and no way to expand them without duplicating content 3 times. Is there support for a merge of:
And which should become redirects? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 08:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A IP editor has added a poorly constructed entry to the lead of the Fiat article. I attempted to edit this so it makes sense, but have had my correction reverted 3 times. Does anyone else fancy a look to see what can be done to tidy up this entry as I don't fancy an edit war? Warren ( talk) 10:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The IP had combined sources in an Original Research fashion for some parts, overlinked in most parts, and sensationalised some parts, which were factually incorrect. I've reworded and put the dates in order now. It's in the article and the discussion is here. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 12:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to propose a series of changes to this particular template (I make my proposals here because the template's talk page is rarely visited). As I began various modifications that had no consensus, I will list my suggestions to decide which are applicable and which are not.
Regards. -- Urbanoc ( talk) 14:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
To Charles: I did some research and I find difficulties to complete that task. The fact many models of Renault Trucks were only new versions of those manufactured by its predecessors (Berliet and Saviem) or rebadged Dodges or Macks made complex to establish production dates. Also, it seems to me that a number of models overlap in the same segment, although I can be wrong because there are not enough templates including trucks to compare. However, I didn't give up, but I think that will take some time.
To all: If there are no objections, I will be moving to article space the new templates and modifying the Renault's template this weekend. I will try to improve them as much as possible before then, so suggestions are welcome. Regards. Urbanoc ( talk) 21:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
A new contributor (see 108.249.207.84) keeps adding information and opinions about "twin turbo 440" AMC Javelins, as well as to the List of fastest production cars by acceleration. No Javelins with such an engine were ever produced by American Motors. However, the editor includes a Youtube reference, apparently with "Motor Trend" as the publisher. Notice on the editor's talk page only elicited a comment that I have no brain. There is an AMC-powered dragster with twin-turbos (see: here), but this is not a "one-seat" production car. I have attempted to remove this fictional AMC, but I am over the limit on the number of reverts. Thanks! CZmarlin ( talk) 01:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
For info, the article has been semi-protected for a short period meaning IP and new editors can't make changes. Hopefully our perpetrator will get bored and find some other target to disrupt. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 05:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The scope of Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor is under discussion, see talk:Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 04:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I request feedback from uninvolved editors of the WikiProject to help determine a consensus in a discussion in which I'm an involved part relative to the inclussion of a electric cars' group in Template:Renault. For an overview of the disagreement, you can view the current historial, my concerns and the other editor's answer and mine. I'd like a fresh look on it. Regards. -- Urbanoc ( talk) 12:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The Toyota Innova is also manufactured in Malaysia, by UMW Toyota. Should the article about the car not reflect this? Source: http://www.toyota.com.my/corporate-info/press-release/corporate-news/umw-toyota-motor-hit-one-millionth-vehicles-production.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.136.217.98 ( talk) 15:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
According to the list from the {{ Powertrain}} navbox, notable types of road wheels include:
What type of wheel can be seen in the photograph of a Peugeot 308 at right? Custom?
— 67.101.5.208 ( talk) 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Same wheels as in this photo, with Peugeot logos. Painted original rims. My question is why you (the ip) would like to know? Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe this article falls well short of the current FA criteria, and unless it's significantly improved in the next four weeks it's my intention to nominate it for an FA reassessment. Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed up some of the references. "Car, December 1981" is a perfected valid reference with the given page numbers. An article title and author name would be preferred but even so it is still enough for somebody with access to the magazine to verify the claims. If you find the article title or author name then feel free to add |title=XXX |last=LLL |first=FFF to the citation. I'm not sure if the Auto Katalog references should be combined into a single reference or not. Overall, I found the article to be no worse than most WP articles (ie good in some places, sloppy in other places) but not really deserving of being a featured article. Stepho talk 14:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
File:ZissBenz1911front.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 06:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
How should we deal with acceleration data? Depending on many factors (number of passengers, launch technique, timing method, traction of the track surface on a given day, air temperature, gradient, etc etc), the results can vary by 0.5s or more. Yet often a single number is presented as gospel, which leads the reader to incorrectly compare car A and car B based on vastly different test conditions. Should articles include acceleration figures? How can they be presented without misleading the reader? Regards, 1292simon ( talk) 05:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Does (real) wire wheels (for cars) really really have to be a bit tagged onto an article about bicycles? Eddaido ( talk) 05:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
