Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Gasoline Direct Injection

Talk:Gasoline_direct_injection Since I'm forbidden from engaging in edit wars, what do you guys think about that article? Specifically under the "later systems" section, I see no reason why Ford should be given preferential treatment by including various concepts and test engines, which are already mentioned on Ford specific pages while other manufactures do not have any mention of concept vehicles and test engines. Keep in mind the other editor has:

  • tried to place a
    See also: Ford EcoBoost engine
    but settled for putting Ford EcoBoost engine under the see also section
  • failed to cite various Ford sources while adding cite tags on other manufactures engines
  • later placed verify tags on Toyota products
  • removed a valid Mercedes-Benz source, that has been readded since
  • didn't know what a twin-stroke engine was until another editor and then I told him, but still removes valuable information about Mitsubishi and VW products previous

69.65.224.246 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Where the cars and car parts

Many of the cars sold as being American are void of information about origin of the parts. Not just void, but gleaned of information about the content of the vehicles. Over and over. Gee, is it a conspiracy? --98.220.18.55 (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here. -93JC (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Subaru Alcyone SVX

Is there someone more familiar with this model and its performance (top speed), there was added reference for 154 mph but I cant find it from that page? And I dont think that car with 230 bhp and 1624 kg goes that fast... --Typ932 T·C 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrote to talk page needs better source --Typ932 T·C 08:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

flags /countries again

Someone has been adding flags again and even changed the country names http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.46.136.94 and what about Volkswagen is it right to have Hitler and Nazi flag there? --Typ932 T·C 08:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSFLAGICON, flags should not be used without good reason to do. I don't see the value of adding flags, and in many cases they are ambiguous: e.g. the Australian and NZ flags as a thumbnail look almost the same. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you asking us if we still agree that flags shouldn't be included or what? I agree with OSX, they're pretty much pointless. I would say that a country's name is much more recognizable than its flag.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I think the Volkswagen page needs to be trimmed down some. Could we remove the charts showing what countries vehicles have been released in?--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
He changed also the country names to some historic versions are they ok without flags? or what should be done just remove flags? --Typ932 T·C 09:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The flags definitely need to go. I'm not sure about changing the country names to what they were when the country was founded. That should probably go, too. For example, you wouldn't call a company founded in the United States before 1776 a British, French, or Spanish country. It would still be American.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I rollbacked/undid those articles, I think too that those country names should be as they are now, I would not call for example Alfa Romeo to be founded in Kingdom of Italy , it is just Italy --Typ932 T·C 09:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical tense for cars no longer in production

I'm not a regular contributor to this WikiProject so I apologize if I'm wasting anyone's time by bringing up something that considered general knowledge among the project's participants or if if this is something that may have already been discussed.

My question has to do with the tense used when speaking of vehicles that are no longer in production. I notice many articles within the scope of this project refer to such vehicles in the past tense, ie "The Lamborghini Diablo was a high-performance mid-engined sports car...". The Lamborghini Diablo still is all those things and specimens of the vehicle still exist so I'm not sure that it should be referred to in the past tense. Similarly, further in the article, a sentence states "The vehicle could reach 60 mph (97 km/h) in slightly under 4 seconds..." which I find may be misleading because, barring mechanical failure or degradation, the vehicle can still achieve those performance statistics today.

I'm not aware of a specific manual of style when it comes to WikiProject Automobiles but I borrow examples from WP:FILM (of which I am an active participant), WP:TV and WP:NOVELS: "Rain Man is a 1988 comedy-drama film...", "Happy Days is an American television sitcom that originally aired from 1974 to 1984..." and "The Grapes of Wrath is a novel published in 1939...". These examples are perfectly correct in naming their subject in the present tense while not disrupting the chronological context.

Could I get some input from the project's participants on the issue of whether present tense should be used when speaking of these vehicles?

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We have somekind of consensus to use present tense in car articles, those cars are still here they havent disappeared anywhere --Typ932 T·C 19:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Right. This should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions so it's official and there's a place to point new users to (sometimes I'll see IPs changing articles to past tense). --Sable232 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Date ranges for vehicles in production

WP:OTHERDATE is very clear that the form "2005–present" should not be used. It suggests that "2005–" is acceptable in infoboxes, but that "since 2005" is a better solution for both infoboxes and prose. It has been suggested to me that I should not implement changes to articles to comply with Wikipedia's manual of style. So, to be a good citizen I am letting members of this project know what I am doing to give you the chance to comment. In the meantime I would appreciate that my changes are not reverted and thus avoid descent into an edit war which is nobody's interest.

So, to be crystal clear, many car articles have "2005–present" to describe a car in current production. I am suggesting that "since 2005" should be used in infoboxes as this is compliant with the manual of style, however I can see that some may prefer "2005–" as an alternative for infoboxes (but obviously not for prose). Which is the preferred style change for this project's members? --Biker Biker (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Usually the shortest way is used to represent things in infoboxes, but "since" is not that long word, so I dont mind , but if we change to this style, we need to update all articles (lots of doing...), template documents, example articles and instructions --Typ932 T·C 20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I would be opposed to "since 2005" (in infoboxes) since it breaks with the format of vehicles not in production (1996-2004). I think "2005-" would do just fine. ("Since 2005," of course, is desirable for prose.)
Unless, of course, there is a convincing argument to make a formal exception to OTHERDATE to permit "2005-present" here. --Sable232 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm also opposed to using the word since. There's no way that would look right in our infoboxes, not to mention the huge amount of work it would be to change it over. I am also against omitting present from the date range. 2005- just looks incomplete to me.
Contrary to what Biker Biker said, nowhere does it say that 2005-present should not be used, only that "since 2005" is preferable. The idea behind the MOS is that information does not become obsolete. However, everyone in this project does a pretty good job of keeping articles up to date as far as new models/generations being released and we are in no danger of this. We've gone all this time without having any problems, let's not start dicking it up now.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"I just don't like it" doesn't cut it as an argument on Wikipedia. I don't think no-change is an option. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Read my second paragraph and the MOS again, please. Using "since 2005" or "2005-" is recommended, but NOT required.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think "since 2005" would work better than "2005–". Is it because we've been using "2005–present" for so long that you guys are afraid of change? After a few weeks you won't even notice the difference. We are better off to comply with a standard if it works well, even if it is only a recommendation. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't have a problem with change. As silly as it might sound, I don't feel that putting "since 2005" in the production line looks right/flows well with the way the infobox data is presented. Also, I feel that changing everything over to this would create a lot of unnecessary work for editors. To reiterate my earlier point, the purpose of the MOS is to ensure articles remain up to date, but we don't have to worry about that in our project because we keep current vehicle articles well up to date when it comes to new generations or being discontinued. Basically, I'm saying that we're talking about fixing something that isn't broke. Anyways, I've made my position clear, so I'll shut up and let others chime in. :)--Ridge Runner (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The purpose or MoS is also to ensure standardised formatting across the board. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The MOS states: "the form 1996– (with no date after the en-dash) ... is preferred in infoboxes." Meaning, we are not forced to use "since 2005" (rather, it appears we are encouraged otherwise), especially when "2005-" fits perfectly well with current formatting. --Sable232 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ridge Runner and Type932, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. the MOS isn't a commandment, and the articles as they are written are not contributiong to a widespread edit war because some editors think the date of production isn't in compliance with a suggested appearance (Regushee (talk))
If its not must to change It would be just hell lot easier to leave as its now, if we gonna change, it would mess articles for some time and would cause lots of jobs which isnt necessary. Im not so familiar with those MOS things.. Does it say 2005- (en-dash) should be preferred instead 2005-present ? now that way is used only in as 2009- (en-dash) (to meaning 2009-present, but as 2009 is present we have been using only dash )) --Typ932 T·C 05:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Lancia Flaminia

