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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
The articles:
have all just been renamed as BMC A-series engine, etc. Undiscussed, naturally. Are we happy with these?
The wiki-dogma is obvious, yet policy is that title case is appropriate when proper names are involved. These are used as such, and they're sourced as such in works like David Vizard. Tuning the A-Series Engine. ISBN 1859606202. (there is little more definitive on this engine than Vizard's books). Nor do we see US engines, like the Chrysler Hemi engine being renamed similarly. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I have informed Dicklyon of this discussion, since he made both sets of title changes. Stepho talk 04:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
:"Foo X-Series" appears to be a double error for "Foo X series".
I'm not a member of this project, but I took out the Tata Estate since someone assessed it already. Ominae ( talk) 07:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all! I've recently posted a request for auto executive and Waymo CEO John Krafcik, seeking to add an Early life and education section. I'm wondering if editors at this WikiProject would be interested and might have a few minutes to look over my suggestions? I'm making these suggestions on behalf of Mr. Krafcik's company, Waymo, as part of my work at Beutler Ink, so I will not make any direct edits to the article myself. (I've posted a similar note at WikiProject Biography, too, to see if anyone there might be able to help.) Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 19:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Sirs/Madams, as keepers of the articles related to autos I thought I should bring this matter to the projects attention. I am a new page patroller and recently I reviewed an article Renault Kangoo (Argentina) I didn't think the Argentinian model warranted it's own article so sent it to AfD here [ [1]]. The author had previously been warned and blocked and has subsequently been indefinitely blocked. Worryingly they had made quite an amount of edits/re-directs/deleting re-directs to auto related pages (see here [ [2]]) As I am no expert in this field I trust you could check out, or know an editor that could check out, the legitimacy of the edits this author made before their ban. Kind regards and best wishes from Ireland XyzSpaniel Talk Page 21:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Could please someone create an article regarding this new low-budget sportscar-lookalike from France (with Russian background history)? Thanks! Foerdi ( talk) 20:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to mention it. There are already articles for the car and the company in the French Wikipedia Foerdi ( talk) 20:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Since Dick Megugorac has been nominated for deletion by somebody who considers him "not notable", I'm hoping some people here, who actually know who he is, might have something to say about it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for crossposting this, but I asked this on the disc of the article 5 days ago and there was no reaction. okay: What is the former and the actual brand name of the vehicles made by Renault Samsung Motors? I found evidence of being (naturally) Samsung until 2000, that Renault continued the brand name "Samsung" (and not "Renault-Samsung"), but today on their website and in Renault websites, they are announced as Renault Samsung Motors (as brand name). I assume that Renault changed the brand name from Samsung to Renault Samsung in 2002 with the QM3, but I found no evidence for this. In German and French Wikipedia, the models itself in their articles are being listed as "Samsung" (but here are indications that that the French copied the content of the German articles, which were partly falsified), while the EN wikipedia uses "Renault Samsung". Anybody knows? -- Roxedl ( talk) 18:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Should we split motorsport info from Aston Martin main page to own page? like some other brands have, the main page looks quite messy now and dont follow the look of other pages --> Typ932 T· C 06:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Any opinions about this page Darracq and Company London, I think it looks messy (hard to understand what is all about) and its converted from original French company page to London based company page. Whole section is deleted from it when comparing it to some older state as Automobiles Darracq S.A. article . What we should do with that article? Or should we write own articles of Automobiles Darracq S.A., Italian Darracq and other stuff that was removed --> Typ932 T· C 21:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
A Darracq and Company (1905) Limited S. T. D. Motors Limited company boxes , or is A Darracq and Company Limited same as Darracq and Company London? if so we should use same name in infobox --> Typ932 T· C 13:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Had some discussions about timelines used on autopages ( User_talk:Vossanova#timelines) , anyone find the rule or discussion from past whats the preferred style in timelines , most articles uses real production years anyway. Its very confusing that some timelines uses model years, making hard to compare real production times of cars. Any toughts of this matter? --> Typ932 T· C 13:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
|production=
field in the infobox must must always be calendar years and the |model_years=
field in the infobox must must always be model years (though this hasn't been enforced too well on American pages). This is covered in
WP:MODELYEARS on the
WP:AUTOCONV page.
