Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

I have the Yugo up for peer review, and I would like to see people contribute to it. It is here Karrmann 00:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

On the 22 June a large piece of text has been added to the Kit car article by 139.11.40.132. This appears to be a "translation" of the German Wikipedia entry. The trouble is it is not a good translation and is very hard to understand. I am not sure what to do about it. I seems we have several options:

• Simplest is to delete it. It is frankly, so hard to understand I am not sure what it adds.
• Retranslate it. My German is not good enough (and that's am overstatement of my ability)
• Heavily copy edit it with some guess work as to what is meant. This is possible but time consuming.

Any ideas? Malcolma 08:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A temporary solution would be to move this to the talk page for further Bearbeitung :D This fragment seems to be taken straight from some essay written for some other place, and was dumped into the German Wikipedia by the same URL. It is so full of POV and unnecessary opinions and evaluations. It reads like those 1970s German car catalogues, the authors of which found it only appropriate to comment on the feasibility of import cars to compete with German offerings :D Perhaps some of this info can be used, but I am not into kit cars enough to judge its relevance and trustworthiness. Bravada, talk - 09:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The article could certainly use some text like this - without it, it reads more like a list-of-kit-cars than an actual article on the subject. This new section has lots of lovely references in it - that's a good thing. But I agree that it needs some copyediting - move it out of the introductory section, clean up the English, break up those L-O-N-G paragraphs, remove the references to german language articles and use the proper wiki tags. SteveBaker 13:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I have done a copy edit and removed the large section of philsophy. Consideration of German Technical education did not seem relevant. It still needs more material but I lack detailed knowledge of the subject. I'm afraid I left the German language references in (and the Swedish one that was in the original article). Malcolma 09:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I still think it needs a wee bit of work, but in the meantime, I slightly tidied the references style as per WP:Footnotes#How to use. Looking at the references themselves, I'm not nuts on them - they're not citing veribiable sources a lot of the time, and where they are, they're not doing it quite right (e.g. ISBN numbers, etc). I'll maybe have a closer look this afternoon, but kudos on tidying what really was a bit of a mess - it's not perfect, but it's a huge improvement on the bizarre interlingual cut'n'paste-a-thon we had before. -- DeLarge 10:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

While I myself am not an expert on Kit Cars, the text added by the anon user was quite POV and I am assuming that it was written for promotional purposes. Good job removing it so far. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, as you can see I have archived the past 50 disucssion points. Please let me know if there is a probelm. I have one question though, I actually planned to archive the "AMC Matador progeny?" as well, due to the extensive length of that discussion, but did not want to do so without first asking as that discussion took place quite recently. Thank you. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is still continuing, so I'd rather that discussion stays here. ApolloBoy

No problem. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no problems here as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we're done. ApolloBoy has largely rewritten the article - any further discussion can go on at the local talk page. It's not like there is any valuable talking points here...plus you're archiving - not deleting. Be bold. SteveBaker 00:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, that's three to one in favor of archiving that discussion (two to one if I read Siva1979's post wrong). Regards, Signature^brendel 00:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - but by the time we agree, this discussion will be longer than the one we're trying to archive! SteveBaker 01:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, end of discussion ;-) Signature^brendel 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hate to be the dissenter (again), but I think archiving every 50 sections is a nice even divisor, and it follows the previous archives too. Archiving 53 just because one of the last ones was bigger than average seems... odd. The Matador debate does take up a disproportionate amount of space just now, because it's on a page with about 4-5 other sections, but after a few weeks there'll be 20+ discussions and it'll look fine. Regards, DeLarge 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC) (resident devil's advocate)

Yes, your right, it is a bit odd, but only a little bit. Usually an archive is created for every 50 discussion, in this case it was 53. I don not think, however, that it is so bad that one of the archives has 53 discussions while the others have 50. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the article, I've done a lot of work to it over the past three months, and modesty aside, improved it greatly over previous versions.

Now, a new user made some edits to this article yesterday, which (I think) slightly waters down the desription of the company's recent troubles. However, rather than simply doing a rude revert, I've posted comments on the article's talk page inviting a response. However, I've put so much into the article recently (as you can see from the history page since April '06) that I'm worried about "taking ownership", so I'd appreciate if more objective editors than myself could look over it (and the discussion) and give feedback.

EDIT - actually, while you're there, I've been considering submitting the article for peer review, with an idea to getting it GA status. If you want to give it an informal assessment while you're there, I'd be grateful.

Regards, -- DeLarge 09:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to go throught the article a bit later, but as of now all I can say is that this anyonymous's user's edits are pretty minor, and I'd say actually beneficial to the article. So, what's the problem? Bravada, talk - 09:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree they're pretty small edits, but I felt that taken together, they (slightly) diluted the most critical sections of the article (i.e. DaimlerChrysler was a "relationship", not a "debacle"; the million vehicle recall was an "issue", not a "scandal"; and the struggling NedCar plant will see "layoffs" in '07, not "mass layoffs"). Unfortunately, Mitsubishi's suffered so many fiascos over the past decade that any NPOV review is going to be an unflattering read.

It was probably also a paranoid reaction to the user's IP address resolving to Ann Arbor, Michigan - the location of Mitsubishi's North American HQ. After struggling with so many pro- or anti-MMC edits in various Mitsubishi articles lately, my POV-radar is maybe a bit over-sensitive.

However, like I mentioned, I'm not objective about this article, and I felt like neutral feedback from a third party was the best option. If you or others think the latest edits improve the page, then I'll definitely keep them. -- DeLarge 12:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, IMHO the goal of a WP article is not to be critical of anybody or anything, but to give information and let the user formulate their own opinions on the subject. Therefore, I find those edits actually improving the article, replacing the rather POV statements with more neutral ones. Bravada, talk - 13:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Debacle is a pretty rarely a safe word to call "NPOV"; the facts have to clearly show a complete disaster. Maybe that's what this was, but it's really easy to imagine why an editor might want to change that word. Following on from what Bravada says, IMHO it's better to presume an intelligent audience which will form its own opinions than to risk misleading a more casual audience. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - toning down the language in an article nearly always improves it. Less is more. When you say 'scandal', people immediately assume you are not neutral in this matter - when they hear 'issue' - they read between the lines and hear "major freaking screwup with the design of this piece of junk". (As an aside, I am currently on a campaign of enthusiastically deleting the word 'very' from almost every article I find it in. There is a story that during some major military campaign (I think it may be Vietnam or Korea) a US newspaper instructed it's journalists to remove the word 'very' from all the reports they posted in the field. This proved difficult for their reporters - so it was suggested they replace the word with 'damned' - so "It was a very hard fought battle and our guys performed very well" became "It was a damned hard fought battle and our guys performed damned well". Then the censors would automatically strip out the word "damned" as it was on their list of obscene words - so the copy would come out reading "It was a hard fought battle and our guys performed well" - which is clear, clean writing. Toning down language makes it more powerful.) SteveBaker 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, I guess that's a consensus. I actually didn't like the word initially myself either, but the more I researched while preparing the article, the more accurate it seemed - I honestly couldn't find a single redeeming feature of the deal for DCX's shareholders, and used it only after long consideration. Still, as I'm the only pro-debacle voice, I'll retract my comments and strike through them on the MMC talk page (except for the one on "mass layoffs" anyway). -- DeLarge 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and in the hope of making you feel slightly better, I for one see nothing wrong with using "mass layoffs" ;-) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

'mass' layoffs is a bit non-encyclopedic. What percentage of people have to be laid off for it to be considered to be a 'mass' layoff? Nobody knows. One side of the debate (the workers no doubt) will call (let's say) 5% of people laid off a 'mass' layoff - but management might not. There is no NPOV way to use that word. So - find out how many people were laid off and say "1,234 people were laid off" or "4.6% of the workforce were laid off" - and let the reader decide whether they think that's a terrible thing or not. If you can't find out some reasonable indication of the number of layoffs then it's certainly not the business of an encyclopedia to use a term like 'mass layoffs' when the actual amounts are unknown. So in that case, all you could say for sure is that there were layoffs - so just say "layoffs" and leave it at that. SteveBaker 02:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the support from the participating members of WikiProject Automobiles during both phases of the peer review (special big thanks to DeLarge), the Talbot Tagora article has been significantly improved and is now nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. You can access it's nomination page directly here - all members of the WikiProject who have NOT been involved in the development of the article are eligible to express their views on whether it meets the Featured Article criteria there! If you would find time to review it, I would be most grateful. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! I wanted to thank all the members of the Project that joined in at this stage and helped further improve the article, as well as look for the elusive Tagora photos :D Nevertheless, I would like to draw the attention of the rest of the members to this nomination - there are still only a few conclusive reviews there. If you could please spare a minute or two to read the article and give your opinion on it as FAC, I think all the people who contributed to it will appreciate that, be it a "support" or "oppose". In case of the latter, do not forget to point out how it could be improved and I will try to take care of that! Thanks, Bravada, talk - 21:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to announce that thanks to Mr. Stan Orand, one of the biggest Tagora enthusiasts and experts, we now have free pictures of the Tagora in the article! They aren't perhaps what is required by the WikiProject guidelines, so the search continues... Regards, Bravada, talk - 14:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to announce to you that today Raul, the Featured Article Director, found the Talbot Tagora worthy of the coveted little star! So, we now have another Featured Article within our WikiProject, which I believe comes in a very timely moment as two others are in danger of getting delisted.