File:JMKTaxiCarriage1.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 06:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I've recently added some info on 1934 Superb and I would be very glad if some native speaker with knowledge of technical terms found time and gave it a copy-edit treatment. Thank you very much in advance! Cimmerian praetor ( talk) 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:RAMIGauthierWerhle.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 07:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Recent upload from Seattle City Archives' Flickr account. Kind of intriguing. Does anyone know more about this vehicle? - Jmabel | Talk 15:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Any insights to add on the myth that concrete drains car batteries? When did this start? Is it known outside the US? Discuss at Talk:List of common misconceptions#Suggested addition: never store a car battery on concrete. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys. I've started a push to get Honda S2000 up to FA status (it is after all our banner mascot for the project). Would appreciate the eyes of the Automobiles project on this article to point out missing info, style and content issues, layout issues (photos etc.). Anything that you'd like to see in the article that it currently falls short of. I've also created a talk page section to capture comments if you don't want to edit directly yourselves. Thanks! Zunaid 11:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
An editor has proposed that Frazer Nash be moved to Frazer-Nash. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Frazer_Nash#Requested_move. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I have started a conversation regarding the use of delimiters in four-digit numbers (ie 1,796 cc rather than the more common 1796 cc) HERE. I would welcome any input on this often annoying WP quirk, with which most automobile editors seem to disagree. Cheers, Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Has been promoted to FA and is scheduled on July 12, 2013 to be Today's Featured Article. I think this is the first time an article on a car has made TFA in a while. Many thanks to Eric Corbett for his hard work in making this happen, and for being generous in allowing me to help. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
image:Albert Clément in his Clément-Bayard at the 1906 French Grand Prix.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 10:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Boillot1914Indy.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 11:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Mazda B-Series#Pickup Truck another Australian editor has made this edit whereby all but one reference to the word "pickup truck" has been avoided under the guise of internationalisation. In short, "pickup truck" is not widely used in Australia as we say "ute". Now I am reasonably confident that anyone from Australia interested in reading an article about the Mazda B-Series would know exactly what a "pickup truck" is, but if they didn't the numerous links to pickup truck would certainly clear things up.
I think it is an unreasonable burden on the vast majority of readers to eschew all references to "pickup truck" to something along the lines of "vehicles of this style" or some other vaguer placeholder word/phrase. In the infobox, the editor in question changed "2-door pickup" to "2-door". As far as I am concerned "2-door" is not a body style; it's a prefix used before the body style to give extra detail, i.e. 2- or 4-door pickup. Pickup is the international wording except in Australia/NZ (ute) and South Africa (bakkie).
Need to resolve the issue, so what do you guys think? Is pickup truck fine to use, or am I being unreasonably harsh to my own kind? OSX ( talk • contributions) 00:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The picues do not include all the possibilities, as you can have car based with separate load area, or even car based chassis cab. Doubtless there are other possibilities. Greglocock ( talk) 06:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no formal, globally accepted, definition of vehicle body types - only defacto usage by marketing men who call it whatever will sell the most today and don't care what it was called in another time or place. The general population follow whatever the marketing men called it. Demands for a formal definition will get nowhere. And it's only a side issue in this discussion, so I'd drop it for now.
Since this is an Australian term, it falls under WP:ENGVAR. If the article is tired to a particular country then it should use that country's terms - but the Mazda B-Series is not tired to Australia. Otherwise we use whatever term the original editor used. If the original editor used 'pickup truck' then that is the term that should continue to be used. 'Pickup truck' is understood by most reader (even Aussies) and an occasional link explains it to the few that don't know. Changing all instances of 'pickup truck' is not needed and is against WP:ENGVAR. Such a change should only occur by consensus. Stepho talk 21:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I have always been suspicious of the claim that the word ute is derived from "coupe utility", and suspect it is a faux back-derivation. If you think about it the insistence that for the thing to be a ute the load tray must be joined to the cab would have been a silly thing to insist on prior to unitary bodies, and of course the word ute long predates them. Of course this being wikipedia somebody will find ute defined that way in a book and supposedly that is the end of discussion. Greglocock ( talk) 21:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Number plates in Bangladesh.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The copyright status of some Apollo 16 images is up for discussion at WP:NFCR. The images are:
-- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
image:EuDrivingLicense-Slovenia-2010.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Toyota 86#Official sites listed by country about which countries (if any) should be included in the list of official websites shown in the 'external links' sections of many automotive articles. I believe the outcome of this discussion could be applied to the majority of automotive articles and so the final outcome should be part of the our policies and conventions. Comments should be given on that talk page. Stepho talk 06:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Of the billions of cars and their owners around the globe. I wonder how many car owners if asked what is car air conditioning would say something to keep the air clean and no more or would say something to keep us cool on hot days or both. I guess a high percent mostly Europe would say the latter both cleans the air and keeps us cool on hot days. Which is the point I make here Europeans have been badly educated about Air Conditioners.
Likely it stem from knowing that air conditioners for buildings can cool the air in hot weather. Also warm the air in the cool weather.