Stepho
talk
01:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC){{
Modern North American Toyota vehicles}}
). I get occasional kickbacks from Americans who think it looks silly to say 'model years' (remembering that they have trouble of thinking that any other system even exists, let alone that people would use it) but there is no avoiding this situation with international readers.
Stepho
talk
00:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)I'd like to invite any Wikiproject Automobiles members to respond to my new posting at Talk:Lamborghini Countach#Restructuring Proposal - seeking input. I'd like to add quite a bit of new, well-sourced information to this "High importance"-rated page (as well as references verifying some currently uncited statements) but I think some restructuring is needed beforehand. I proposed some changes on the article's talk page and would really appreciate the input of more experienced editors. Thanks! Prova MO ( talk) 00:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is www.team.net. Thank you. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I added some text to the article Tata Sumo, can a moderator correct any errors? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.126.79 ( talk) 14:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Couple of kids keeps adding jokes to Fiat article Fiat Automobiles, I would need some help maybe , give some commenting to the case. I dont think we need these old jokes to any automobile manufacturers articles, or what do you think? If we allow this one, others will start adding them also to other manufacturers.... --> Typ932 T· C 19:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a new discussion related to the renaming of the Catagory:Cars vs Catagory:Automobiles here [ [3]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started a discussion regarding the continued inclusion of racing cars in Template:Lotus. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (I've advertised the discussion here because I wasn't sure how may people are watching the template). DH85868993 ( talk) 21:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Do we have notability standards here? Mostly for the members of Category:Individual cars, which overlaps with Category:One-off cars. Also Category:Drag racing cars.
There are an increasing number of articles appearing here (and some old ones) which are little more than stubs. They're also poorly formatted and wikified and most are seriously lacking in substantial content. Some, such as El Matador (custom car) have a large block of thirteen citations to support them – yet when you look closer, these are repeated citations to just the same couple of pages in a magazine article. See Silhouette (show car) for another example. Yet the reference to this one magazine article is even repeated in the article (across both references and sources sections) just to bulk it out.
Is a single two-page mention in a car mag enough to support notability? These are very thin articles with practically nothing of encyclopedic content to them. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I would generally say if more than one or two articles/sources come out speaking about the car then it's probably notable enough. This case is stronger if we have a few more cites that mention the subject car in other contexts. For example the primary articles might be magazine articles about the car's construction or driving reviews etc. Secondary mentions such as a list of winners of a notable car show or cars by notable designer/builder etc would also help. We don't have to pay for the hard drive space so I think erring on the side of inclusion is probably better than the other way around. In cases like this I sometimes worry about FRINGE or other issues with limited/low quality sourcing but these aren't controversial or recent topics so I would rather error on the side of inclusion. I've been interested in a number of junior series racing car manufactures over the years. For example take a marque like Crossle or Piper Race Cars or many other smaller mfrs. The company produced many race cars over the years but it would probably be hard to find an article about the company. There are many less reliable sites on the subject (web blogs such as [ [4]]). I in cases like this I think I would rather error on the side of inclusion because the material just isn't that controversial and for a few editor and readers it will be very enjoyable. Springee ( talk) 20:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't think we should have a project guideline that says a one-off car is notable if it has won a major award or something, even though it doesn't meet WP:GNG. GNG is enough, and I agree with Andy that these articles should have a little more sourcing actually cited there in the article to be kept. No rush to AfD today, but it's inevitable if more sources aren't added sooner or later. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, all this drama and hairsplitting is avoidable, by using the draft namespace to take care of all this before going live, or building a list first and spawning articles later. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange can solve this! -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 06:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
but multiple sources are generally expected