I would like to thank all Members of this WikiProject who have helped this article achieve FA status, be it by reviewing it, tweaking some minor bits, helping procure the elusive free images, and obviously those who have added huge chunks of content and revamped the article thoroughly so that objections raised during FAC could be alleviated.

So, now if we want to boost the profile of automotive content at Wikipedia, we can lobby for the Tagora to become Wikipedia:Today's featured article and to be featured in Template:Did you know!

Thanks again everybody! Bravada, talk - 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The article Passenger vehicles in the United States has now evolved into a long and comprehensive article and would really a appreciate a peer review in order to improve the article. Thank you. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 23:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

First off... It probably seems petty, but that traffic photo has to go. If it is an article about the United States, I think it should have actual photos from the United States. I'll read the rest of the article later today and let you know though what else I think. ren0^talk 17:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, thank you for pointing that out ;-) Regards, Signature^brendel 22:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In case you don't know who he is, he registered as User:Take Me Higher and uploaded possibly hundreds of poorly self made pictures of poorly exposed cars from the back. We have tried to talk to him, and give him advice on how to imporve his pictures. He has ignored us every time, and continued to upload bad pictures. Re filed a request for comment for him, which he never replied to, or I don't think he even viewed. He posts regularly on his talk page, using it as a blog sometimes, but he would never respond to our comments about his images, showing that he was flat out ignoring us. It got to the point where tons of people were leaving him comments about his pictures, and to stop, so he created an account called User:Bull-Doser so that he wouldn't hear from us everyday about his pictures. This failed, as when Don noticed a picture of a poorly exposed car from the back, and noticed he created a new username, making Bull-Doser a sockpuppet. Now, he is taking poorly done pictures of cars like he always did, which are badly cropped, or taken from the back of the car in the bright sun, meaning the sun is glaring in the picture. He now takes these images and places them as the head image to many articles, compromising the integrity of them. example We have left numerous warnings on his talk page, because his account change was seen as the last straw. He has continued to ignore these warnings, and many people are very pissed at his arrogance. I have even threatened to file a vandalism in progress report, which I am very close to doing. I later noticed that he joined this project. So if he wants to be a part of this project to improve automobile articles, then the bad pictures have to come to a stop. His bad pics and his arrogance has us all annoyed, and I am very close to filing a vandalism in progress report on him if I have to go to that extreme measures to get him to stop. We have to do something about him. We have two choices: He can stop being so arrogent and respond to us, and we can work together to improve his pictures, or he can continue to be the way he is, and we can file a vandalism in progress report against him, get admins involved in warning him, and trying to get him to improve his pics, and if he acts the way he does now, he would end up getting blocked for a day or two to show how our tolerance with his poor pics and his arrogance has come to an end. It's his choice. All I know is that we have reached the end of our rope with tolerating his poor pictures and his arrogence, and a few members I know would porbably be all for using force to stop the pictures, but I want to give him the benefit of a doubt, and give him ONE more chance to stop being so arrogent, talk and work this out, before we use force. Karrmann 16:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:SOCK and take it through the administrative process. Seems like a clear-cut case of abuse. SteveBaker 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, you should take this to the admins. This at least enough to request an investigation. Regards, Signature^brendel 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I filed a report under Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

As of today, his images seem to be improving in quality. I was looking through some of the photos he uploaded today, and, unlike his past works, many are centered and at least somewhat in focus. Perhaps he's finally getting the message? Jagvar 18:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw them too, and for once, they illustrate the article, and he is being more careful about which cars he chooses to photograph. These cars are in showrooms, or are in well preserved condition, instead of walking around a Kmart parking lot snapping a picture of every banged up car he sees. Karrmann 18:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the reason why I registered as Bull-Doser is because I lost my password on my old Take Me Higher account. Bull-Doser 03:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In the 50 minutes between TakeMeHigher's last edit at 20:35 June 12th and Bull-Doser's first edit at 21:23 June 12th?! But you could have had Wikipedia email you a new password...unless you'd also changed your email address (presumably during that same 50 minute period during which you forgot your password?! Yeah - that's credible. I call 'sockpuppet'. SteveBaker 05:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, its an obvious sockpuppet account. The thing is that sockpuppet accounts are just frowned upon but not prohibited by Wiki policy as long as they are not used for abusive action. The problem with Bull-Doser is the quality of his pictures, but the sockpuppet is legit, as he wrote on his user page, aka TMH, which means he declared the Bull-Doser account as a sockpuppet. Why he did create a sockpuppet I don't know, but the picutres are the real problem. I should mention though that they are improving w/ some now of accpetable quality. Signature^brendel 05:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, first it was about crappy photos, now that they've improved (though I'd try to clean this camera lens), we went into the "dump all kinds of everything into WikiProject talk" phase. Let's see what comes next... Bravada, talk - 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue has come up a couple of times recently (AMC Matador and Talbot Tagora): Is a low resolution scan of a photo from a car brochure or advert acceptable as 'Fair use' for the image in the Infobox of a car article?

I maintain that it is almost never legal in that situation. The fair use copyright tag says:

 "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material
   * to illustrate the work or product in question;
   * in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose;
   * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
 qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or
 elsewhere, may be copyright infringement."

...we fail the second clause "in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose". Is it really impossible (or even difficult) to obtain photographs under an open license? No, it isn't. On AMC Matador, Mini and Mini Moke, I have done the following: Go to eBay. Search eBay motors for someone selling that car. Look at the photos. Do a 'Mail the seller' and ask really nicely whether it would be possible to use one of his photos to illustrate an article on it in Wikipedia. In all three cases, the very first person I asked was very happy to provide more images than I needed under any license I stipulated and they each remarked that they were honored to be featured!. That was using eBay - if I'd gone to an enthusiasts club or searched in Google images or something like that I think it would have been just as easy. If the first person I asked had refused, I bet the second, third or fourth would have said yes. Given that evidence, there is absolutely no way to claim that using brochure scans is fair use...except perhaps for cars that are so unbelivably rare that no examples still exist or something.

Using brochure scans is both illegal and lazy - 10 minutes searching and an email to the right person is all it takes in the majority of cases. If all else fails - and if you've been trying every available avenue for weeks or months and not turned up any kind of photo of the car - then, maybe we can accept fair use. Breach of copyright is illegal and can get Wikipedia *and* the person who posts the image into deep, deep trouble.

SteveBaker 03:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've emailed owners clubs in the past and found that thay have been pleased at the opportunity to show off their cars, and get a credit on the image details too. And they sometimes add useful info to the article when they go to check it out.

As for brochure images — another issue is that it's dubious whether an image of a model which is now out of production could be described as "promotional", and in some jurisdictions, this makes all the difference to fair use. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

OK then, so how about starting a big WikiProject Automobiles Free Picture Drive? E.g. let's set targets for, say 100 new free photos in a week (from now) and 1000 new free photos by the end of July? There are a lot of articles needing new photos, as they either use non-free images or rather apalling TakeMeHigher-style photos (Suzuki Esteem anyone?) Perhaps every member could "adopt a brand" (or a few for that matter) and focus his/her efforts on it? Of course we could slowly and quietly do it on an individual basis, but wouldn't it be more fun to do it with a bit more "community spirit"?

That said - Steve, I might be wrong but I think you have posted the boilerplate email text you used while procuring the AMC Matador photo - could you remind us where to find it, or perhaps, if I'm wrong, just post it here? Thanks, Bravada, talk - 12:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime - this is the general Wikipedia:Example requests for permission page. I believe the boilerplate texts there aren't really that great, so I am looking forward to seeing Steve's example. BTW, we can of course do some of the images ourselves. I actually have committed a few, som of them can be found at User:Bravada/Photos - if you believe they are worthy of including in an article, they are all in the Commons, so just have a go. I wouldn't like to be the judge myself, as I am really not sure how far (if any) I am from TakeMeHigher... You might also see that there are several images that still need treatment - removal of license plate numbers, background cleanup and in general some GIMP tweaking. If somebody would have more time (and skill) to do that, I could dump much more of raw photos into the Commons.