So why would it not be different for car Air Conditioners since the name is the same.
Wrong in most or all Europe and UK car Air Conditioners are nothing more than fancy air purifiers carbon filtration and others. Some do have a little cooling ability maybe a degree or two no much more on hot days.
This is more a namesake confusion that has been played on by car industry. Or the car industry has changed the name meaning to something they wanted it to be.
Then there is Climate Control which for cars is true air conditioning as would have in the home though may times better. Cool to a fridge temperature or heat like a desert is no problem for Climate Control for that what they can do.
When actually did Climate Control become to mean Air Conditioner in car and buildings. Why the mix up has meant people buying cars get not what they expect from their air conditioner such as cooling and heating by more than one or two degrees.
This Wiki could easily be updated to reflect this and so make people more aware that what they should be asking for when buying a car is Climate Control. We should say Climate Control and not Automatic climate control as Climate Control implies full control over the control of cooling and heating. Where as Auto implies user has no user control. And if people started to ask for Automatic climate control maybe they get just that with no manual control. Better then to term it as Climate Control since Air Conditioner in a car means nothing more than a Filtered Fan purify the air
Sure we could have both Climate Control and Air Conditioning but people don't know about Climate Control in Europe and UK. Lets help to educate them here on this and other Wiki pages
87.242.200.15 ( talk) 22:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Despite plenty of earlier requests not to do so (see his talk page), Georgy90 has just replaced a bunch of competent (if generic) photos of cars with his own less informative (if sometimes amusing) alternatives. (Or perhaps not his own. Though he uploaded them to Commons, at least some also appear in this Facebook page.)
In almost every case, his edit has been for the worse. But (complicating matters at bit) not in every case. I've reverted a number of his edits, but I've run out of time: I must instead attend to my Wikipedia (and car) -irrelevant salaried job. Could somebody here please take a look through his list of recent contributions? -- Hoary ( talk) 02:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have to admit that some of the pictures I attached in articles were slightly inferior to the ones I replaced. But in at least half of the cases I sincerely believe that my pictures are better than the replaced ones! For example, the pictures I placed the following articles: Toyota Corolla E30, Toyota Hilux, BMW 5 Series, Mercedes R107, Mazda Familia, Fiat 850 and Jaguar MK2 even Peugeot 404 are in my opinion superior to the ones I replaced. Furthermore the edit in Fiat 124 coupe was just an addition of the rear view of the car, I do not understand why it is unwanted. I hope you will review the pictures in the articles I told you. Most probably you won't take me seriously as you think I am a vandal, but what I am doing is clearly in good will. Mr. Hoarer replaced blindly all the pictures I added with the previous ones, even if some of my pictures were better. I don't see how this is better from what I did. I am the admin of the page Old Cars in Cyprus, you can confirm that with a message to my page. I have hundreds more pictures of classic cars, waiting to be uploaded in wikipedia, but people here consider contribution to be vandalism!
-- Georgy90 ( talk) 07:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Ι found the Image Guidelines and tips for Automobile pictures really useful, and I will take them into consideration the next time I spot an interesting car! I have now uploaded 40 new photos from my archives of classic cars I shot. I made sure that all of the pictures I posted are of decent quality and in accordance to the guidelines! Please take a look at the new images I uploaded, and give me feedback when you have time. I think that at least the Corniche deserves to be a lead picture in it's article! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Georgy90 (
talk •
contribs)
19:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It's obvious that reasoning with Georgy90 has not worked over the past two years. It's also suspected that he is posting these pictures as an attempt to promote his Facebook page about old cars in Cyprus. In my opinion, he should be blocked either temporarily or indefinitely until he actually learns his lesson. - Areaseven ( talk) 11:37, 8 August 2013 (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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
As the result of a CCI, there are many auto photos both here and at Commons which may not be in the public domain as claimed. While they will be nominated at Possibly Unfree Files, if you can provide either proof that the photo is in the public domain or write a rationale for its non-free use, your help would be appreciated at the list. We hope ( talk) 15:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I just added two redirects. It seems to have 2 names, 67 X and 70 X or 70-X. Emails have been sent to the builders, Esso Canada (sponsors), and Schmitt cars that have some very nice images of one they sold recently. Only two of the original four are said to exist. The builder may have the vin numbers still which may help track them down. I have one vin number now. Thoughts?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 02:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The article is now within 5,500 bytes of being 100k, making it a candidate for a Size split. Discussion is here. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 13:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