I see that for "Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices" all the Wikipedia categories which had the word automobile are being speedy deleted and now have the word car in place of automobile. Will this WikiProject change too? Eddaido ( talk) 10:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Mitch Ames, who has been deleting cats, I think hes removing categories wrongly?— Per existing discussion at User talk:Mitch Ames § Car categories, the removal of parent categories per WP:SUBCAT is (so far as I can tell) independent of the renaming of the categories. If anyone one wants pursue the SUBCAT issue, I suggest that it should be raised in a separate talk page section to the renaming issue, to avoid conflating the two. (It might be simpler wait until the renaming issue is resolved.) Mitch Ames ( talk) 23:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Dictionaries, already cited, confirm these facts. You can call it "wrong" if you like, but it's a factual description of English to say car and automobile can be equivalent. At the same time, a North American might refer to "cars and trucks" or "cars, trucks, and SUVs", and nobody would think they were being repetitive. There's no lexicographical reason for Wikipedia to not use car and automobile interchangeably, though there could be other arguments made favoring one or the other or a combination. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Should the change in category question be revisited? This change in catagory name appears to have been decided by 4 editors and with no obvious notification.[ [5]] If a second editor supports this proposal I would suggest protesting the recent closing and getting wider community consensus for the change. Springee ( talk) 03:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Followup Based on the difference between the results of the first and second RM discussions related to the category names I opened a move review here. [ [6]]. This may be an appropriate point at which to discuss what appear to be overlapping scopes between articles like Car vs Project Automobile vs Truck etc. I've found a few examples of such discussions in this project's archive. It's not clear what the automotive article hierarchy is meant to be. This may be a good place to establish it. Springee ( talk) 19:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to see some consensus on the discussion of spy photos in car articles. It's pretty safe to say we don't like having the photos themselves in the articles, but I've seen a trend lately of edits to upcoming vehicles, stating merely that spy shots exist, with an external link to them as a reference. I argue that it encourages speculation, and provides no verifiable facts about the car itself. Some car fans tend to see Wikipedia pages as fan sites, where any piece of new information is notable ( WP:RECENTISM). Once the car is officially introduced, the fact that spy shots exist is no longer relevant and has very little, if any, historical value, and just clutters up the article. Agree or disagree? I'd like to point editors here rather than get into revert wars. -- Vossanova o< 23:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IvBqt4bruE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.65.148 ( talk) 23:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
There's an issue at COMMONS about photos released by Land Rover MENA's Flickr account not being their property. See Commons:Commons:Village pump. Land Rover MENA is the division of Land Rover dealing with the Middle East, it is headquartered in Coventry, England, UK, where Jaguar Land Rover has its corporate headquarters. -- 67.70.34.69 ( talk) 05:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I have asked EurovisionNim and another editor to add sources to Audi A3--they are the top two editors to the article. EurovisionNim agreed to do so. I'm not familiar with any particular sourcing requirements that are specialized with regard to automobiles. I don't know, for example, if we allow sourcing directly from the manufacturer for data on engines, etc. If anyone could help make sure he stays on track, that would be much appreciated. -- David Tornheim ( talk)
This volume might help (though I am NOT suggesting necessarily buying it from Amazon: probably better value is available on the second-hand market). The earlier volumes certainly carry a bit more credibility and are more carefully checked pre-publication than most magazine articles (though they are NOT error-free). But I'm afraid my collection doesn't get past volume 4 which stops at 1990. Success Charles01 ( talk) 10:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Is the George Poteet who won the '96 Ridler the same one who ran 426 mph (686 km/h) in Speed Demon? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
People here may wish to be aware of this exchange at the page "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Though I'm afraid the various strands take a bit of disentangling in order to figure out what's going on. Regards Charles01 ( talk) 08:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Since the absent of certain individuals, I been wondering. Other then a few exceptions with some manufacturers such as Toyota and Honda as they make different versions for certain markets like the Honda Civic and Toyota HiLux. Is it really necessary to have the country where it was taken in? OSX likely to have started doing it as a shown of dominance for a country. That how Nim seem to have interpret it as anyway. -- Vauxford ( talk) 20:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This was never supposed to be the location where the photo was taken, but the market where the car was originally sold. I.e., this Soarer photographed in Canada is a JDM car. I absolutely agree that there is no benefit to knowing that a certain photo was taken in Chile, but it would be worthwhile to know that a Chevrolet Aska was originally sold in Chile since it may have had specific specifications.
Could we please start this discussion over, but stating that the country the car was intended for is what should be stated? And I agree that we do not need to write "Japan" for every photo of a JDM car, or "US" for every Chevrolet, but only where it would be of interest. The location of the photo would rarely be of interest beyond what someone could find out by simply clicking the image. Mr.choppers | ✎ 22:40, 12 January 2019 (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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
The articles:
have all just been renamed as BMC A-series engine, etc. Undiscussed, naturally. Are we happy with these?