Another thing we could do is contact enthusiast communties, like car-themed forums and such, and ask their members to provide us with pictures of their (and other) cars they have made. I guess they would be obviously interested in improving the quality of articles on their favorite cars, and they can also be sources of some rather rare photos. I will try this with a rather big community I am a member of. Bravada, talk - 13:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your ideas! As an editor at the Swedish wikipedia I would appreciate if you would try to get all new free pictures uploaded to Commons so they can be used in all wikimedia projects. --Boivie 18:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - so if we are going to use a community effort to fix this, I think we should do this:

• The first thing to do is to go through all of the car articles marking the ones that need fixing with some sort of catagory tag. Perhaps if we had a handful of editors who are prepared to help, we could each go to Category:Vehicles by brand and pick a letter of the alphabet to work on (so there is no duplication) - and go through the manufacturer categories to the individual vehicle pages.
• It should be easy to spot the bad pages and just add some kind of new category ("Automotive articles with questionable Fair Use images" maybe?)...after a LOT of work, we'd be able to look in the category page and have a concise list of car pages (and hence photographs) that we'd need to track down.
• Then we could split up THAT list amongst available people and have each person track down a suitable image source and ask for a photo.
• I agree we should put them in commons.

So who knows how to make new categories?

SteveBaker 19:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need so much fuss with new categories? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Free Picture Drive for another way we could arrange that - choose brands which you want to take care of, browse the articles to form a list of the photos you need and off you go. Going alphabetically might not be the best way, e.g. it's easier to try to get try to contact Chrysler Europe and Talbot sources than to split efforts between the "C" person (Chrysler), "S" person (Simca, Singer, Sunbeam), "H" person (Hillman, Humber) etc. Another thing is that a person who speaks a particular language might find it easier to get pics of cars from given countries - e.g. a member who speaks Portuguese could do some priceless job getting pics of Brazilian cars, regardless of what letter the brand starts with! What do you guys think? Bravada, talk - 20:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The latter sounds easier than the first. Instead of going through articles of a certain brand, categorizing them, going back to improve them and then deleting that category isn't it easier to just go through the brand once and improve the articles? The Sub-Project page by Bravada above looks like a good way to do it. BTW: in order to create a cetgory, you just add [[Category:Title]] to the bottom of the page, the category has been created and you just click on the red link to add a description of the article. It's quite easy, you create categories by categorizing. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I spread the word among my fellow [www.gminsidenews.com GMInsideNews] members, one of whom helped spread the word further, and I am getting literally showered with pics - now I need to find time to deal with them all, remove license plate and stuff. The said fellow member, Ifcar, also provided me with links to forum postings of minitaures of his car show pics. As they are car show pics, they sometimes contain people and overall they are of varying quality. We've agreed that I will ask you which ones you think are Wikipedia-appropriate and then I will ask him for higher-res versions. So, if you can spare a moment, please see those pictures and discuss which ones are OK to be used on Wikipedia. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 22:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• 2006 Washington Auto Show
• 2004/2005 Washington Auto Show

From the '06, it looks like the Ford GT, Lincoln MKZ and Gallardo as well as the Chrysler Aspen are useful and of high quality. From the 04/05 the Audi A6, A8 W12 interior (steering wheel), Bentley GT (middle), Dodge Viper, Hummer H2 SUT, and the MB SLR (sideview) are of sufficient quality. Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 01:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to report I am making some progress on my part, I have already uploaded some of the images I received, although they were actually quite random and unrelated to what I have chosen as my first goal during this drive - furnish all Chrysler Europe cars' articles with nice free photos. Of particular urgency is the Talbot Tagora article - it is a FAC now and, as Steve noted, it cannot become an FA without a free picture. With relation to that, I would like to ask native English and non-native, just any French speakers to help me with those two issues:

• English speakers - I have emailed David Chapman, the Membership Secretary of Simca-Talbot Club UK, which could be a tremendous source of Simca and Talbot images (and perhaps the only English-speaking source of a Talbot Tagora image I could get hold of an email to). My command of English is as you can see, so I put together a rather incongrous email politely asking whether he could ask members to release some images into public domain via Wikipedia Commons, explaining why and what for do we need them. I guess I wasn't too clear about that and didn't place the accents right, as the reply I got is as follows:

I cannot understand why you cannot use official photos - 
they were issued for press use, or are you making money out of using them,
in which case I can understand? If you could explain what your organisation is designed for,
I could ask people in our club if they have suitable photos to spare. 
Alternatively, you could use illustrations from adverts and brochues - 
there are plenty available at autojumbles and ebay.

I have already put together and sent David Chapman another incongrous email (he's going to love them), but later I thought (if you wonder about my perpetual modus operandi, it is "later I thought" - I am not that good in thinking before and thinking in general) that some native English speakers here could help put together an email explaining those issues in a nice a swift way, as well as convincing the reader that they there is nothing better in the world for them to do than to give us some nice photos. This could help us all tremendously, I believe.

• French speakers - could you be so kind and email the guys at [1] (they also include Talbot Tagora owners), and perhaps post at their forums asking whether they could provide a nice free Talbot Tagora pic for our future (fingers crossed!) featured article? My French is close to non-existent, so if you could "recherche" another possible francophone source of such and try to ask them the same, I would be most obliged!

Thanks a lot! Bravada, talk - 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to email David Chapman for you - could you send me his email address (better not post it here 'cos he might like getting spammed - send it to me at sjbaker1-at-airmail-dot-net SteveBaker 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, I will email you my previous correspondence with David Chapman in a moment. I still believe we might use a "boilerplate" text to streamline the process, so I hope you will post whatever you email him here, so that we all could use it! Oh, and I've changed the format of your email address - bots that browse the web would immediately catch that one. Bravada, talk - 20:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI chaps, if you set and verify an email address in your Wikipedia preferences, it enables an "email this user" option in the toolbox on the left of their user page, which avoids the need to have it in plain text on any articles. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern - but my public email address is probably on every spammer's list already. I use Linux and Thunderbird for email - 99% of junk mail gets filtered cleanly and efficiently and I don't have to worry about viruses and such. SteveBaker 04:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know we've been over this before, at least kind of, but there has been a dispute over Bravada adding the {{Speculation}} template to the Lincoln MkS article. Personally I think the article is fine and complies w/ the current standards I perceive to exsist for concept vehicle articles. I would like however to hear your opinion on the issue, whether or not you think the Lincoln MKS article is a good example of a concept vehicle article. If you could spare a minute I would really appreciate it. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that whatever current "standards" are (and are there any?), they are far too low. Let me not repeat myself and just direct you to the discussion where I clarified my point - User_talk:T-dot#Lincoln_MKS (see beneath the last line of dots, the rest is some other discussion T-dot and Gerd were having).