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Lancia Flaminia/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. I am letting you know as this project is listed on the article talk page. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fulfilling the expectations of this reviewer has proved a rather daunting task, especially given my limited time. I would MOST appreciate help in that area -> please click the link provided above for details. Thanks a lot, PrinceGloria (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Big edit on the Iso Rivolta page

i did a big edit for grammer, clarity, and general wikiness on the Iso Rivolta article, and wanted to point that out somewhere it would be seen for merciless criticism and re-editing, if anyone cares. Whozatmac (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Panther Cars UK

There are various errors on the pages about the make of British Panther cars. The main page is entitled Panther Westwinds and lists the various Panther cars. In particular the company went bust and was re-formed as The Panther Car Company Limited and it was this company that produced the Kallista and Solo models.

I believe the main page should be titled Panther Cars and then make reference to Panther Westwinds Limited and Panther Car Company Limited. Most of the information is very well known in Great Britain particularly to Panther car owners. The main reference is the book The Inside Story of the British Panther Car Company by Bruce Powell published in 1995.

I write as a Panther owner since 1977 with a very large collection of original Panther factory material on all the cars made. I also live a couple of miles from the various factory locations and have visited them.

I am happy to edit the pages as long as they don't get deleted because I have no track record on Wikipedia.

Many thanks vikla2 Vikla2 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No one can guarantee that things you write won't get "improved". But as long as you cite your sources, I imagine that any inputs you make will be improvements in their own right. There are unlikely to be too many people even looking at - far less editing - the Panther entry other than those with a genuine interest in and often some knowledge of the subject. In any case, the version incorporating your corrections doesn't ever get disappeared: merely, sometimes, overlayed. People can still go back through the history and access "your version". And where something is plain wrong, most readers will be >grateful for your corrections. There are cases where wrong information which appears to be correctly sourced can "trump" correct information which for some reason cannot be sourced. That leads to some interesting dilemmas, but there's nothing to stop you writing something along the lines of (as an example out of nowhere) "...sources differ as to whether the volume of cars produced between 1996 and 1999 was 450 or 650". Dilemmas triggered by incorrect information in sources are not sufficiently usual to stop you from wanting to try and correct things where you have the appropriate knowledge and (which you clearly do) feel strongly enough about it. Please do it: you'll feel better afterwards....and the quality of the wikipedia information will be enhanced which is good news for the rest of us. Renaming the entry might prove contentious if someone vehemently disagrees your logic and is something that can in any case be addressed using "redirect" pages from the two or three different possible names for the page. If I were you, I'd start by correcting/extending/improving the text. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Aptera 2 Series "List of notable preorders"

I usually spend my time dealing with motorcycle articles, so I'm inviting the Auto project members to take a look at this list of "Notable preorders." discussed here. IMHO it violates even the sub-minimal standard of WP:N for inclusion in a section, plus WP:Fancruft, WP:Trivia and the Auto projects WP:WPACT policy on pop culture. But then maybe I'm bad because I can't WP:AGF. I'm going to stay out of it now.--Dbratland (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, it's just trivia. Besides, the news articles are just relaying what the company have told them. There's no independent verification so I don't believe that the sources added can be considered as reliable despite them being in reliable publications. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

location of engine serial number on a BN6 motor for mark 1 3000 austin healey

Can anyone tell me where to look for the serial number of my engine please I have looked everywhere (apparently not) and cannot find it-please-JSW≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsweir (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Holden Statesman & 3RR

My apologies I think I may have just violated 3RR at Holden Statesman. There is a user, using a couple of unregisterred locations, who is trying to promote what seems to be an image of his own car onto the page repeatedly. It's not a good photo and looks very much like it was taken with their cell-phone camera. I originally came in helping USer:OSX who had already twice reverted this image. --Falcadore (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bentley Mulsanne

Hello. May I draw your attention on the Bentley Mulsanne. I originally made a merge proposal to merge the old Bentley Mulsanne article and a newly created article called Bentley Mulsanne 2011. The merge discussion was cut short when the article was split again and an article Bentley Mulsanne (1980-1992) was created. Bentley Mulsanne has been reduced to a kind of disambiguation article.

So my questions:

  • what is the policy of the projects towards cars which bear the same name ? My opinion was that since the original article was still quite short and the cars had the same name and were more or less covering the same segment, they should be in the same article.
  • what is the policy of the project towards putting dates in the names of the articles ?

Thanks for your attention. Hektor (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of those artilces are quite short so there is no need for own articles, the year at article names can be used if it is needed to differiate two same named cars. Should be Bentley Mulsanne (2011), if own article would be needed, the original Mulsanne does not need years, if its not produced before 1980. --Typ932 T·C 18:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Two problems I can see are that (a) the Bentley Mulsanne (1980-1992) was created by a copy/paste which broke the edit history still at Bentley Mulsanne, and (b) Bentley itself says the car will be released in 2010, so using the American model year in the article title is incorrect. --DeLarge (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Albany (English) replica of early automobile built in 1970's

I have one and I am asking for help with anyone who can tell me more about the car. Renaissance7760 (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Toyota Paseo

Overexposed, distracting shadows and aftermarket wheels.
Good lighting, no shadows and correct wheels.
The third suggestion, made here.
The fourth suggestion, made here.