At: Ford Falcon GT#FPV GT R-spec. regards. -- Falcadore ( talk) 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The template seems to think that in Britain imperial measurements even extended to measuring engines in cubic inches. How do I steer around that please? Looked everywhere for any sort of cones or stuff. Eddaido ( talk) 03:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The {{
Infobox_automobile}}
template has an 'engine' field that simply displays whatever you put in it and does no actual conversion on its own. If you put 'engine=two hogsheads' then it will display exactly 'two hogsheads'. However, the documentation page also has the {{
convert}}
template used within the infobox template. The 'convert' template can be used to convert between L, cc and cu.in. in any direction. The idea is that the number and units you put into the template comes from your reference source. In purely US specific articles (eg
Ford Mustang), the display order should be imperial followed by metric. In all other articles (including cars like
Toyota Camry, sold in both US and other countries) then display order should be metric followed by imperial. If your source doesn't match the desired display order then you can flip the display order by using '|disp=flip'. Examples using a 5.7 L / 350 cu.in engine (note that sources often round generously, so exact cc and cu.in are better then tenths of litres):
Purely US only article | Everyone else | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
reference is in L | {{convert|5.7|L|cuin|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}} | 348 cu in (5.7 L) | {{convert|5.7|L|cuin|0|abbr=on}} | 5.7 L (348 cu in) |
reference is in cc | {{convert|5735|cc|cuin|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}} | 350 cu in (5,735 cc) | {{convert|5735|cc|cuin|0|abbr=on}} | 5,735 cc (350 cu in) |
reference is in cu.in | {{convert|350|cuin|cc|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}} | 5,735 cc (350 cu in) | {{convert|350|cuin|cc|0|abbr=on}} | 350 cu in (5,735 cc) |
Note that the 'convert' template's first few params are input value (eg 5700), followed by the input units (eg converting from cc), optionally followed by the output unit (eg convert to cuin, template will choose for you if you skip this parameter), followed by many options (see {{
convert}}
). Normally it will display the input value/unit (eg 5700cc) followed by the conversion (eg 351 cuin). You can swap the display order by using '|disp=flip'.
Stepho
talk
02:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The image File:1969 Ford LTD Country Squire.jpg, used in the Ford Country Squire article, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments in the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 20#File:1969 Ford LTD Country Squire.jpg would be welcome. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the correct name on the above talk page to which I have added this:
I am really delighted to see this discussion because it brings up a matter which bothers me a lot, and often, on which WikiProject Automobiles seems hopelessly unclear when writing about — say Austin or MG.
The following things are all different (list from off the top of my head):
Wikipedia tells a reader Austin went "defunct" (a special Wiki word I think) when BMC started. This is patent nonsense - just sloppy thinking! By the same logic Jaguar should be "defunct" and the current article on the subject of current Jaguar cars should be about Tata. Imagine what all the articles about Aston Martin would be like!
We very happily muddle them all up and end up with disputes like this. Isn't it better something be done about better defining things? At least on the Jaguar talk page everyone seems to know they are discussing a corporate entity and that, it seems to me, round here is a significant advance :) Eddaido ( talk) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The ancient VW Santana had stopped its production. (Link in Simplified Chinese) http://www.csvw.com/csvw2011/xwzx/qyxw/dzxw/2013nsbn/70593.shtml This article should be modified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Santana Not confused with VW Santana Vista. And "All New Santana" (A LWB Variant of VW Polo?) http://www.svw-volkswagen.com/zh/models/NewSantana.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.158.89.164 ( talk) 15:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at the Porsche Panamera article? An IP editor has been adding the Lexus ES350 as a competitor and changing numbers (nothing is cited, by the way). I'm at 3 reverts but he keeps on going. He took it to the talk page Talk:Porsche Panamera#You can do a sweatpants (Porsche Panamera) and jeans (Lexus ES) comparison. That's ok!, but made no sense. Thanks, 72Dino ( talk) 01:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed the drag racing template omits Top Gas & the Altereds. Can somebody who knows their way around the template (I have no clue) add 'em? Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
Class of Auto racing}}
? This simple template can be edited just like an article.