The wiki-dogma is obvious, yet policy is that title case is appropriate when proper names are involved. These are used as such, and they're sourced as such in works like David Vizard. Tuning the A-Series Engine. ISBN 1859606202. (there is little more definitive on this engine than Vizard's books). Nor do we see US engines, like the Chrysler Hemi engine being renamed similarly. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I have informed Dicklyon of this discussion, since he made both sets of title changes. Stepho talk 04:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
:"Foo X-Series" appears to be a double error for "Foo X series".
I'm not a member of this project, but I took out the Tata Estate since someone assessed it already. Ominae ( talk) 07:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all! I've recently posted a request for auto executive and Waymo CEO John Krafcik, seeking to add an Early life and education section. I'm wondering if editors at this WikiProject would be interested and might have a few minutes to look over my suggestions? I'm making these suggestions on behalf of Mr. Krafcik's company, Waymo, as part of my work at Beutler Ink, so I will not make any direct edits to the article myself. (I've posted a similar note at WikiProject Biography, too, to see if anyone there might be able to help.) Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 19:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Sirs/Madams, as keepers of the articles related to autos I thought I should bring this matter to the projects attention. I am a new page patroller and recently I reviewed an article Renault Kangoo (Argentina) I didn't think the Argentinian model warranted it's own article so sent it to AfD here [ [1]]. The author had previously been warned and blocked and has subsequently been indefinitely blocked. Worryingly they had made quite an amount of edits/re-directs/deleting re-directs to auto related pages (see here [ [2]]) As I am no expert in this field I trust you could check out, or know an editor that could check out, the legitimacy of the edits this author made before their ban. Kind regards and best wishes from Ireland XyzSpaniel Talk Page 21:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Could please someone create an article regarding this new low-budget sportscar-lookalike from France (with Russian background history)? Thanks! Foerdi ( talk) 20:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to mention it. There are already articles for the car and the company in the French Wikipedia Foerdi ( talk) 20:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Since Dick Megugorac has been nominated for deletion by somebody who considers him "not notable", I'm hoping some people here, who actually know who he is, might have something to say about it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for crossposting this, but I asked this on the disc of the article 5 days ago and there was no reaction. okay: What is the former and the actual brand name of the vehicles made by Renault Samsung Motors? I found evidence of being (naturally) Samsung until 2000, that Renault continued the brand name "Samsung" (and not "Renault-Samsung"), but today on their website and in Renault websites, they are announced as Renault Samsung Motors (as brand name). I assume that Renault changed the brand name from Samsung to Renault Samsung in 2002 with the QM3, but I found no evidence for this. In German and French Wikipedia, the models itself in their articles are being listed as "Samsung" (but here are indications that that the French copied the content of the German articles, which were partly falsified), while the EN wikipedia uses "Renault Samsung". Anybody knows? -- Roxedl ( talk) 18:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Should we split motorsport info from Aston Martin main page to own page? like some other brands have, the main page looks quite messy now and dont follow the look of other pages --> Typ932 T· C 06:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Any opinions about this page Darracq and Company London, I think it looks messy (hard to understand what is all about) and its converted from original French company page to London based company page. Whole section is deleted from it when comparing it to some older state as Automobiles Darracq S.A. article . What we should do with that article? Or should we write own articles of Automobiles Darracq S.A., Italian Darracq and other stuff that was removed --> Typ932 T· C 21:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
A Darracq and Company (1905) Limited S. T. D. Motors Limited company boxes , or is A Darracq and Company Limited same as Darracq and Company London? if so we should use same name in infobox --> Typ932 T· C 13:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Had some discussions about timelines used on autopages ( User_talk:Vossanova#timelines) , anyone find the rule or discussion from past whats the preferred style in timelines , most articles uses real production years anyway. Its very confusing that some timelines uses model years, making hard to compare real production times of cars. Any toughts of this matter? --> Typ932 T· C 13:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
|production=
field in the infobox must must always be calendar years and the |model_years=
field in the infobox must must always be model years (though this hasn't been enforced too well on American pages). This is covered in
WP:MODELYEARS on the
WP:AUTOCONV page.