Thanks Gerd for starting the topic while I was busy with the pic business :D Bravada, talk - 23:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we have some standards, or at least we should have some. Nontheless, I think this is an issue we need to address. With more and more concept car articles we need to find some, even if vague, standards for these articles. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you have to stick to the facts...first and foremost you can't say anything unless it's a fact. You can't say "they have shown this and this and this in a concept car and it seems that it's going to be on the next model" - however, I don't think this article does that. It says "this executive at the company said that this and this is going to be on the next model" - and then backs that up with a reference - which is great. So I don't think the article fails on facts - where perhaps it could be said to fail is in notability. Is some one-off fake car that doesn't in reality actually drive at over 5 mph count as a notable subject for a Wikipedia article? Notability is a hard criteria to rule about. If the article contains truth - it sure as heck doesn't consume much disk space - why not keep it? SteveBaker 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for insightful opinion. I thought the article was good on facts and doesn't really contain any speculation. In regards to notability as you said, "it sure as heck doesn't consume much disk space - why not keep it?" Exactly. Regards, Signature^brendel 04:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to standardise on one thing: should we be using litres or cc or cm^3 when stating the engine capacities? From what I know, many articles use litres, but cc is still an official standard in many countries, while cm^3 is a more SI-correct unit. Ariedartin JECJY 13:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This should answer you question: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions Bravada, talk - 14:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) ... which suggests 4.6 L (4567 cc). I would think 4.6 L (4567 cm³) would be approximately equally acceptable? --Interiot 14:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think engines over 1 litre should be expressed in litres (eg "A 1.6 litre MINI Cooper") but it sounds weird for engines smaller than 1 litre (eg "An 0.848 litre Austin Mini") - so small engines should be in cc's (eg "An 848 cc Austin Mini"). I believe we already have an exception for very old vehicles where the engine capacities were expressed in cubic inches. millilitre (ml) would be more correct from a scientific perspective - but there is a clear historical precedent for expressing engine sizes using 'cc' and using anything else would be less clear to our audience - not more clear. SteveBaker 20:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If possible we should mention litres as this is the most commonly used measurement in the media and thus is going to be what our readers are most familiar with. The ad doesn't read 4567 cm³ but 4.6 liter. As for small engines cc is okay, but literes should be used for engines with more than one litre (i.e. 1.6 litre Nissan Primera). Regards, Signature^brendel 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that a lot of articles have "In pop culture" sections and such that list all the movies, TV shows or even music videos that a car appeared in. I think these sections aren't really that notable, except in the case of certain cars (like the Ford Pinto or Yugo, for example). Should these sections be removed, or should they be kept? --ApolloBoy 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that sometimes they're notable, sometimes they're not. It's one thing to list cars which really capture the public's imagination (and a nice illustration to a model's positioning, IMHO) when this can be demonstrated (referenced) with things like the existence of T-shirts and die-cast models of individual cars, etc. I'm thinking of things like the General Lee from Dukes of Hazzard, or the Starsky & Hutch car, and Herbie. However, I think it's way over the top to have a list of every TV show the Ford Escort ever turned up in, for example. So, the bottom line is that a hard and fast rule is probably unhelpful. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So if there was an "In pop culture" section for the Toyota Camry or so, would that be fair game for removal? --ApolloBoy 23:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, they all look ultra-trivial. The closest to interesting is "Aha, where's the Camry?", implying perhaps that the writers felt the audience would infer some kind of social class from the way it was presumed by one character that the others would have a Camry. (That might not be what was going on. It's not even explained in the article.) Totally unworthy of Wikipedia. Be bold. Ditch it. (I'm clearly feeling mischievous tonight.) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I Agree most of these section's arn't of any value and the pop culture related to some iconic vehicles such as the Caddi Eldorado can be summed up in one or two sentences, listing every TV show a car has appeared in is not of any real value here. So, go ahead such section are "fair game." Regards, Signature^brendel 00:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should work these references into the main body of the text where it's important - and try to avoid the 'Trivia' section kind of thing. It's definitely not worth mentioning every movie or TV show a car has been in - but in some cases where the car is really iconic in the movie (the General Lee in Dukes of Hazzard or the Mini's in The Italian Job would be reasonable examples) - then it would be wrong not to mention it. This means that it would be hard to come up with a hard and fast rule. If you really want to list all the movies a car was in - then make a separate 'List of...' article (which is what I did with List of movies in which Mini cars are featured) - then stick it in the 'See Also' section - that way you keep the fans happy - but don't clutter the main article much. As for toys - just about ever car on the planet has toys made of it - they are generally completely non-notable. SteveBaker 04:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say "no," based on their MSRPs, competitors and Consumer Guide classifications. I might consider the Chrysler 300 to be an entry-level luxury sedan, but that's the only model, and even that's a stretch. I just find it silly to put Chryslers in the same category as BMWs and Jaguars.

Whenever anyone removes the category "Luxury vehicles" from the bottom of a Chrysler page (see Chrysler LHS), one particular user reverts it with little or no explanation. This user is an admitted Chrysler owner and therefore, I believe, somewhat biased.

So please, offer your input. Do you think Chrysler models should be tagged as luxury vehicles? And can anything be done? Jagvar 21:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chryslers are not luxury cars. The Chrysler 300C, and C only, is a entry-level luxury car just like the Buick Lucerne CXL, and CXL trim only. The fact is that the 300 starts at $23k and the average MSRP for a car sold in America was $29k in '05; thus making only the C trim level which starts at $32k an entry-level luxury car. Just like you and I, I am sure most people would find it silly to put Chryler in the same category as Lincoln, Caddilac, or Lexus. Fact is that:

• Chrsyler does not sell one car starting at above $40k
• Most Chryslers have MSRPs in the $20k-$35k range
• Only the 300C is referred to as a luxury car in media releases

In terms of status Chrysler is like Buick or Mercury, a near-luxury marque with cars that may be a step above average but still a step below true luxury. Therefore the luxury car category needs to be removed from the Chrylser page. Perhaps, a near-luxury marque category would be a compromise. As for the LHS I am not familiar with the pricing, but I somehow doubt its on the same level with say the Cadillac Deville, so perhaps for these, often said to be Chryslers most luxurious cars the description entry-level would be best. The same problem occured w/ Volvo which has the same market status as Chrysler yet was cetgorized as a luxo brand, even though only one Volvo the S80 fit the criteria. Hope this helps! Best Regards, Signature^brendel 22:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I believe this is a very vague and actually redundant category, as it has a more evaluatory rather than factual character - there is no good definition of luxury car, and the luxury car article on WP is more of an essay than encyclopedic article, and is rather poorly referenced (yes, I know Gerd, it's me again - I might need to hire a bodyguard :D ). So, I believe just removing this category could cool off emotions of some ardent supporters of a given make or model. Bravada, talk - 22:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Bravada you don't need to hire a bodyguard, the article is poorly referenced. Why? Because as you stated there is no good defenition. The article on luxury vehicles, which I developed myself to a large part, is vague because it describes a vague concept. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm the user in question, and the reason why I keep adding that category is because some of the older Chryslers are practically luxury cars (and were marketed as such). True, some of the older Chryslers weren't luxury cars (like the LeBaron and Newport), but some of them like the Fifth Avenue and the Cordoba were marketed as luxury cars, and are a lot like luxury cars. And besides, Chrysler did try to compete with the likes of Cadillac and Lincoln after the demise of the Imperial brand, so I've kept that in mind as well. --ApolloBoy 23:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd to consider "are Chryslers luxury cars" given how different some of them are from each other. Each model should be taken on its own merits. But the way they're marketed is a poor indicator: what manufacturer (apart from maybe the extremely low-cost ones) wouldn't want you to think their cars were luxurious? I tend to agree, too, that it's a not-very-useful WP category. But that problem would be ameliorated if we nailed down a definition of "luxury car". – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the term luxury is all about marketing. Fact is Chrysler as a brand is not on par with Caddilac, Lincoln, Lexus or Audi. It simply isn't. Yes, some Chrysler models are luxury cars, currently only the 300C. Again, we can't nail down a defenition, I have tried to and the luxury vehicles article is a far cry from Household income in the United States which describes a defnite concept. Also, we need the category as some vehicles such as the S-Class or Deville are obviously luxury cars and the term is so commonly used it helps our readers. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not meaning to be argumentative, so sorry if it sounds that way. But how does it help readers if it's an undefined term? It helps them gain a muddy perception of a non-term. If we really are saying that it's just a marketing term we can't define, then we should change the category to something more concrete related to size, price, and/or features. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It gives the user a vague idea which is better than no idea ;-) Yes we could use price (i.e. cars above $40k). But the term luxury car is more commonly used and what is wrong w/ calling a 7-Series or Town Car a luxury car. Using price might be good alternative though, as using the term luxury car is like the term "wealthy." While everbody's exact defenition and the media's presentation of what is wealthy varies, would there be anything wrong with categorizing the William Buffet and Bill Gates article as "Wealthy people?" Regards, Signature^brendel 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, a vague term can be and often is a misleading term, and an encyclopedia should not give users "vague impressions". An encyclopedia should offer sharp facts. Price is not good either, as it's pretty relative. You would have to devise some complex intertemporal international price measure. I'd just say it's a fullsize car, perhaps a V8-powered car or "car powered by engine of displacement higher than 4.0 litres" or whatever. We do not really need that many categories. Bravada, talk - 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. Categorization of Bill Gates or whoever else as "wealthy people" is just as improper.