Considering there is an edit war going on at Toyota Paseo over the main image, I thought we better solve this via consensus. Which is the better image per Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Images, the red or blue? OSX (talk • contributions) 05:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, the blue photo is definitely cleaner and has the factory wheels...should a compromise need be found, looking at the commons category [1] there seems to be a clean(er) red photo there with factory wheels, although it is not as clear as the blue one, it does show a bit more side profile: [2] Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Blue --Typ932 T·C 06:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Definitely SynergyStar's suggestion of the better red image. – Kieran T (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
How about this fourth image? Like the original red one with shadows (though I don't know how familiar anyone is with JDM wheels to know whether the car is stock), there are no other cars in the background. IFCAR (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge all automobile layouts into one article

Head over to Talk:Automobile layout/Archives/2015#Merge everything? to comment on the proposal. Zunaid 16:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible spamming by established editor

ArgentLA (talk · contribs) was mostly active between 2004 and 2006, but has recently added some edits which seem spammy to me. Usually I just revert and warn, but since the editor seems to have been constructive otherwise I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. The external links this user has added are all to ateupwithmotor.com: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. The site seems somewhat blog-ish and has some advertisements. I don't think it's something that needs to be linked to for every car article on Wikipedia. Thoughts? swaq 18:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems spamming to me established or not user --Typ932 T·C 20:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Perhaps the person has started this website; perhaps they've sold their computer... it doesn't matter. There's nothing wrong with the revert-and-warn approach. It should be kept civil of course, as it would with any user, new or not; and we should engage with the user in conversation in the talk pages if they respond to the warning, but basically spam is spam. – Kieran T (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it is definitely spam. If it isn't spam then it fails WP:ELNO on the very first of the list of criteria. The site has been added to a large number of articles (approx 50). The "en" link in the line below will let you see which articles so that anyone who cares can go remove them. Might be worth requesting its addition to the spam blacklist. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reported. swaq 22:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting some help with Volkswagen Jetta article

Good morning (or evening) all. Recently an unregistered editor has decided that the Volkswagen Jetta article is quite mediocre and tagged it with 6 problem banners at the top and downgraded its WP:CARS rating from B to C. As a regular contributor to the article, I'm kind of shocked that somebody would think it was so plagued with problems.

I'd like to get some opinions and/or contributions from here as to what's wrong with the article and whether it deserves the banners. Thanks!--Analogue Kid (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a well balanced article to me. The 'test and review' sections point out faults and criticisms. It mentions N.America but in a global context (and its hard to completely avoid the world's biggest car market). It's hardly lacking in citations (120 but some might be dead, see archive.org to resurrect them). I'd delete the tags. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Erm, how the heck can you say it is a 'well balanced article' - when it hardly mentions the European market - where dispite what some 'Americans' think, is sold in very large numbers in Europe! Futhermore, as raised on Jetta talk page, virtually ALL the citations are from the US (and fail to utilise the 'global' Volkswagen-Media-Services.com press site, and use the 'American-only' media.vw.com). The 'test and review' sections ONLY deal with comments from an American point of view, and NOT a global POV. The lead paragraphs are excellent, but the remainder of the article needs some very serious attention - as raised by the banners and on its talk page. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI future templates

This might intrest also someone in this project Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates as these are used on quite many car model articles --Typ932 T·C 19:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

List of auto parts PRODded

List of auto parts has been PRODded (i.e. a speedy deletion has been proposed). The proposer suggests that the relevant category (Category:Auto parts) is sufficient. If we care, the PROD can be removed, and then it's up to the proposer to take it forward for a full AfD (article for deletion) discussion, or not.

Personally I've tried to improve the list a little bit in the past, but I wouldn't mind much if it went. The best function it serves is to be a single place where one can see that a boot is a trunk and a hood is a bonnet, etc. This is a not insignificant benefit (the alternative "varieties of English" articles being a bit off the beaten track for a reader interested in cars) but that said, it could still be handled better elsewhere.

Frankly, many of the articles this list links to are highly dubious anyway. I can't really take armrest very seriously (although again, I and a couple of other editors from around here have tried to improve and formalise it in the past).

Anyway, have a look and see if you want to champion its preservation or whatever! – Kieran T (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And a fractionally bigger issue this brings up...

I noticed that not all of the articles in the list are also in the category, so was about to add the category to them in case the list is deleted. But then I found that in fact some of them were in another category: Category:Vehicle parts (the parent of the former). We need to work out whether we want to have some articles in both — for example those parts that are common to aeroplanes as well as "autos" (whatever they are! Automobiles? Then it should be renamed to say so without an abbreviation, surely.) Or, do we not need two categories at all? – Kieran T (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI auto templates for deletion

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Auto_PS --Typ932 T·C 08:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this has now escalated into the deletion of ALL auto conversion templates, except those governing fuel economy and the conversion of litres to cubic inches. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting one consequence of these templates being deleted - the effect on this project's use of unformatted numbers for units of measure. {{auto in|54}} produces "54 in (1,372 mm)" with no commas. The equivalent {{convert|54|in|mm|1|abbr=on}} produces "54 in (1,371.6 mm)" with commas. I'm pretty certain that there isn't a number formatting equivalent in {{convert}}. So, if the auto templates are to be deleted, which I support for the sake of simplicity, should this project revisit the subject of number formatting? What is so bad about formatted numbers as used in the rest of Wikipedia? --Biker Biker (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already removed that convention from Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions for the same reason. There was from memory a weak consensus to remove the convention last year some time. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Here it is: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_18#Convert_template_and_conventions. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Nice. Thanks so much for the clarification, I hadn't realised that common sense had prevailed! --Biker Biker (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Grrr. I don't know how I missed this.--Ridge Runner (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

infoboxes and {{clear}}

Many of automobile articles has a short introduction, a loooong infobox on the right and then the table of contents. Without fancy formatting, the infobox protrudes down into the first section and pushes images and other infoboxes down - generally making it hard to see which image/infobox goes with which section. Alternatively, we can add {{clear}} after the intro and we get a huge blank area with the top of the table of contents starting just below the bottom of the infobox. Is there any way to get the table of contents to use the blank area next to the infobox without the infobox protruding into first section? Stepho-wrs (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried using _TOC_ (or _FORCETOC_), I can't remember right now) with the clear tag below it? --Sable232 (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
See Toyota Matrix.--Ridge Runner (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, __TOC__ {{clear}} works nicely. Now I can neaten up the intro sections of a few pages (eg Toyota Hiace, which needs plenty of work on other stuff too). Stepho-wrs (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Monthly sales/production figures

A couple weeks ago I reverted the addition of monthly sales figures to Lincoln MKS in part because they were unsourced but also because I felt that monthly figures are excessive detail. It was just now reverted by what I presume is the IP belonging to the user who added them. I'd like to hear what the rest of the project has to say about this. A lot of articles have annual sales figures but I think monthly ones are crossing the line. --Sable232 (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, monthly is too detailed. Year is just right. The only uses I can see for monthly figures is to see the result of external events (eg 2009 financial crisis) or seasonal data (convertibles bought during summer?) but these seem a bit marginal. Stepho-wrs (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I could see it used if you're doing a piece on convertibles & comparing sales against closed cars in winter/summer, or dealing with usage rates of custom cars (only driven in summer), or something; otherwise, really not. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 13:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Torque converter?