Stepho
talk
23:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Since the car articles are generally getting better and better, and the commons photo collections are expanding quickly, would it be possible to add a field to the automobile generation infobox that would link to each generation in the commons (where applicable)? I think it would be nifty. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This has been tagged for 10 months as needing help: I've done a heck of a lot of work myself, but I know it still needs far, far more. Can someone help out please? There's engines missing, specs missing, cars missing, inconsistent prose and just generally a clusterfuck of mess. Lukeno94 ( talk) 22:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I thought some of you might be interested in participating in this merge discussion opened yesterday. Cheers.-- Mariordo ( talk) 09:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the possible merging of Triumph TR7 Sprint into Triumph TR7 is currently being held at Talk:Triumph TR7#Merge proposal: Triumph TR7 Sprint into Triumph TR7. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 09:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
On the page [ [1]] for models A95, A105, A105 Vandem Plas the links go to Austin, Texas, USA, not the models described. 203.173.14.201 ( talk) 23:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)27 Feb 2013, Kerry Graf
Thanks for pointing this out, I've now redirected them to more appropriate pages. Mighty Antar ( talk) 00:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
An editor is adding AKA names to various articles from a computer game. See Peugeot 206 for an example. I have reverted a few times as I don't think it is appropriate, and added a message to the editor's talk page, but he doesn't want to discuss. Other editors may have differing views, so I'll stand back for now. Warren ( talk) 11:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Talk:Lamborghini Veneno to determine if the vehicle should have its own article or if it should be a section under Lamborghini Aventador (it is both right now.) I invite anyone interested in the discussion to join in. Thanks, 72Dino ( talk) 01:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Good Morning
I am attempting to get RAF Gaydon up to B-class and i have referenced everything apart from the Civilian use section which is mainly about British Leyland and beyond. Would it be possible for someone to pop over and have a go at referencing the section please? Gavbadger ( talk) 00:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
{{main|Jaguar Land Rover Gaydon Centre}}
and have most of this detail in an updated
Jaguar Land Rover Gaydon Centre?
Warren (
talk)
11:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)I suggest this needs some work to make it more digestible. Petecarney ( talk) 10:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please check whether the large caption in the first thumbnail of W. O. Bentley#Bentley Motors, Cricklewood, Middlesex meets the criteria of WP:CAPTION? The image and the caption are said to come " from standard coachwork catalogue". I would take the required action myself, but I am prevented from doing so. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 16:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
A new article entitled " Novelty car" had been added. This is dubious topic for an encyclopedia, and is an undefined concept. It should be removed. Just my thoughts - CZmarlin ( talk) 20:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
A different article, or a section of another article, about old models with cult followings might be worth writing about. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Does he qualify for listing in the automobile project? Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 18:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd be grateful for other editors to review recent contributions to the Porsche Boxster article; one PR style addition, and another on a contentious issue with a questionable ref. I think they need a fresh look rather than for me get into an edit war. Warren ( talk) 23:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Fansites, clubs, non-English links: Minerva_(automobile)#External_links. See WP:ELNO and WP:NONENGEL. There's quite a bit of this web directory stuff on many Automobile articles that should be cleaned up, or at least we should discourage making it worse. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just noticed that although the Peugeot Boxer and Fiat Ducato have been merged, the Citroen Relay (or Jumper to some) hasn't and has its own stub article. Does anyone have a problem with me merging the Relay into the Ducato article? They're all the same van after all. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Talk:Messerschmitt Kabinenroller#Merge proposal: Messerschmitt KR175, Messerschmitt KR200, and FMR Tg500 into Messerschmitt Kabinenroller as to whether the articles Messerschmitt KR175, Messerschmitt KR200, and FMR Tg500 should be merged at Messerschmitt Kabinenroller, which is currently a disambiguation page. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 23:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Folks, we have received a very interesting e-mail at OTRS that may shed some light on the fate of the remaining example of this Rolls Royce. The relevant text is (reproduced with permission):
I have just read the info, on your web page, regarding the above vehicle with much interest and excitement. Over the last few weeks I have been trying to find out where this car might be now.
It was discovered in pieces on a tomato farm in Adelaide South Australia in1950. It appeared in a "Stop press" in the Flying Lady No 56-5 1956 and appeared again in a fully illustrated article in No 56-6 December 1956. In 1958 it was exported back to the UK where it was fully restored by its then owner Stanley Sealy* This info courtesy of Mr David Neely.
The car suffered further damage on the voyage back to the UK. They piled many tonnes of bagged rice on top of it which bent the chassis.
Reg Eames, now 83, residing in Lusaka Zambia was one of the three or four people employed by Mr Sealy at the time who worked on restoring the car. He has many photographs from when it first arrived back in the UK to a fully restored machine. He talked about that project with a great deal of pride at one of our classic car meetings recently.
I have asked the e-mailer to ask Mr Eames whether he would be prepared to make the photos available to us and also whether he has any materials from the press, such as newspaper or magazine articles that discuss the fate of this particular Rolls Royce. If any such images and source material are forthcoming, would someone like to take on the job of adding it to the article, or if this particular car is independently notable, creating an article about it? Thanks. -- ukexpat ( talk) 14:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Can i get an opinion here please. I've spent the day making improvements to my reverted table and now i'm impatient for a reply and some opinions. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 16:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
For those that might be interested in participating in the discussion, this is to let you know that I opened a discussion here to split the section "risk of fire" from the electric car article to a new Plug-in electric vehicle fire incidents article or Electric car fire incidents.- Mariordo ( talk) 03:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
is there a difference between alignment specs for a 1999-2003 and 2004 toyota solara 14:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 69.47.69.67 ( talk)
For those of you who are interested, there is a discussion of the definition of a production car Talk:List of fastest production cars#Page protected/20 car limit - new discussion.