No, a vague term can be and often is a misleading term, and an encyclopedia should not give users "vague impressions"- sometimes things are not easly defined. How many articles on wikipedia really concentrate on certain factual issues? Some things are to important to be left out, but there is no exact defenition. Take class, I know you dispute these articles, but we still need them. There is no exact defenition of social class, there are no guidelines stating if A and B apply to you, you are upper middle class. Shall we delete those articles and put in redirects to Household income in the United States? Fact is there is something seperating Jaguar and Cadillac, etc... from other manufacturers. Shouldn't mean mention that certain something? There are vague concepts out there we need to include in Wikipedia. We could get rig of the luxo car category and just mention the status of a car in the article text, which we do anyways. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with an article on luxury cars, provided that it discusses the concept in its "vagueness" and not creates the impression that it is an undisputed 100% real phenomenon - the same gripe I had concerning class actually. But a category is not a good idea. You don't go labelling people here on WP with "upper class" or "lower class" - these would be evaluatory and this is not how WP should be. Bravada, talk - 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no I get your point. Yes, labeling persons in accordance to their class would be improper and I see how you can assume the same perspective in regards to the marketet status of vehicles. Regards, Signature^brendel 01:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What is considered a luxury car in one market may be a minimally acceptable one in another. The term is just too vague. I don't think it belongs here. SteveBaker 04:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the interesting thing. When I think of luxury cars, I normally think of brands like Audi, Bugatti, Rolls-Royce, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and the like. If you can try and visualize Volkswagen's brand lineup alongside DCX's, then I could say that SEAT is VW's Dodge, Skoda is what Plymouth could've been, followed by VW (comparable with Chrysler) and then Audi (comparable with Mercedes-Benz), and so forth. All this jibber-jabber is insane! How about if we just calm down and accept that a category like luxury cars is purely subjective based on one person's own opinion? -Daniel Blanchette 16:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well there is some consensus, everybody would identify the brands you list above as luxury, no doubt about it. But calling Chrysler as a whole a luxo brand is incorrect- see the "Solution" section below. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - BMW for example make cars that nobody would describe as 'Luxury' - the $17,000 MINI (BMW) for example. SteveBaker 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you misunderstood me. I mean cars marketed as BMW, not all vehicles manufactured by BMW. All cars sold with the "BMW" logo and the Bavarian colors are luxury vehicles, of course that's only in the US. Nonetheless there are some luxury-only brands such as Jaguar, Lincoln, Cadillac, Lexus, Bentley, etc... Signature^brendel 01:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Apollo Boy has stated that Chrysler "Has not competed with the likes of Cadillac and Lincoln." So categorizing Chrysler (the marque) as luxury is incorrect. Some Chrysler models such as Chrylser 300C are luxury models, and so may have been the LHS Series. It is okay to tag those articles, dealing with those particular vehicles as luxo cars. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Like I said. Treat each model on its individual merits... ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly ;-) Signature^brendel 00:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Glossaries like Automotive design terminology / Car body style... a good or bad idea? Cons: Somewhat unencyclopdic. May be more suited to wiktionary or others. Pros: It's a home where semi-notable perma-stubs can be merged to. Lists dicdefs organized by topic (eg. "break = station wagon" would be largely ignored if it was grouped with other meanings of "break" on wiktionary) --Interiot 13:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd leave them as they are, I don't think their existence causes any major problems, and they can be quite useful. There are bigger problems I guess. Bravada, talk - 13:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that such as Glossary would probably never be finished, despite the best efforts. It would likely remain a half finished list of automotive stubs. Besdies, Wiktionary is a glossary and a glossary within this project would be just too unencylopedic. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 15:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful for anyone to try to complete, or even to spend time expanding glossaries. I do think glossaries are useful for redirecting perma-stubs to. :)

I'm not sure what "wiktionary is a glossary" means. Are there any places on Wiktionary that group together subject-specific terms? Have many trade terms like drive wheel been added to wiktionary? Is there a better suggestion for what to do with things like drive wheel if they remain a permastub? --Interiot 00:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Geez I should really make a habit of proof-reading my posts ;-) By "wiktionary is a glossary" I meant that Wikitionay is the place for key terms, it serves as a de-facto dictionay/glossary. Personally, I do not have a Wiktionay account. As to perma-stubs, there are quite a few, and merging is not always the best solution. Perhaps we ought to create a category for perma-stubs... Regards, Signature^brendel 04:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I realize that I have asked before, but I would still greatly appreciate your input on the Passenger vehicles in the United States! The article is a current GA nominee and is in need of a peer review- this could be another FA for this project. Please, if you can spare a few minutes, your input would be greatly appreciated. Signature^brendel 16:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I dislike this kind of article and would not recommend it. The problem with this kind of "List of current things" is that it gets out of date VERY quickly and people just don't maintain them. SteveBaker 19:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed a problematic issue, but I have no way of doing anything about it, as this article's subject matter is clearly subject to change. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. The article is "Passenger vehicles" but the statistic you quote for number of vehicles is one including trucks. There are also quite a few spelling mistakes including one in the middle of the first paragraph that is baffling me.Malcolma 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In the United States SUVs and Pick-ups are refered to as trucks, light trucks to be more precise; thus light trucks as well as cars are referred to as Passenger vehicles. Signature^brendel 20:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Bull-Doser: Car photographer (Free Use)
Bavaria: ConsumerGuide guy (Fair Use)
ApolloBoy: Both ConsumerGuide & photographer (Fair & Free Use)

In addition to photographing cars, I use ConsumerGuide for non-Canadian cars.

Bull-Doser 03:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've only taken one picture. The rest of the PD images I uploaded were "donated" by other people. --ApolloBoy 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Volkswagen Type 2 is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.

Sorry to hit you with two at once: we really need help :-) Sandy 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Both of these FARC's need info-boxes. The Mercedes article needs more photos - I agree with everything the other reviewers said - so there is no doubt that as-is neither of these deserve FA status. The question is whether anyone has the time and expertise to fix them up before they get de-listed. Sadly, I don't. SteveBaker 04:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Shadow only replaced the Charger & Omni. The Spirit replaced the Aries & Lancer. The Dynasty replaced the 600 & Diplomat. Even the LeBaron was a rebadged Aries, and after 1990 became a rebadged Spirit. And the pre-1988 New Yorker was based on the 600, and the post-1989 New Yorker became a Dynasty. Because the Shadow was a hatchback, it did NOT replace the Aries sedan. It replaced the Charger & Omni as the "hatchback" Dodge.

Bull-Doser 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Spirit was significantly larger inside and out, significantly better equipped, and a good 50% more expensive than the Aries. The Shadow was roughly the same size, with roughly the same features, and came in at roughly the same price point as the Aries. It had a liftback, not a hatch: it was styled like a conventional sedan. The liftback functionality bridged the gap between Omni and Aries, and the turbocharged engine and V6 gave it the power to replace Charger. The fact that the LeBaron name was applied to a K-car and an AA-body has nothing to do with it. Did the K-body LeBaron succeed the M-body LeBaron which you conveniently forgot to mention? --93JC 19:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

According to a Dodge Spirit article on ConsumerGuide [2], the Spirit's predecessor was the Aries. The Shadow was priced above 600, Aries, Diplomat or Lancer, but it didn't quite replace the Aries. The Shadow only replaced the Charger & Omni as the hatchback Dodge. The Dodge Omni's demise in 1990 priced the Shadow much lower than the Omni & Spirit.

Here Was The Dodge Car Pricing (1988-89):

1989 Dodge Omni: $1,275 - $1,450
1989 Dodge Colt: $1,350 - $1,875
1989 Dodge Shadow: $1,275 - $1,475
1988 Dodge 600: $1,125 - $1,350
1989 Dodge Spirit: $1,225 - $1,650
1988 Dodge Aries: $1,100 - $1,225
1988 Dodge Lancer: $1,125 - $1,350
1989 Dodge Diplomat: $1,300 - $1,475
1989 Dodge Dynasty: $1,400 - $1,750 -- Bull-Doser 16:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, the Anniversaries section of the Portal:Cars is still missing entries for some dates, which is pretty embarassing, I believe. I have found out that the History Channel site has a section that can be very helpful with filling in the blanks [3]. I have already started taking blatant advantage of it, and I guess I am done with the first half of the year. If somebody could take care of the rest of the year, or perhaps just individual months, it would be great. It doesn't require much typing, but is quite repetitive... :( Bravada, talk - 18:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC) PS. Oh, and don't forget to voice you opinion on the Talbot Tagora's Featured Article Nomination!

It's my birthday today! Does that help at all? <grumble> OK - I thought not. :-( SteveBaker 19:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Although IFCAR is from the United States, I'm Canadian! IFCAR is beginning to upload images like ME! Bull-Doser 01:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, IFCAR's images are of much higher quality than yours, on average. Bravada, talk - 10:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this a serious complaint? Aside from the fact that IFCAR's images are of higher quality than yours, there is no rule preventing anybody from uploading images, so... Signature^brendel 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have recently noted that unlike articles concerning vehicles made by other sbusidaries, the Nissan articles feature Nissan as the sole manufacturer and not Renault-Nissan. As far as I know Renault owns the controling share of Nissan, yet I do not know if it has officially become a Renault subsidary. Nonetheless I think we should list Renault-Nissan as manufacrturer of Nissan vehicles, just like we list Daimler-Chryler as the manufacturer for Damiler-Chrysler vehicles. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to DaimlerChrysler, Renault and Nissan remain separate companies, and it is actually emphasized that it is an "alliance of two independent automakers". Regardless of the legal status (Renault de facto, and I guess de iure by Japanese law) controls Renault, it is appropriate to state that Nissan is the manufacturer, just like it is with Mazdas. This might be a good argument, however, for the inclusion of the "corporate link" field in the infobox. Bravada, talk - 17:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see. That's why I brought it up for discussion- I was unsure of the exact relationship between the too. Also, a corperate link field in the infobox sounds like a good idea. What did you have in mind exactely? Signature^brendel 17:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Muddying the waters, perhaps, but I think emphasising that they are two separate companies: Nissan also owns a (smaller) share of Renault! Renault owns 44.4 percent of Nissan (note: not an outright majority) and Nissan owns 15 percent of Renault, although I've read they increased that to 20 percent this year.