I'm seeing the {{convert|CID|cc}} template in use in several places, & it's producing peculiar (to me, at least) results, where only cc is abbrev; is there a way to use it to render ci=liters? I don't mean {{convert|CID|l}}, either; I mean both ci/cc abbrev, or neither. If not, maybe somebody can work up a Project-specific converter that will do it? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 13:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

{{convert|289|CID|cc|abbr=on}} produces 289 cu in (4,740 cc) and {{convert|289|CID|L|abbr=on}} 289 cu in (4.74 L), so what do you mean? anyway you can ask new features in template:convert talk page --Typ932 T·C 17:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
What's this have to do with a torque converter?--Ridge Runner (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kia Forte

I have just added the Kia Forte to WikiProject:Automobiles, and I would like to build out and make improvements to the article. Kia is a client of my employer; when making edits to the article, I will carefully follow WP:NOR, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT as well as WP:COI, while always keeping WP:PAID in mind. I would like editors to monitor my changes to the article, and review any work conducted on the page to make sure they are in line with Wikipedia’s standards.

My first order of business will be to better organize the page (in line with the other Good and Featured Articles cited on WP:AUTOS), including creating a header, a contents, and a body section. I will also ensure that any and all information is cited with credible, third-party, published sources, as well as remove any language in violation of WP:NPOV.

Please feel free to follow my edits and let me know if you have any questions. Nanorlb (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of external links are wrongly used as a kind of reference, but at the end of the day they help our readers. So I've been a bit sad to see a swathe of British car articles losing "www.austin-rover.co.uk" as one user has been cleaning up such links. I've asked his opinion about putting it back in better referenced form, and the response is here. So, a load of work has been created for us. But these articles are now appearing to be unreferenced, so we should have a crack at it. Those of you with an interest will probably have seen them dominating your watchlists over the last few days so I won't link them all here, but affected are most BL/BMC models. – Kieran T (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It was me who unapologetically removed a whole swathe of links which do not comply with WP:ELNO. Not one of those links was used as a reference. They were all added in the external links section. If the site you specifically mention is indeed a reliable source, and I don't think it is (but would welcome the opinion of people here), then cite specific pages/articles from the site as inline reference in the article so that people can read further. Making Wikipedia a true encyclopaedia is more than just dumping a load of links at the bottom of an article, it's about doing research and properly citing that research, so this is going to be a worthwhile effort. It is also worth looking at Google Books, which contains a wealth of car-related books - many of which allow you to see large sections of the content if you click "Advanced Search" and then select "Limited preview and full view". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biker Biker (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 September 2009
Generally (except the non-reliability of that site) agreed. The point I think you've missed is that just because the article wasn't cited in-line, and the link was dumped in the external links section, it was nevertheless the major point of reference, and would be best suited to a general bibliography/further reading references section than an in-line one or the external links section. See Wikipedia:CITE#General reference. – Kieran T (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I would be very sceptical of any general references, which I accept can be a good approach on some articles, were to be taken from websites. There are definitely some good online resources that have been produced by enthusiasts and I have cited them myself (see BMW R1100GS and BMW R80G/S which are articles that I have started) but I have only ever used them for specific points, not as general references. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's be specific... have you had a look at the site in question? Certainly it contains lots of opinion – as do most printed books – but it also has lots of verifiable, original source material (such as brochures and factory photographs) and contributions from people who actually worked on the cars in question either in the design, manufacturing, or sales industries, and content/research support from a variety of museums and even manufacturers. Short of Graham Robson's excellent books on BMC and Rootes, or a trip to the archive at BMIHT, it's one of the best points of reference in this field that I know of! I understand why one might doubt it just because it's in the form of a website but feel that in this case those fears are too general. (And just to allay any concerns, I have no affiliation with this site or it's people or sponsors, at all.) – Kieran T (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Owners clubs in the external links section of an article

Some of the work I have been doing to cleanup external links in the past few days has upset a couple of people - especially on the subject of owners clubs. One point that was made, which I do recognise, is that for cars which are no longer in production the owners club is now one of the few recognised authority on the particular model or marque other than what exists in print. If this is the case then I would say that the club itself is notable and should be the subject of a Wikipedia article - which could then be linked from any articles relating the marque/model. This has been done in the motorcycle articles, for example, with Harley Owners Group and BMW Motorcycle Owners of America.

I would therefore like to propose that no club be placed in external links, and that only clubs which have their own Wikipedia articles be mentioned at all. What do others think? --Biker Biker (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Previously the unwritten understanding is that, per WP:ELYES #3, an owners' site that includes technical data and other information beyond the scope of the article is desirable. A "club" that consists strictly of a forum isn't allowed, but a website (whether it calls itself a club or not) offering detailed information on the car should certainly be allowed. Purging everything from the external links would be harmful. --Sable232 (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've looked at WP:ELNO and I can't really see why owners club links should not be acceptable and they do often provide a source of information, normally authoratitive and particularly a number of photos that we can't use in the articles because we don't have copyright release. I think that unless there is a good case to the contrary, the links to major owners club should go back - this does not mean all links, as the ones to local groups of major national or international clubs can often be close to spamming. There is also a problem in limiting links to clubs that have there own articles. Last year (I think) quite a number of club articles were deleted as being non notable and I see that currently the MG Car Club, for one, is still tagged for importance which can be stage one of the deletion process. Until the criteria for a clubs inclusion are settled it could be a waste of time writing articles only to see them deleted. Malcolma (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Clubs which are not notable e.g. which are just owners clubs, which are not de facto authorities on the vehicle or marque, will fail on the very first criteria of WP:ELNO – they don't add anything which would be in the article if it were to reach featured article standard. Any club which is notable enough to have such information is surely worthy of an article in its own right and so would be mentioned in the body of the article. (Which is of course me going over previous ground). As to your comments about articles being deleted, I just took a look at MG Car Club and it certainly looks notable. With a little work the article could be improved, the problem tags removed, and it could become a model on which other car club articles could be based. I can't see why members of this project shouldn't work to protect from deletion any articles created about car clubs which are notable. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
"Clubs which are not notable e.g. which are just owners clubs, which are not de facto authorities on the vehicle or marque, will fail on the very first criteria of WP:ELNO – they don't add anything which would be in the article if it were to reach featured article standard."
That's a non sequitur. Any source might hold some nugget that justifies itself under WP:EL. If it does so, then it's justifable as a WP:EL. WP:Policy already covers us perfectly well for this.
That argument is also edging back to a recent canard of using non-EL policies in relation to ELs, which has no justification.
ELs have to meet WP:EL, they don't have to meet WP:RS.
Equally ELs have to meet WP:EL, they don't have to meet WP:N.
Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirects with funny names