In particular, the question being considered:
The list currently uses the same definition as the List of automotive superlatives:
In order to keep the entries relevant, the list (except for the firsts section) is limited to automobiles built after World War II, and lists superlatives for earlier vehicles separately. The list is also limited to production road cars that:
An alternative definition from the List of fastest cars by acceleration is:
This list includes full production cars only; concept, modified, very limited-production, and race cars of any kind are not considered. If an independent time becomes available, that time will be listed over the manufacturer's time regardless if the latter is quicker. NealeFamily ( talk) 20:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Again we have 3 rebadged vans with separate articles and no way to expand them without duplicating content 3 times. Is there support for a merge of:
And which should become redirects? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 08:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A IP editor has added a poorly constructed entry to the lead of the Fiat article. I attempted to edit this so it makes sense, but have had my correction reverted 3 times. Does anyone else fancy a look to see what can be done to tidy up this entry as I don't fancy an edit war? Warren ( talk) 10:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The IP had combined sources in an Original Research fashion for some parts, overlinked in most parts, and sensationalised some parts, which were factually incorrect. I've reworded and put the dates in order now. It's in the article and the discussion is here. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 12:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to propose a series of changes to this particular template (I make my proposals here because the template's talk page is rarely visited). As I began various modifications that had no consensus, I will list my suggestions to decide which are applicable and which are not.
Regards. -- Urbanoc ( talk) 14:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
To Charles: I did some research and I find difficulties to complete that task. The fact many models of Renault Trucks were only new versions of those manufactured by its predecessors (Berliet and Saviem) or rebadged Dodges or Macks made complex to establish production dates. Also, it seems to me that a number of models overlap in the same segment, although I can be wrong because there are not enough templates including trucks to compare. However, I didn't give up, but I think that will take some time.
To all: If there are no objections, I will be moving to article space the new templates and modifying the Renault's template this weekend. I will try to improve them as much as possible before then, so suggestions are welcome. Regards. Urbanoc ( talk) 21:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
A new contributor (see 108.249.207.84) keeps adding information and opinions about "twin turbo 440" AMC Javelins, as well as to the List of fastest production cars by acceleration. No Javelins with such an engine were ever produced by American Motors. However, the editor includes a Youtube reference, apparently with "Motor Trend" as the publisher. Notice on the editor's talk page only elicited a comment that I have no brain. There is an AMC-powered dragster with twin-turbos (see: here), but this is not a "one-seat" production car. I have attempted to remove this fictional AMC, but I am over the limit on the number of reverts. Thanks! CZmarlin ( talk) 01:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
For info, the article has been semi-protected for a short period meaning IP and new editors can't make changes. Hopefully our perpetrator will get bored and find some other target to disrupt. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 05:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The scope of Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor is under discussion, see talk:Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 04:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I request feedback from uninvolved editors of the WikiProject to help determine a consensus in a discussion in which I'm an involved part relative to the inclussion of a electric cars' group in Template:Renault. For an overview of the disagreement, you can view the current historial, my concerns and the other editor's answer and mine. I'd like a fresh look on it. Regards. -- Urbanoc ( talk) 12:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The Toyota Innova is also manufactured in Malaysia, by UMW Toyota. Should the article about the car not reflect this? Source: http://www.toyota.com.my/corporate-info/press-release/corporate-news/umw-toyota-motor-hit-one-millionth-vehicles-production.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.136.217.98 ( talk) 15:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
According to the list from the {{ Powertrain}} navbox, notable types of road wheels include:
What type of wheel can be seen in the photograph of a Peugeot 308 at right? Custom?