I too like the sound of the "corporate connections" section. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that there are many tasks left unanswered in the Ford Taurus' task page. I really want to get this article featured, so I am asking you to give your all to this article. Karrmann 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The HHR slots in length between the Aveo and the Cobalt, just like what the Prizm was, slotting in length between the Metro and the Cavalier. The HHR is more expensive than the Cobalt, just like back then, when the Prizm was priced above the Cavalier. Just like HHR replaces Cavalier, the Caliber replaces the Dodge Neon.

Bull-Doser 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit of a stretch. The Prizm was an oddball Chevy, a leftover from the ill-conceived Geo venture. It was more of a "redundant also-ran with Cobalt) than anything else. The HHR is a totally new entry, Chevrolet's first compact minivan in the US. Bravada, talk - 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Prizm was aimed at a different market and is a totally different type of car (compact sedan versus compact wagon) than the HHR. --ApolloBoy 19:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the look of the two cars speak for themselves. The Cobalt is the replacement for the Cavalier, the Prizm as stated by Bravada was a leftover of the Geo fiasco and does not fit in here at all. Don't take the lenghts of vehicles to literally, the HHR is a completely new body style for Chevy and America, for that matter, as it is significantly smaller than any type of wagon/van corssover sold here. Also the Caliber may act as Dodge's new entry-level vehicle but is not a proper Neon replacement as it is a compact SUV crossover- a different body style form the 4-door compact sedan Neon. A lot of manufacturers there days want to get away from the plain ugly 4-door econobox image and try to replace vehicles such as the Neon with new coneptions such as the Caliber. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Prizm replacement was the Optra, another rebadged Japanese car. It's sold in Canada, but not the US. IFCAR 10:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite Japanese, but it could be seen that way. Bravada, talk - 11:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going by the Suzuki Forenza, being the only other version sold in North American. Though of course that started off as a Korean. IFCAR 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All the time I had been on WP, I had understood that the name of the automobile in the country of origin was the least ambiguous way to refer to a model, something discussed on Archive Page 1. This had been the case prior to this discussion and appeared to have reached a consensus.

I now notice, however, that some pages have been altered to reflect an export country's viewpoint. I note Hyundai Elantra and Hyundai Avante. Have the rules changed, or was the person who shifted the Avante's data to the Elantra page unaware of this convention?—Stombs 05:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We never reached consensus on that. It's an idiotic policy too: witness all GM Daewoo articles under the Daewoo name. If we followed it to a tee we would move Dodge Intrepid to Chrysler Intrepid and Buick LaCrosse to Buick Allure.

Most people in the English-speaking world know the car as Elantra or Lantra. The fact that it's called Avante in Korea is worthy of a small mention in the opening paragraph, as it is in the Elantra article. The Avante article should be deleted.

Case closed. --93JC 20:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. For example, I have big trouble conceiving the fact that Honda Accord (JDM) is a redirect to Acura TSX, when the Acura model is nothing more than a rebadging exercise, while the Honda Accord focuses mostly on the US-exclusive model, instead of the world model conceived in Japan. The Kia Rio is now called Pride in Korea. And, strangely, Kia Cerato is a redirect to Kia Spectra, instead of the other way around, as Cerato is both the Korean and international name. --Pc13 21:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've revised pages for the Toyota Tundra (adding the double cab version) and the Hyundai Santa Fe (adding the 2005-2006 versions and the 2007 version that's out now). All images came from the Wikimedia Commons.--Bull-Doser 17:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the Pathfinder slots below the Murano in the lineup, it is rumoured the Pathfinder will use Nissan's new D platform (used by the 2007-present Altima) and continue to slot below the Maxima-based Murano in the lineup. Still, the Pathfinder would continue to be built in Tennessee.--Bull-Doser 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

1985-1988 (Before Geo):
Chevrolet Sprint Vs. Ford Escort (Or Festiva)
Chevrolet Spectrum Vs. Ford Escort
Chevrolet Chevette Vs. Ford Escort
Chevrolet Nova Vs. Ford Tempo
Chevrolet Cavalier Vs. Ford Tempo
Chevrolet Corsica (1987-88) Vs. Ford Tempo (Or Taurus)
Chevrolet Celebrity Vs. Ford Taurus
Chevrolet Caprice Vs. Ford LTD Crown Victoria

1989-1997 (The Geo Era):
Geo Metro Vs. Ford Festiva/Aspire
Geo Spectrum/Prizm Vs. Ford Escort
Chevrolet Cavalier Vs. Ford Tempo (Note the second-generation Cavalier was longer in length than the Tempo. I heard a 1991 GM Canada commercial had a 1991 Cavalier & Sunbird next to a Ford Tempo)
Chevrolet Corsica Vs. Ford Tempo (Corsica & Tempo were compacts)
Chevrolet Lumina Vs. Ford Taurus
Chevrolet Caprice/Impala Vs. Ford Crown Victoria

To squeeze this, GM & Ford's rivals were:

Mainstream: Chevrolet/Geo/GMC/Saturn - Ford
Near Luxury: Oldsmobile/Pontiac - Mercury
Luxury: Buick/Cadillac - Lincoln

Buick was never really on Cadillac's and Lincoln's level. Signature^brendel 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Now:
Mainstream: Chevrolet/GMC/Pontiac/Saturn - Ford
Near Luxury: Buick - Mercury
Luxury: Cadillac - Lincoln/Jaguar
Luxury: Saab - Volvo -- Bull-Doser 02:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct! Signature^brendel 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay are you asking a question? If so let me try and answer it. The "Now" section is correct! The section before- Buick was never really on the same level as Cadillac and Lincoln, but rather competed w/ Mercury. Signature^brendel 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On my own website, I've been collecting photos of the BMW MINI in every possible paint scheme colour (there are a LOT because of contrasting roof options). I get a bunch of hits - mostly (I think) from people thinking about buying the car and wondering what colour to pick - but I don't particularly need the load on my home web server and serving up the page from a wrong-direction-DSL line is S-L-O-W.

So the question is - would this be seen as an appropriate thing to transfer into a Wikipedia gallery? If so, should it be a part of the MINI (BMW) page or should I start a "List of every possible MINI colour]] page?

The current page is here: [4]

I'd say neither - with all due respect to your work, this isn't really encyclopedic, and I can already see (more or less udnerstandable) RfD etc. But there is a service called Wikia, you can start your own Wiki there (I think, never tried that), and let the Wiki server host your content! Bravada, talk - 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have copyright information for all the photos? If all photos aren't licensed under the GFDL or public domain, then Wikia might not be the best place for them. I guess there's always Geocities, etc.? --Interiot 15:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See and I think it is encyclopedic. I mean color options are a big part of some people's car purchase and an encyclopedia is there to provide information on said car. So are color options not information now? I mean take for instance a car that was built 25+ years ago, people have long forgotten what the color schemes are for it. But you know there is someone out there wondering "Hey, what were the colors it came in?" and "what do they look like?". At least I know it is this way amongst the MKII Toyota Supra community, so I would think thats how other people are too. Anyway, just my two cents. ren0^talk 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I mean.. factory color schemes. ren0^talk 15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not for providing buying advice. Wikipedia is like any other encyclopedia as concerns content, it only has no space limitations, so an infinite number of subjects can have an entry. But the type of content is the same - see examples of what WP is not. And therefore I believe that putting up such content on WP could establish a dangerous precedent. Bravada, talk - 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand it isn't a buying guide. But shouldn't there be documented information (and photos) of everything about said subject? Isn't that what encyclopedias are for... or should we just have the reader's digest version of everything? I mean we list engine information, prices (sometimes), gas mileage, and other available options in cars. Yet I have noticed colors aren't that big of a deal. Colors are never included, and I think they should be. That's why I am all for this congregation of colors and photos. ren0^talk 19:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think an encyclopedia should contain EVERYTHING on a given subject. An encyclopedia should give comprehensive information on a subject. If a reader would want to know more, that's what the "external links" section is for. As concerns, engines and transmissions are quite important while describing an automobile, we don't list whether a car had power windows or heated seats (unless it was important in some way). The rest of information you have mentioned are included in some articles, but I have serious doubts whether they should be included, but that's a separate topic for discussion. Bravada, talk - 19:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Interiot: Yes - I do have copyrights to all the photos. Everyone who sends one to me is asked to place the photo into the public domain - or else I won't accept it. So that's not an issue.