FYI: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_19#Fix_it_again_Tony , add your comments and opinions there, do we need this kind of redirects? --Typ932 T·C 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi all

Hi,I'm new to wikipedia.I'm an automobile engineer and have various books on Automobile Engineering with me.Shall i create/edit articles using informations from those books?? I mean I will not reproduce texts as it is in book ,but will write the concept in my own words.The concept would be the same,but I would put it in my words.Should I enter the name of book in reference?? Does it violate any copyright? Just clarify me!Hope you all wikipedians help me! Vatsan34 (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Vatsan34

Hi you can use those as reference, borrow some sentences straight but mostly you should use your own words. Some help here Wikipedia:Copy-paste --Typ932 T·C 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome! To add, the books you cite can listed using Template:Cite book and <ref><ref/> tags for the page numbers. See WP:FOOT for more detailed info. SynergyStar (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear - never, ever 'borrow sentences straight' from your sources. Always re-write in your own words. Copyright violation is a serious matter, and although sometimes there is only one way to say things, it is dangerous for Wikipedia as a whole if you cut and paste even short snippets into the encyclopedia. 4u1e (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
have you some source that says you cant make quotes with mention of the source? I would like to read that info --Typ932 T·C 20:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You're right - with the exception of fully sourced quotes. Apologies I wasn't clear on that, but equally it wasn't at all clear that was what you meant, 932. 4u1e (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

People

Should auto inventors, designers, engineers etc have this project banner added to their talk page? Qzm (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely.--Ridge Runner (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sad article needs dedicated editor

The article for Cadillac Cimarron needs a total rewrite. It has to be one of the worst vehicle articles I've ever read to go along with what a terrible car is was. If anyone wants a challenge try reworking this bad boy back into a decent article. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 02:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a sad little car that should have never been built. It demonstrates the practice of badge engineering so well and serves as a reminder why the American auto industry is struggling with its much deserved reputation it currently has. (Regushee (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

can someone give an outside opinion on a minor dispute?

Subaru Impreza WRX STI

Subaru has recently made available the Subaru WRX STI A-Line - a model that is currently only available in Japan and has an automatic gearbox. So, I added 5 speed semi-automatic to the list of available transmissions - which promptly got removed by an editor who claimed there was no such option.

There were a few reverts and a little drama, in the end I found some sources and that seemed to solve the issue.

Until about a week later when the same editor decided that the A-line was a special variant and as such "didn't count", removing the 5 speed semi-auto from the list of transmissions.

I don't see this as a special variant, it is not limited edition, it just happens to be a model only available in Japan - it is like saying the ZR1 isn't a Corvette because it is a special variant - when in fact it is a Corvette ZR1.

Can some fellow car fans take a look at the article and give some input please? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap that article desperately needs to be split up! I'm not sure whether it should be included or not (probably should), but there's no such thing as a "semi-automatic" transmission. It's either automatic or manual.--Ridge Runner (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Im not sure but it seems to be automatic with paddles in steering wheel?, anyway it can be listed in infobox as its official model, but it should be mentioned in article that its only available in certain countries (Japan) or in paranthesis in box --Typ932 T·C 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You're correct, it's an automatic with paddle shifters.--Ridge Runner (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Ridge Runner, you might want to nominate Semi-automatic transmission for deletion then! ;-) – Kieran T (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, Kieran T; I nominated it for deletion. Just kidding. ;) I stand corrected, I thought that all paddle shift cars were just a standard automatic that shifted at the driver's command. Thanks for showing me that.--Ridge Runner (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That article could be deleted or merged... there is huge mess with those gearbox articles see also "Electrohydraulic manual transmission" which is about same... --Typ932 T·C 00:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas, Inc article

Just did a re-write (this time with citations) of the Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas article. Assistance, critique and commentary are appreciated. Sahrin (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a balanced article with good citations. I removed some double spacing between paragraphs. The automobile project normally uses calendar years (we have an international audience and the US model year is a source of misunderstanding to the rest of the world), so the production section will need changing into calendar years. We could do this as a table with columns labelled 'Calendar year' and 'Models'. The citations would be better using {{cite}} (the wikicite program is good for this). I'm not keen on the 'City of San Antonio' banner because a case could be made for putting heaps of similar banners on every page and clutter things up. A link to San Antonio somewhere in the lead does the job just as well with less clutter. NUMMI needs to be linked. Excellent job. Stepho-wrs (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Kohl Automobile article

Could someone from the Project possibly look at the above article with an aim to improving the references for it?

My attention was drawn to it by a question on the Help Desk. However, I can find no references to this automobile online, despite an extensive search of Google News Search and Google Web Search, as well as the Wilkes-Barre Record Almanacs] on Ancestry.

If anyone here has knowledge of cars produced 1900-1902 (especially in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania) - particularly if you have access to local newspapers and/or local books, which here in the UK I don't have! - I would be grateful if you would see if you can improve this article.