— 67.101.5.208 ( talk) 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Same wheels as in this photo, with Peugeot logos. Painted original rims. My question is why you (the ip) would like to know? Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe this article falls well short of the current FA criteria, and unless it's significantly improved in the next four weeks it's my intention to nominate it for an FA reassessment. Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed up some of the references. "Car, December 1981" is a perfected valid reference with the given page numbers. An article title and author name would be preferred but even so it is still enough for somebody with access to the magazine to verify the claims. If you find the article title or author name then feel free to add |title=XXX |last=LLL |first=FFF to the citation. I'm not sure if the Auto Katalog references should be combined into a single reference or not. Overall, I found the article to be no worse than most WP articles (ie good in some places, sloppy in other places) but not really deserving of being a featured article. Stepho talk 14:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
File:ZissBenz1911front.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 06:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
How should we deal with acceleration data? Depending on many factors (number of passengers, launch technique, timing method, traction of the track surface on a given day, air temperature, gradient, etc etc), the results can vary by 0.5s or more. Yet often a single number is presented as gospel, which leads the reader to incorrectly compare car A and car B based on vastly different test conditions. Should articles include acceleration figures? How can they be presented without misleading the reader? Regards, 1292simon ( talk) 05:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Does (real) wire wheels (for cars) really really have to be a bit tagged onto an article about bicycles? Eddaido ( talk) 05:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
File:JMKTaxiCarriage1.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 06:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I've recently added some info on 1934 Superb and I would be very glad if some native speaker with knowledge of technical terms found time and gave it a copy-edit treatment. Thank you very much in advance! Cimmerian praetor ( talk) 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:RAMIGauthierWerhle.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 07:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Recent upload from Seattle City Archives' Flickr account. Kind of intriguing. Does anyone know more about this vehicle? - Jmabel | Talk 15:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Any insights to add on the myth that concrete drains car batteries? When did this start? Is it known outside the US? Discuss at Talk:List of common misconceptions#Suggested addition: never store a car battery on concrete. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys. I've started a push to get Honda S2000 up to FA status (it is after all our banner mascot for the project). Would appreciate the eyes of the Automobiles project on this article to point out missing info, style and content issues, layout issues (photos etc.). Anything that you'd like to see in the article that it currently falls short of. I've also created a talk page section to capture comments if you don't want to edit directly yourselves. Thanks! Zunaid 11:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
An editor has proposed that Frazer Nash be moved to Frazer-Nash. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Frazer_Nash#Requested_move. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I have started a conversation regarding the use of delimiters in four-digit numbers (ie 1,796 cc rather than the more common 1796 cc) HERE. I would welcome any input on this often annoying WP quirk, with which most automobile editors seem to disagree. Cheers, Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Has been promoted to FA and is scheduled on July 12, 2013 to be Today's Featured Article. I think this is the first time an article on a car has made TFA in a while. Many thanks to Eric Corbett for his hard work in making this happen, and for being generous in allowing me to help. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
image:Albert Clément in his Clément-Bayard at the 1906 French Grand Prix.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 10:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Boillot1914Indy.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 11:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Mazda B-Series#Pickup Truck another Australian editor has made this edit whereby all but one reference to the word "pickup truck" has been avoided under the guise of internationalisation. In short, "pickup truck" is not widely used in Australia as we say "ute". Now I am reasonably confident that anyone from Australia interested in reading an article about the Mazda B-Series would know exactly what a "pickup truck" is, but if they didn't the numerous links to pickup truck would certainly clear things up.
I think it is an unreasonable burden on the vast majority of readers to eschew all references to "pickup truck" to something along the lines of "vehicles of this style" or some other vaguer placeholder word/phrase. In the infobox, the editor in question changed "2-door pickup" to "2-door". As far as I am concerned "2-door" is not a body style; it's a prefix used before the body style to give extra detail, i.e. 2- or 4-door pickup. Pickup is the international wording except in Australia/NZ (ute) and South Africa (bakkie).
Need to resolve the issue, so what do you guys think? Is pickup truck fine to use, or am I being unreasonably harsh to my own kind? OSX ( talk • contributions) 00:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The picues do not include all the possibilities, as you can have car based with separate load area, or even car based chassis cab. Doubtless there are other possibilities. Greglocock ( talk) 06:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no formal, globally accepted, definition of vehicle body types - only defacto usage by marketing men who call it whatever will sell the most today and don't care what it was called in another time or place. The general population follow whatever the marketing men called it. Demands for a formal definition will get nowhere. And it's only a side issue in this discussion, so I'd drop it for now.