Ren0: There is a colour guide with almost every possible colour for the old Mini which is referenced from that page - so there are some 45 year old cars for which this service exists. However, it's a lot easier to collect the data now - while the cars are still young than it will be to resurrect all that information in 40 years time! And - yes - I mean 'factory colours' too.

Bravada: This is the key question - is this encylopeadic? My feeling it that it is - but as I expected (and why I asked) was because this is definitely borderline. Do we list whether the car has power windows and heated seats? Hell yes! Look at Mk I Mini (which I had little to do with), you can find the exact month that they lowered the seat belt fixtures a few inches - and when they switched from chrome to plastic window latches. A lot of people care deeply about that information (I'm restoring a Mk I Mini - and this was a valuable resource). Why wouldn't you put it in an encyclopedia? The main reasons are traditionally: Cost of collecting the information ($0 here) and the cost of publishing it ($1 per gigabyte in Wikipedia currently). The real problems with unchecked information growth here is the inability to fact check it all. However, in the case of a gallery of photos, these facts are pretty much indisputable because "The Camera Doesn't Lie" (OK - it does - but that's another story).

The two key things that WP:NOT says are:

• Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files -- This rule bans the following things:
  1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories.
  2. Mere collections of internal links
  3. Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code
  4. Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles.
• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- This bans the following things:
  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions.
  2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)
  3. Travel guides
  4. Memorials.
  5. News reports.
  6. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries.
  7. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business.
  8. Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction
  9. Internet guides
  10. Textbooks and annotated texts
  11. Plot summaries

Out of all of those rules, I think the most troublesome one would be Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles - so these photos would have to be accompanied by text about the car. That would suggest that this should be a gallery tacked onto the end of MINI (BMW). It's dubious though - which is why I seek advice.

SteveBaker 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Two pence worth: This is a real test of the question; "is Wikipedia infinite" — because whilst your point about the inclusion (in comparison with window winding mechanisms) is completely valid, there is a case to be made for just naming the colours, rather than representing them with a slew of photos. I'm not sure what my opinion is, to be fair, because I would like WP to be infinite, and there's a lot of other far less valuable info on here too. But in the real world, we do have problems of space, bandwidth, and most importantly the difficulties of keeping images from being replaced by ignorant or vandalistic editors. I tend to think the solution would be a single image (or small set of images) containing a colour chart, perhaps photoshopped from individual images. That would be easier to manage and less likely to be corrupted without the corruption being noticed, than would a gallery. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, my view of Wikipedia is that of an encyclopedia that contains a collection of encyclopedic articles, but not restrained by size limitations, and illustrated by any kind of media. That said, I specifically mean that an encyclopedic article answers the question "What is xxx?" in a rather comprehensive way, but does not contain ALL information on a given subject. I.e. even large biographical encyclopedic entries would still not contain all information one could find in a complete biography of a person.

Therefore, I believe there is some, pretty elusive and perhaps subjective, I agree, limit to the amount/scope of information contained within an entry. For example, there are projects like Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikiquotes etc. which collect other types of information. I believe collecting details such as paint colors, restoration tips and perhaps general buying advice could be a good goal for another project within the Wiki community - there is already an AutoWiki I think, but last time I checked it, it was pretty disappointing. Perhaps this is a good time to set up a Wiki-based community that would deal with cars more in-depth than an encyclopedia? Bravada, talk - 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. Oh, and of course it would be only natural for WP articles to link to this Wiki much like they link to Wiktionary or Commons today.

Wikipedia can't possibly be short of space. You can buy a hard drive space at about 3Gbytes for a dollar. Wikipedia collected $800,000 last year - the foundation currently owns ~13 Terabytes of disk space. Do the math. If the system grew by a factor of 10, it wouldn't break the bank. Looking at this another way, the capacity of $100 disk drives grows faster than Wikipedia grows content. SteveBaker 02:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't really need to rehash notability arguments, see the lengthy amount of text and discussion at Category:Wikipedia notability criteria for that.

Since the images are PD, it seems like Commons would work just as well as Wikia... Commons already almost has a study in hood ornaments up, and commons allows/encourages pictures to be wrapped in explanatory wikitext, so why not give that a try? --Interiot 04:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I've looked at the length of the Mazda CX-9, and it's about 198 inches (about longer than a 4Runner). The CX-7 is a mid-size competing with Highlander, Pathfinder or Pilot, the CX-9 is another mid-size competing with 4Runner, Explorer or Murano. The Murano, of course, slots above the Pathfinder. The CX-7 is identical in length to a Highlander or 2007 Santa Fe. Both CX-7 & CX-9 are based off the CD3. -- Bull-Doser 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bull-Dozer, one question: Where does the Mazda CX-9 slot in the Swedish market? --Pc13 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the CX-7 uses a unique platform, it's not based on the CD3 as most people think. --ApolloBoy 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

IFCAR - Only uploads free images
Bull-Doser - Uploads free & fair images
Bavaria - Only uploads fair images

And the winner is? Stay tuned! -- Bull-Doser 20:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And the relevancy of this is....... Stay tuned! Karrmann 00:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides being irrelevant this is actually very bad wiki etiquette- it comes very close to offending other users. One should never state that one user is better than another, espcially if the former it the author of the statement. Signature^brendel 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not offended, and Bavaria has responded to the same comment in a way that indicates he wasn't either. IFCAR 09:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Nonetheless it is not appropriate to anounce oneself the winner (as if this was a competition) or state that one is better than other users. The above sounds like a bad soft drink advertisement. I was not saying that you were offended, but rather that the above could be offensive. Signature^brendel 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to why the Ford Ranger has about five generations, when in fact there were only two. One user I talked to said that there were enough differences between 1983-1988 and 1989-1992 Rangers to constitute two generations, when in fact most of the body panels between the two are exactly the same and the only major differences were the front fascia and interior. What do you guys think? Should there only be two generations or five? --ApolloBoy 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I counted three generation ;-) But otherwise I'd say two. It is very common for a vehicle to feature a slightly revised design in the middle of a generation's run. Signature^brendel 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's always a hard call. In the Mini article there was great debate about this because the original manufacturers never talked about particular generations - yet the enthusiast community universally recognises three generations - with some sources talking about five or even seven generations. In the end, it's all a bit subjective since all cars evolve slowly throughout their production runs and what constitutes a "new generation" and what doesn't is a matter of opinion and not encyclopeadic fact. SteveBaker 22:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true, there is no real guideline of what constitutes a generation. For some cars one can look to the media. If most publications state that there are two Ranger generations, than we could use that number- the problem is that there it is a subjective measure. Signature^brendel 00:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did some research, and the only thing I found was ConsumerGuide, which shows three generations of the Ranger (1983-1992, 1993-1997, 1998-present). [5] --ApolloBoy 01:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if there is no source supporting the seven generation theory- I say go ahead and make the changes. Three generations sound right to me and consumer guide is a good enough source. Signature^brendel 05:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiarthurhu has been trying to add the Chevrolet Chevette as one of the predecessors of the Chevrolet Cavalier. I really don't think the Cavalier replaced the Chevette, as the two were aimed at different markets and even overlapped for 5 years. However, he refuses to listen to me, and keeps adding it back in, using a page from Edmunds which he takes out of context. What does everyone else say? --ApolloBoy 00:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Monza was the Cavalier's predecessor. Chevette was replaced by Sprint. Facts bear this to be undeniably true, and Arthur has problems dealing with facts. --93JC 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cavalier also replace the European Chevette. Monza replaced the Vega as coupe because Americans like the style, but Chevetted replaced Vega other body styles for pure function and cost. Sprint fits in a tiny-car category much smaller than Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord. I have presented two citations to support the Spirit/Acclaim replacing the cars, both cars look almost exactly like the two K cars and covered the same market niche and competitors as 2 bench seat competing cars. You should not use original research if you cannot provide a verifiable source for your assertion. Everything I have seen is a construction based on reasoning, which is not the same as providing proof that someone out there had the same idea first. That was also the problem the F-14 Tomcat article, when an editor, unable to find a statement in two articles that it was a dogfighter, concluded that it was not, even after I provided dozens of directly supporting articles and he provided no supporting or contradicting sources. You folks had better get used to people who know their facts, and can research them instead of coming up with some crazy construction that the Sprint replaced the Chevette (source?) or that the Shadow replaced the Aries (source??) 93JC has already demonstrated problems with logic or facts that conflict with his POV such as the fact that the former Premier plant produces the 300 and Charger, and that he uses uncivil language, except I am not allowed to say negative things about other editors, no matter how deficient their research skills or logic are. I am going to start to recruit good guys, you can change or keep your black hats. --00:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiarthurhu (talk • contribs)