I know nothing about cars (apart from the fact that most have 4 wheels, etc) - so I think that this article would benefit from some expert help!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The only Kohl mentioned in the comprehensive Beaulieu Encyclopedia (it runs to 1800 pages) was made in Cleveland, Ohio between 1900 and 1902 by an Edward Kohl. The company was registered as Kohl & Gates. They then moved to Whitney Point, New York as the Kohl Automobile Co for a year, made no more cars and vanished. At least 12 cars were made, all in Cleveland with single cylinder engines. Malcolma (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for such a quick response! Although the location is different, the other details tie in with what is mentioned in the article. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I can readily access the encyclopedia (my local library doesn't have it, it costs over £400 on Amazon, or over £70 on ebay!) - if you have access to the encyclopedia, could you please add the details to the article - in case you need it, here is the citation you would use for the Oct 2000 version (obviously, if you use a different edition, then the edition/publisher/isbn/url will need to be amended): <ref>{{cite book|last=Georgano|first=Nick|title=Beaulieu Encyclopedia of the Automobile: Volume 1: A-L|publisher=Routledge|date=October 2000|edition=1st|isbn=978-1579582937 |url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beaulieu-Encyclopedia-Automobile-Nick-Georgano/dp/1579582931/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250935665&sr=1-1|accessdate=22 August 2009|language=English}}</ref> which would give "^ Georgano, Nick (October 2000) (in English). Beaulieu Encyclopedia of the Automobile: Volume 1: A-L (1st ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1579582937. Retrieved 22 August 2009."
Thanks, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I would do if I was certain that it is the same company. All the locations are different as is the company name. There is no mention of a fire in the Beaulieu Encyclopedia (yes I have a copy). Malcolma (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The creator of the article has added further information (according to that, Frank F. Matheson and Charles W. Matheson (of Matheson Automobile) obtained the staff and the surviving manufacturing equipment from Kohl Automobile.[2]. They relocated the business from Holyoke, Massachusetts to a neighborhood town of Forty Fort, Pennsylvania.) - I have no idea of the accuracy of this, as the cited reference doesn't mention Kohl Automobile, the fire, or the transfer of staff/equipment. To be honest, if I was to read the source, I would not connect it with the rest of the article (apart from the fact that the source mentions Wilkes-Barre, but in 1905). If no one here can find the connection, then I will remove the information from the Kohl Automobile article, as the citation given does not link the two. Anyone able to help? Thanks, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll be doing a bit of research off-line on both Kohl and Matheson - but as I'm in the UK (in the outskirts of London), then I'm not very hopeful! If I find anything useful, I'll update the article(s) later in the week (or next week, depending on time!) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I checked the resources I had at the main library in Croydon and found nothing. I found a bit about Matheson (and a couple of others that led to), but nowhere mentions Kohl at all. Incidently, the books I referred to were The Complete Encyclopedia of Motor Cars: 1885 to the present edited by G.N. Georgano (1982); Vintage Cars 1886 to 1930 by G.N. Georgano (1997); Encyclopedia of Cars edited by Chris Horton (1990); The World Guide to Automobiles - The Makers and their Marques by Nick Baldwin, G.N. Georgano, Michael Sedgwick and Brian Laban (1987). The original creator has indicated that they will not be working on it any further, as the notes from their Grandad (I think it was) that he was using have had interest shown in them for possible publication! I've done my bit, I think! Thank you for the comments. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the statement about Matheson, as this is not verified by the cited source which doesn't mention Kohl. I have also proposed it for deletion as non-notable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I have checked the Matheson link. The "Standard Catalogue of American Cars", edited by Beverly Rae Kimes and Henry Austin Clark, jr., of which I have the 2nd edition from 1985,lists a Matheson car, built by the above mentioned gentlemen, as follows: MATHESON - Grand Rapids, Michigan (1903)/Holyoke , Massachusetts (1904-1905)/Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (1906-12). There is aleady a wikipedia article Matheson (automobile) but this needs attention, too. Following that source, the Mathesons didn't buy the Kohl factory but the Holyoke Motor Works. It's an interesting story worth some investigating but without relevance to the Kohl question. My encyclopedia confirms what has been written about the Kohl & Gable company and further mentions a John Kohl carriage & Automobile Co. from Mason, Ohio, in 1912. Production is doubted. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fiat S74 fans? Article rescue help..

I came upon a horribly written article, Fiat S74. If there is any way to salvage the article, please do so. (I won't be watching this project, hit up my talk page if you have questions). tedder (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Pretty obvious hoax, 20 liter engines? Maybe in a Fiat freight train. --Leivick (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There was such car but the engine is 14,2 litres http://www.italiaspeed.com/2006/events/goodwood/historic_fiat_itala/1707.html --Typ932 T·C 08:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I going to go ahead and stub the article, using the link you provided as a source. --Leivick (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As Fiat (and other manufacturers) built several of these monsters, the facts here look correct. I will see where I can find confirmations and additional references. Another candidate about this subject is Fiat Mefistofele. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief tin cloud (talk • contribs) 12:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

The section on the Ultramatic pushbutton control appears to be a literatim copy of Flory, American Cars 1946-1959 {Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Coy, 2008}, p.1020. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the book, so I can't comment on the copyright status. But feel free to rewrite it in your own words with a reference to that book.  Stepho  (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I am a Packard aficionado for over 30 years, and owning a Packard with Push Button Twin Ultramatic I gladly offer my assistance if needed. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

UMW Toyota Motor (Malaysia)

Can somebody suggest where UMW Toyota Motor (Malaysia) be merged to, if not what shall I do with this article as I can't see anything notable about it as all it is is nothing but promotional tit-tats and a high CSD candidate, only that it has a offical Toyota name to it. Donnie Park (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hard to say, but I think the Toyota assembly part could be merged to main Toyota article, rest content Im not sure what to do... --Typ932 T·C 18:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Cole Motor Car Company: Article's historic focus collides with Indiana landmark theme

I spent much time to improve an existing article on the Cole Motor Car Company. When I began, there were very few facts about it's history which I widely extended, covering almost every model they produced (information I got about some of the eldest is spearse). Unfortunately, I was not aware that the main focus on this article was on the former Cole manufacturing buildings, which seem to be of importance as an Indiana landscape monument. It was absolutely not my intention to damage that article. My questions: What can be done to solve the Cole history article AND the landmark article? The ladder is linkedto several sites and I ant to avoid more damage. For the same reason I didn't remove any facts about the landscape theme. Is it appropriate that the landmark article is exactly titled like the company's name was (that fact led me to write my article there), not referring that the building is meant and not the company? I hope that the landmark article and my work are saveable. Surely, the ladder would improve by additional pictures that I can't supply --Chief tin cloud (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think both data can be in same article, but another infobox for the carmaker would be needed. I would put the manufacturing company in the first place here and historical buildings to second as the article title says... --Typ932 T·C 18:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. Meantime, I re-arranged chapters and put the building chapter at the end. Further I added a small info box. The article is still needing pictures and the make's logo, and the info box is the best I could do as I have little knowledge and no experience. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Renaming articles with "car" in their title to "automobile"