Stepho
talk
01:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC){{
Modern North American Toyota vehicles}}
). I get occasional kickbacks from Americans who think it looks silly to say 'model years' (remembering that they have trouble of thinking that any other system even exists, let alone that people would use it) but there is no avoiding this situation with international readers.
Stepho
talk
00:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)I'd like to invite any Wikiproject Automobiles members to respond to my new posting at Talk:Lamborghini Countach#Restructuring Proposal - seeking input. I'd like to add quite a bit of new, well-sourced information to this "High importance"-rated page (as well as references verifying some currently uncited statements) but I think some restructuring is needed beforehand. I proposed some changes on the article's talk page and would really appreciate the input of more experienced editors. Thanks! Prova MO ( talk) 00:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is www.team.net. Thank you. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I added some text to the article Tata Sumo, can a moderator correct any errors? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.126.79 ( talk) 14:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Couple of kids keeps adding jokes to Fiat article Fiat Automobiles, I would need some help maybe , give some commenting to the case. I dont think we need these old jokes to any automobile manufacturers articles, or what do you think? If we allow this one, others will start adding them also to other manufacturers.... --> Typ932 T· C 19:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a new discussion related to the renaming of the Catagory:Cars vs Catagory:Automobiles here [ [3]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started a discussion regarding the continued inclusion of racing cars in Template:Lotus. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (I've advertised the discussion here because I wasn't sure how may people are watching the template). DH85868993 ( talk) 21:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Do we have notability standards here? Mostly for the members of Category:Individual cars, which overlaps with Category:One-off cars. Also Category:Drag racing cars.
There are an increasing number of articles appearing here (and some old ones) which are little more than stubs. They're also poorly formatted and wikified and most are seriously lacking in substantial content. Some, such as El Matador (custom car) have a large block of thirteen citations to support them – yet when you look closer, these are repeated citations to just the same couple of pages in a magazine article. See Silhouette (show car) for another example. Yet the reference to this one magazine article is even repeated in the article (across both references and sources sections) just to bulk it out.
Is a single two-page mention in a car mag enough to support notability? These are very thin articles with practically nothing of encyclopedic content to them. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I would generally say if more than one or two articles/sources come out speaking about the car then it's probably notable enough. This case is stronger if we have a few more cites that mention the subject car in other contexts. For example the primary articles might be magazine articles about the car's construction or driving reviews etc. Secondary mentions such as a list of winners of a notable car show or cars by notable designer/builder etc would also help. We don't have to pay for the hard drive space so I think erring on the side of inclusion is probably better than the other way around. In cases like this I sometimes worry about FRINGE or other issues with limited/low quality sourcing but these aren't controversial or recent topics so I would rather error on the side of inclusion. I've been interested in a number of junior series racing car manufactures over the years. For example take a marque like Crossle or Piper Race Cars or many other smaller mfrs. The company produced many race cars over the years but it would probably be hard to find an article about the company. There are many less reliable sites on the subject (web blogs such as [ [4]]). I in cases like this I think I would rather error on the side of inclusion because the material just isn't that controversial and for a few editor and readers it will be very enjoyable. Springee ( talk) 20:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't think we should have a project guideline that says a one-off car is notable if it has won a major award or something, even though it doesn't meet WP:GNG. GNG is enough, and I agree with Andy that these articles should have a little more sourcing actually cited there in the article to be kept. No rush to AfD today, but it's inevitable if more sources aren't added sooner or later. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, all this drama and hairsplitting is avoidable, by using the draft namespace to take care of all this before going live, or building a list first and spawning articles later. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange can solve this! -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 06:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
but multiple sources are generally expected