Since this is an Australian term, it falls under WP:ENGVAR. If the article is tired to a particular country then it should use that country's terms - but the Mazda B-Series is not tired to Australia. Otherwise we use whatever term the original editor used. If the original editor used 'pickup truck' then that is the term that should continue to be used. 'Pickup truck' is understood by most reader (even Aussies) and an occasional link explains it to the few that don't know. Changing all instances of 'pickup truck' is not needed and is against WP:ENGVAR. Such a change should only occur by consensus. Stepho talk 21:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I have always been suspicious of the claim that the word ute is derived from "coupe utility", and suspect it is a faux back-derivation. If you think about it the insistence that for the thing to be a ute the load tray must be joined to the cab would have been a silly thing to insist on prior to unitary bodies, and of course the word ute long predates them. Of course this being wikipedia somebody will find ute defined that way in a book and supposedly that is the end of discussion. Greglocock ( talk) 21:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Number plates in Bangladesh.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The copyright status of some Apollo 16 images is up for discussion at WP:NFCR. The images are:
-- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
image:EuDrivingLicense-Slovenia-2010.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Toyota 86#Official sites listed by country about which countries (if any) should be included in the list of official websites shown in the 'external links' sections of many automotive articles. I believe the outcome of this discussion could be applied to the majority of automotive articles and so the final outcome should be part of the our policies and conventions. Comments should be given on that talk page. Stepho talk 06:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Of the billions of cars and their owners around the globe. I wonder how many car owners if asked what is car air conditioning would say something to keep the air clean and no more or would say something to keep us cool on hot days or both. I guess a high percent mostly Europe would say the latter both cleans the air and keeps us cool on hot days. Which is the point I make here Europeans have been badly educated about Air Conditioners.
Likely it stem from knowing that air conditioners for buildings can cool the air in hot weather. Also warm the air in the cool weather.
So why would it not be different for car Air Conditioners since the name is the same.
Wrong in most or all Europe and UK car Air Conditioners are nothing more than fancy air purifiers carbon filtration and others. Some do have a little cooling ability maybe a degree or two no much more on hot days.
This is more a namesake confusion that has been played on by car industry. Or the car industry has changed the name meaning to something they wanted it to be.
Then there is Climate Control which for cars is true air conditioning as would have in the home though may times better. Cool to a fridge temperature or heat like a desert is no problem for Climate Control for that what they can do.
When actually did Climate Control become to mean Air Conditioner in car and buildings. Why the mix up has meant people buying cars get not what they expect from their air conditioner such as cooling and heating by more than one or two degrees.
This Wiki could easily be updated to reflect this and so make people more aware that what they should be asking for when buying a car is Climate Control. We should say Climate Control and not Automatic climate control as Climate Control implies full control over the control of cooling and heating. Where as Auto implies user has no user control. And if people started to ask for Automatic climate control maybe they get just that with no manual control. Better then to term it as Climate Control since Air Conditioner in a car means nothing more than a Filtered Fan purify the air
Sure we could have both Climate Control and Air Conditioning but people don't know about Climate Control in Europe and UK. Lets help to educate them here on this and other Wiki pages
87.242.200.15 ( talk) 22:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Despite plenty of earlier requests not to do so (see his talk page), Georgy90 has just replaced a bunch of competent (if generic) photos of cars with his own less informative (if sometimes amusing) alternatives. (Or perhaps not his own. Though he uploaded them to Commons, at least some also appear in this Facebook page.)
In almost every case, his edit has been for the worse. But (complicating matters at bit) not in every case. I've reverted a number of his edits, but I've run out of time: I must instead attend to my Wikipedia (and car) -irrelevant salaried job. Could somebody here please take a look through his list of recent contributions? -- Hoary ( talk) 02:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have to admit that some of the pictures I attached in articles were slightly inferior to the ones I replaced. But in at least half of the cases I sincerely believe that my pictures are better than the replaced ones! For example, the pictures I placed the following articles: Toyota Corolla E30, Toyota Hilux, BMW 5 Series, Mercedes R107, Mazda Familia, Fiat 850 and Jaguar MK2 even Peugeot 404 are in my opinion superior to the ones I replaced. Furthermore the edit in Fiat 124 coupe was just an addition of the rear view of the car, I do not understand why it is unwanted. I hope you will review the pictures in the articles I told you. Most probably you won't take me seriously as you think I am a vandal, but what I am doing is clearly in good will. Mr. Hoarer replaced blindly all the pictures I added with the previous ones, even if some of my pictures were better. I don't see how this is better from what I did. I am the admin of the page Old Cars in Cyprus, you can confirm that with a message to my page. I have hundreds more pictures of classic cars, waiting to be uploaded in wikipedia, but people here consider contribution to be vandalism!
-- Georgy90 ( talk) 07:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Ι found the Image Guidelines and tips for Automobile pictures really useful, and I will take them into consideration the next time I spot an interesting car! I have now uploaded 40 new photos from my archives of classic cars I shot. I made sure that all of the pictures I posted are of decent quality and in accordance to the guidelines! Please take a look at the new images I uploaded, and give me feedback when you have time. I think that at least the Corniche deserves to be a lead picture in it's article! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Georgy90 (
talk •
contribs)
19:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It's obvious that reasoning with Georgy90 has not worked over the past two years. It's also suspected that he is posting these pictures as an attempt to promote his Facebook page about old cars in Cyprus. In my opinion, he should be blocked either temporarily or indefinitely until he actually learns his lesson. - Areaseven ( talk) 11:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)