I am proposing that we rename articles with "car" in their title to "automobile". For example, List of cars ---> List of automobiles; Car body style ---> Automobile body style; Car classification ---> Automobile classification; et cetera. This is inline with our recent decision to retain the name "automobile" for the article of the same name OSX (talk • contributions) 04:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. --Typ932 T·C 06:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good idea, but with a need for some pragmatism. Would you, for example, rename Formula One car, Sports car or Police car? I hope not. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Formula One car: No; Sports car: No; or Police car: Yes. Things like mid-size car et cetera would also remain the same because these are official EPA classifications. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Good point there... we should make some list maybe? --Typ932 T·C 18:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Demonstrating how thoroughly subjective these are, in the list 2 comments above I'd say adamantly the opposite for "police car" but not necessarily for the others! This is better left alone, or it'll come down to a meaningless argument about Google hits. The two terms are so nearly synonymous it hardly matters anyway, so on balance, why upset the apple cart? There are better things to work on. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
It's done for uniformity. We had a discussion to retain the "automobile" name for the automobile article, so why have conflicting terms? Only in a few cases should the name "car" be used, which is "less formal" word. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Uniformity is good, but we must not (under Wikipedia conventions) create neologisms. Kit automobile strikes me as absolutely crazy. "Kit car" is the phrase, as evinced by the phrase used throughout the article. This one should be reverted. I'd agree with the above comments on "police car" too but that one may be a cultural (US/UK) difference. Kit car just isn't. Try Googling the two, for what little that's worth. The resounding absence of "kit automobile" makes the point. – Kieran T (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A desire for WP uniformity shouldn't by default trump WP:COMMONNAME. Within a set of parallel articles, parallel names make sense. But searching out substantially unrelated articles and forcing them into the pattern is overkill. Was this wide-ranging action mentioned at WP:REQMOVE? Even for a well-publicized discussion there, a week is standard length. How did we get from "we should make some list maybe" and then suddenly a lot of changes with no list or further comment? DMacks (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
At first I agreed with this, but after seeing some of the names that would be changed and reading the 2 comments above mine, I oppose the change.--Ridge Runner (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems this needs more discussion, but I wonder when couple of reverters (and active editors) are very keen to articles concerning automobiles and editing automobile related articles very often they arent reading this project discussion at all...just saying undiscussed move --Typ932 T·C 07:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding 'undiscussed move', if you aren't already aware of this discussion, a page move will come 'out of the blue', and is likely to result in a knee-jerk 'suspect vandalism' response, isn't it?. It would be polite to alert editors on the talk pages concerned that a move proposal is under way, and give them a decent chance to respond. Remember that you don't have to be involved in this project to edit an article relating to cars. It would perhaps help if there were a list of the proposed changes to review.
There are US/UK differences to consider, for example steam car would be conventional British English use, vs steam automobile (presumably) for US English, and the article has been happily called steam car for five years without causing any offence. There is a convention that text is not changed between British/US usage under normal circumstances. Should this not apply to article titles too? A blanket change such as has been proposed may result in many incorrectly-named articles. Also, simply searching for terms to compare eg steam car vs steam automobile may end up with US-English bias due to the larger US population and web presence. We should be looking for neutral terms where possible (which could be tricky), chosen by world-wide geographical spread of usage (which would be fairer), rather than frequency.
EdJogg (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
"Uniformity is good"
I'd actually put it the other way: an enforced uniformity is generally a bad thing, placing arbitrary "uniform" names over those that had already emerged by evolution through policy and consensus. Uniform policies on new names are good, as is a clear understanding of best practice in choosing names for new articles (and let's not underestimate the complexity of this). Once names have emerged, some may require individual improvement, as necessary.
The "one-size fits all" approach in globally renaming though is almost never right. Why would it be? What's the advantage to be gained by consistency? We use categorization for grouping, not pattern matches over the names. The ways in which we use names don't require us to enforce consistency, so why should we?
Article names are independent of other articles. Our policies and guidelines exist to get the best names onto each article, not to make them match. If "foo (automobile)" is a better name than "foo (car)", then the article would rename itself to that naturally, no matter what the nearby articles were called. I'm happy enough with steam automobile rather than steam car because my understanding is that most of these were from the auto-naming country, not the car-naming country - even though I've personally always called them steam cars myself. Conversely kit cars - kit automobile is the worst sort of wiki-generated neologism (and we surely do an awful lot of that, especially for categorization at Commons). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

All right guys, after three years of work here on Wikipedia my time is over. To be honest, I can't really fathom that after the amount of work I've done here, I am being vilified based on one bad decision. I apologise, I admit I underestimated the controversy that would surround these edits. But... these were done in good faith.

Now to a more positive note, most of the higher-profile editors at WikiProject Automobiles are really nice to work with; yes there are disputes, but these are mostly done with civility and without the slanderous tone of the current dialogue. To point the finger, I have no hesitation to name the user of the current discussion that has most influenced my decision: User:Andy Dingley.

Editing here should be something we enjoy doing; why should I do something that I don't enjoy, especially considering it's all work that I volunteered for?

So let this be a lesson: if you annoy people enough, most will feel little reluctance to leave the project. Thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear OSX, I'm sincerely sorry that you've taken this so much to heart. No one wants that, certainly I don't. No-one benefits from a witch hunt, there's no virtue in driving away contributing editors.
I didn't like the page moves you made, but I'm sure your intentions in doing them were for the best. Clearly everything would have worked better if they hadn't been so much of a surprise. Projects aren't as visible as we might wish, there are lots of editors (myself included) who have a peripheral overlap with a few of the pages in a project but not enough to really take continuous note of the overall project. EdJogg and I probably pay more attention to the "steam" in steam car than the "car".
If you'd accept an apology, then please, accept this as one. I over-reacted to an edit rather than an editor. Usually that's a good policy, but editors have feelings too and we should remember that. I forgot. Sorry. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame to see OSX overreacting by "retiring", he's made lots of good edits. The ironic thing is, I believe he's from Australia, not the US, so the "US-centric" argument to revert was moot. But no, we cannot do a mass rename of "car" to "automobile" in article titles. It may mean any four-wheel passenger vehicle that's not a truck or SUV in one country, but it can mean any four-wheel passenger vehicle in another. At the very least, the UK car articles should be left alone for that reason. I hate to say it, but the renaming may have to be agreed on for each individual article. You could start with the most general ones like List of cars, and ask, does this article feature vehicles in a country which uses "automobile", or if it features vehicles worldwide, can everyone agree on a term which makes the most sense? --Vossanova o< 16:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Time for WP:TEA methinks... --Biker Biker (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, a message to OSX, if you would reconsider, as your input and dedication is truly valued. We all could benefit from being more considerate of each others' feelings. Considering how contentious disputes have cost this project a number of good editors, perhaps we could adopt a 'respectful dialogue' recommendation towards one another. A little politeness goes a long way. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that OSX is leaving, he has been one of the key editors in this project also at commons --Typ932 T·C 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
So, is anything happening with this? I just looked in after a couple of weeks away and, great editor though he was, some of the page moves were very misguided. --DeLarge (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I've undone three of the most obvious ones, but there's plenty more where the "...car" title is the more common (using Google) by orders of magnitude. There's also the WP:ENGVAR issue; if the article was begun and/or expanded beyond stub status by editors who used "car", then I think we're obliged to shift it back. It might just be simpler to do as a mass revert of everything. --DeLarge (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed on the mass revert.--Ridge Runner (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I was about to do a revert, but noticed OSX is back. Are we still reverting or do we want to talk about this some more?--Ridge Runner (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since no one's responded, I'm going through with the previous plans of reverting.--Ridge Runner (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Volkswagen Polo (and others)