I see that for "Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices" all the Wikipedia categories which had the word automobile are being speedy deleted and now have the word car in place of automobile. Will this WikiProject change too? Eddaido ( talk) 10:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Mitch Ames, who has been deleting cats, I think hes removing categories wrongly?— Per existing discussion at User talk:Mitch Ames § Car categories, the removal of parent categories per WP:SUBCAT is (so far as I can tell) independent of the renaming of the categories. If anyone one wants pursue the SUBCAT issue, I suggest that it should be raised in a separate talk page section to the renaming issue, to avoid conflating the two. (It might be simpler wait until the renaming issue is resolved.) Mitch Ames ( talk) 23:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Dictionaries, already cited, confirm these facts. You can call it "wrong" if you like, but it's a factual description of English to say car and automobile can be equivalent. At the same time, a North American might refer to "cars and trucks" or "cars, trucks, and SUVs", and nobody would think they were being repetitive. There's no lexicographical reason for Wikipedia to not use car and automobile interchangeably, though there could be other arguments made favoring one or the other or a combination. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Should the change in category question be revisited? This change in catagory name appears to have been decided by 4 editors and with no obvious notification.[ [5]] If a second editor supports this proposal I would suggest protesting the recent closing and getting wider community consensus for the change. Springee ( talk) 03:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Followup Based on the difference between the results of the first and second RM discussions related to the category names I opened a move review here. [ [6]]. This may be an appropriate point at which to discuss what appear to be overlapping scopes between articles like Car vs Project Automobile vs Truck etc. I've found a few examples of such discussions in this project's archive. It's not clear what the automotive article hierarchy is meant to be. This may be a good place to establish it. Springee ( talk) 19:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to see some consensus on the discussion of spy photos in car articles. It's pretty safe to say we don't like having the photos themselves in the articles, but I've seen a trend lately of edits to upcoming vehicles, stating merely that spy shots exist, with an external link to them as a reference. I argue that it encourages speculation, and provides no verifiable facts about the car itself. Some car fans tend to see Wikipedia pages as fan sites, where any piece of new information is notable ( WP:RECENTISM). Once the car is officially introduced, the fact that spy shots exist is no longer relevant and has very little, if any, historical value, and just clutters up the article. Agree or disagree? I'd like to point editors here rather than get into revert wars. -- Vossanova o< 23:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IvBqt4bruE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.65.148 ( talk) 23:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
There's an issue at COMMONS about photos released by Land Rover MENA's Flickr account not being their property. See Commons:Commons:Village pump. Land Rover MENA is the division of Land Rover dealing with the Middle East, it is headquartered in Coventry, England, UK, where Jaguar Land Rover has its corporate headquarters. -- 67.70.34.69 ( talk) 05:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I have asked EurovisionNim and another editor to add sources to Audi A3--they are the top two editors to the article. EurovisionNim agreed to do so. I'm not familiar with any particular sourcing requirements that are specialized with regard to automobiles. I don't know, for example, if we allow sourcing directly from the manufacturer for data on engines, etc. If anyone could help make sure he stays on track, that would be much appreciated. -- David Tornheim ( talk)
This volume might help (though I am NOT suggesting necessarily buying it from Amazon: probably better value is available on the second-hand market). The earlier volumes certainly carry a bit more credibility and are more carefully checked pre-publication than most magazine articles (though they are NOT error-free). But I'm afraid my collection doesn't get past volume 4 which stops at 1990. Success Charles01 ( talk) 10:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Is the George Poteet who won the '96 Ridler the same one who ran 426 mph (686 km/h) in Speed Demon? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
People here may wish to be aware of this exchange at the page "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Though I'm afraid the various strands take a bit of disentangling in order to figure out what's going on. Regards Charles01 ( talk) 08:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Since the absent of certain individuals, I been wondering. Other then a few exceptions with some manufacturers such as Toyota and Honda as they make different versions for certain markets like the Honda Civic and Toyota HiLux. Is it really necessary to have the country where it was taken in? OSX likely to have started doing it as a shown of dominance for a country. That how Nim seem to have interpret it as anyway. -- Vauxford ( talk) 20:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This was never supposed to be the location where the photo was taken, but the market where the car was originally sold. I.e., this Soarer photographed in Canada is a JDM car. I absolutely agree that there is no benefit to knowing that a certain photo was taken in Chile, but it would be worthwhile to know that a Chevrolet Aska was originally sold in Chile since it may have had specific specifications.
Could we please start this discussion over, but stating that the country the car was intended for is what should be stated? And I agree that we do not need to write "Japan" for every photo of a JDM car, or "US" for every Chevrolet, but only where it would be of interest. The location of the photo would rarely be of interest beyond what someone could find out by simply clicking the image. Mr.choppers | ✎ 22:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)