I was alerted by another user to some changes made to the articles of several Mitsubishi Motors vehicles recently by an anonymous editor who seems to know their way around, IP:79.69.31.179. I didn't see any of the edits being beneficial (a common theme was to add a second image to the infobox showing the rear of the car), and several were factually incorrect, so between the two of us they were all reverted. I then had a quick glance at the user's edit history, and some very major changes have been made, including merging all the generations of the Volkswagen Polo into a single, enormous article. The IP's talk page has a message requesting clarification for these WP:SIZE-violating edits.

I don't know if this user is connected to User:Teutonic Tamer, aka IP:78.32.143.113, who has previously edited mostly VW Group-related pages? Not that it really matters, but I wondered if others believe the changes should be reverted? Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I've just noticed that as a different anonymous user from the same ISP, IP:79.69.5.140, a similar blanket redirect was made to Mitsubishi Mirage, and edits made to Mitsubishi Colt. I'm tempted to maybe undo that, given the car's history in Japan (according to official MMC documentation, the Mirage's successor was the Lancer Cedia, and the new Colt is a step down in class). More opinions here would be appreciated. --DeLarge (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

the Polo article is way too big , should be splitted --Typ932 T·C 11:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, given that, the fairly clear guidelines at WP:SIZE (justified by the lengthy load times I got when I edited the page), and User:Letdorf's comment on the IP's userpage which indicated unhappiness at the edit and the size of the reulting article, I've boldly reverted the boldness [sic] for now. It'd be nice to see some discussion on the matter at Talk:Volkswagen Polo in future, I think... -DeLarge (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(resetting indent) FYI, I'm pretty sure I remember a big hoo-hah about this several years ago when there were several articles, all of which muddled around the Polo as a whole before detailing one of the "marks". The merger, if I remember rightly, was to keep the details "in synch". I've not dug around in the logs to illustrate that because this is a flying visit from free wifi ;) But whatever happened in the past, perhaps if it's too long we should consider whether all the info is actually encyclopædic, rather than splitting it apart? – Kieran T (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the merged article (apart from the Trivia section) seems reasonably encyclopedic to me. I left a comment on the IP's talk page as I like to see at least some discussion before major merges/splits like this are done. By the way, is having two photos showing front and rear three-quarter views such a bad idea? Letdorf (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC).

Garrett AiResearch/Honeywell and turbochargers

I have added a template for WikiProject Automobiles to the Garrett AiResearch article because Garrett played a very important role in the development of automotive turbochargers. I know something about Garrett AiResearch but very little about turbochargers, so I leave to others any further additions to the Garrett AiResearch or Honeywell articles related to turbochargers. But I also note that the WP article on Turbochargers hardly conveys the extent of their use in the automotive industry (and doesn't mention Garrett or other major producers of automotive turbos such as BorgWarner).--Mack2 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

requested move of article - twin-clutch gearbox

A request for someone to move the existing article Twin-clutch gearbox back to an iteration of its original article title of Dual Clutch Transmission. This article was created 4 September 2005, under the article name of Dual-clutch gearbox (initially as a redirect, but then with appropriate text). But then in 20 April 2006, it was moved to 'Twin-clutch Gearbox' (and subsequently corrected with lower-case lettering - the talk page shows this history better). However - the term 'twin-clutch' is NOT widely used in the formal sence - 'twin-clutch' is actally just part of the trade name of the Mitsubishi-only transmission - Twin Clutch SST. The formal and 'generic' name used is actually Dual Clutch Transmission (or dual clutch transmission), abbreviated to DCT - as is supported here: http://www.dctfacts.com/ and here: http://www.zf.com/corporate/en/products/innovations/7_speed_dualclutch/7_speed_dualclutch.html. My second comment is that the two clutches used in these transmissions are not actually 'twins' - they simply have two clutches, and dual is massively more appropriate than twin. This article should really be reverted back to a more appropriate 'generic' term - I don't mind either way if they are capitalised, but it should NOT be hyphenated - so dual clutch transmission would also be entirely acceptable. Comments/discussion please. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree, so under WP:BOLD it is now moved to Dual clutch transmission. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow - many thanks for your promt action! :-) 78.32.143.113 (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DSG trannies

Like most VW/Audi pages on wikipdia, the VW Direct-Shift Gearbox page is full of blatant spam and endless propaganda. I'm not sure if VW employees people to promote their products here or if VW fanboys just do it for free and can't control their biases.

Regardless I feel certain issues need to be addressed under the DSG advantages and disadvantages section. Terms like "Extremely fast" are inappropriate. And mainly the quoted shift times (corrected by me to upshift times as downshifts have to rev match which adds time). The DSG quoted upshift times are from sources directly parroting off VW literature. Autozine does little more than rewrite press materials and journalist reviews to suit the webmaster's point of view.

Other manufactures like Mercedes quote ideal upshift times of 100ms for their dual clutch transmissions, Nissan did not include a shift time in the GTR's press materials but when asked they estimated upshift times of 200ms. These are over 12 and 25 times what the VW specific DSG article falsely asserts. I'm only aware of a single magazine that bothered to test shift times, Modified Mag, and the DSG GTI needed 400 ms to upshift a far cry from 8 ms, the DSG is indeed fast but not 25 times faster than other transmission types. [3]

This needs to be corrected as the VW propaganda has no purpose other than to create a massive competitive advantage that does not exist. I posted this discussion here instead of the main page for greater and less biased comments. Dabbaman (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Have at it! swaq 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree --Typ932 T·C 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_21&oldid=1136417413"