Just trying to get clarification here: "Cavalier also replace the European Chevette." You're talking about the Vauxhall Chevette/Opel Kadett and the Vauxhall Cavalier/Opel Ascona? -- DeLarge 08:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If those are the cars the anon user User:Wiarthurhu is talking about, they're dead wrong. The Vauxhall Chevette / Opel Kadett was a much smaller car than the Vauxhall Cavalier / Opel Ascona – we're talking Escort to Cortina kind of difference (and those were the competitors.) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the Chevette was 1975-1983, the Cavalier was 1976-1994, so they overlapped for almost the whole time the Chevette existed. Cavalier ---> Vectra (European midsize/family cars). Chevette ---> Astra (European compact cars), while the Nova/Corsa slotted into the supermini slot created by the gradual obesity of the two cars above it. -- DeLarge 10:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, "gradual obesity" – I like your turn of phrase ;-) Actually, there's probably a very good analogy in here somewhere for the way success is measured in terms of growth in the entire capitalist economic system, but... whoops, no, we've got plenty enough controversy around here already... :-P – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I see this WikiProject doesn't have a project notice template. Please see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Talk_namespace#WikiProject notices. One article, GMC Denali, has the generic template on its talk page right now. Please create the project notice template and replace that generic template with it. --Geopgeop 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We do: {{AutoProject}}. --Interiot 16:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And now it's in the list, too. Should they all be there, then? There are some others missing. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes all project notices should be listed there if you know of some that arn't on there, please go ahead and add them. Thanks. Signature^brendel 21:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't see that. --Geopgeop 00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The TSX was introduced in 2004 to replace the CL coupe, and both were based on the Honda Accord. Acura dropped the Integra sedan from the lineup in 1997, and it was replaced in Canada by the Acura EL. Both cars were based on the Civic. With Acura phasing out the RSX after 2006, a TSX coupe will replace it. As what I saw on MSN Autos, the Integra didn't have a sedan in 1997. -- Bull-Doser 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, in Europe the Acura TSX is sold as the Honda Accord (or the other way around ;-)) Signature^brendel 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In Japan too. The US Accord is a more economic version of the Honda Inspire (while the Acura TL is identical to the Inspire). The US Accord is sold in Australia and in South America as well. But the Japanese/European Accord need to be main in the main Accord article, and not be a redirect to Acura TSX, which is just a badge-engineered version. The Accord article needs an explanation on the splitting off of the American Accord line from the Japanese one. --Pc13 08:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There are some major errors here that are nearly impossible to fix because of policing.

It is claimed that the heir to the Aries is not the nearly identical Dodge Spirit in size, layout and room, but the much smaller Omini replacement, the Dodge Shadow. I tried fixing it once, but it came back, and even ApolloBoy indicated he though that was broken at one point in time. Then I noticed somebody jumping all over Bulldozer for the same thing. I found Allpar, a parts site, and a consumer buyers site all saying Spirit and the EEK was the replacement, but all I get is yelled at, told that none of the sources is valid, and get reverted, along with anything else I might have said.

Similarly, several auto sites say the Chevy import fighters started with Covair, then Vega / Monza, Chevette, Cavalier, then Cobalt. However the way the pages have been connected on WP is Vega to Monza / Chevette (so far so good), but then Chevette->Spectrum/Sprint (what?) and Monza-> Cavalier, even though the Monza was a tiny niche coupe, and the Cavalier was a best seller with notchback, hatchbck, sedan and wagon bodies. I can't even put this sequence on the Corvair page without getting spit out by these same editors. Ditto a hit song about the Chevette, or any attempt to mention the existence of any replica of a car. It's no democracy, I've entered a little kingdom where, rather than a place where anybody can write anything, nothing happens unless it coforms to some gigantic unwritten rule book of things that a secretly allowed or unallowed, and the only way to find out is to put in in and see what happens. Any attempt to link the Chevette to the Cavalier is met by reverts from 3 different editors, and more bad feelings and warnings that none of the six sources is valid since all are less than perfect, and only perfect citations are acceptable to replace what appears to be uncited guesses based on original research, and being told that I don't know the way things are suppoosed to work, which is evidently whatever a gang of editors want to work, since they have no directly supporting or contradicting primary sources and they dismiss six different primary sources.

A web search for supporting sources shows only one place where the shadow replaces the Aries, and the Cavalier does not replace the Chevette -- the Wikipedia.

As a man of principal and character, do you recommend

Fight for the right thing, no matter how many editors complain or threaten or revert, stick to posting correct and cited information and replaced uncited information

Sign here

Or do you recommend - back off and go where I am not contested

Sign here

Is there anybody else out there who objects to the behavior of these auto editors, or am I the only one having problems?? --matador300 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there such a list? If not there should be. ;) I mean I see tons of things that I could photograph, but a lot of times they already have a better example. I would just love a list so that I could look for specific things. ren0^talk 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Requested images has just been created, feel free to add or fulfill requests. --Interiot 08:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiarthurhu is writing way too much POV, and his writing is 100% inapproiate for a public encylopedia. Just read List of successful automobiles, which he contributed significately too. It sounds like Jeremy Clarkson wrote it! What do you think we should do? Karrmann 15:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

well thank you, though I've been reading Car and Driver since 1969, and perhaps it shows. You've got to admit it's more fun reading than Funk and Wagnalls --matador300 18:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

God, not again. Apparently, it was originally named "List of automobiles considered to be the greatist ever" (sic). See also Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive#Advice on unencyclopedic edits. He's already had two previous greatest/worst articles deleted (List of famous successes/failures in science and engineering).

I only contributed to F-111 and Boeing SST, MMx1 erased the work of dozens, even though there is no ban on such pages, and some articles were sourced. But this crowd evidently approves of deleting as much material as they can get away with, which is one of the things that bothers me about WP.--matador300 18:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm a lot more concerned by stuff like this, this and this. He's already had one RfC,which finished with the mediator saying "This issue is going to continue moving from step to step until, probably Wiarthurhu, ends up either blocked or before ArbCom".

posted by the one aviation editor who exhibits the same distressing behavior consistent with what I've seen here on automobiles. He conceeded being wrong on both major points I declared the conflict over --matador300 18:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The people who are complaining, particularly Mmx1 are in no position to say who is a good or bad guy given how he's treated other editors, or that he conceeded that he was in error on the two main edit war points to the mediator --matador300 18:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess someone's going to have to explain to him that Wikipedia's supposed to be a place where we inform what things are, and not where we review how good/bad things are. And best of luck with the hapless editor who draws that short straw... Regards, --DeLarge 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that? As long as it is sourced, nothing wrong with reporting what others judgements have been. --matador300 18:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User:ApolloBoy nearly gave up on Wikipedia following the grief he got from this user on AMC Matador - if User:Wiarthurhu doesn't take a pretty stern look at his own behavior, he's in for a world of hurt. He does not take criticism of his changes well and will repeatedly WP:3RR things that he put in but which others took the time to explain were inappropriate - no amount of discussion will prevent him from sneaking the deleted section back in again.

I think it's a sign of a poor Wiki-editor when a large fraction of his/her output is "List of..." types of article. They take little effort to put together, require almost no subject knowledge yet are almost impossible to maintain and are invariable controversial.

It's pretty small fraction. The F-14 guy deleted a fairly popular entire article written by dozens of editors on the basis of stalking me around everything that I wrote, and then somebody else tried, and failed to do the same thing to a similar automobile page. I think such actions are despicable, but evidently this wp bunch does not agree. --matador300 18:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To User:Wiarthurhu: Sadly, I know exactly where all this is coming from. Teenage boys don't like to lose. It's a hormonal thing. (I'm the father of one - I know this only too well!) To them, everything looks like a competition - and losing hurts in a physical way as well as mentally - they are not good at just shrugging their shoulders and walking away. The problem can be mastered by realising that this is a purely chemical thing - and taking a conscious decision to control emotions and listen to other people. In a few years the hormones sort themselves out and you get over it. This is what the Vulcans were all about - you can't not have this emotion - but you can use logic to control it. Wikipedia isn't a contest - if your edits are removed by someone else then you have to first say to yourself "What did I do wrong?" not "Why the heck is that guy disrespecting my prose?"...it might be that you did nothing wrong - but that is vastly less likely than that you did. SteveBaker 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Something I have not observed in other editors, Apolloboy included. When I was a teenage boy, I was writing letters that got published in the real Aviation Week on the Tomcat and Hornet. No Wikipedia back then. And I've gotten letters published in Car and Driver as well in the 1980s when I was a bit older. And years of columns in Asian Week, and MIT The Tech. I often write stuff that raises hackles, but it's usually backed up by the facts, and it's usually correct, unlike much of what claims to be called research I've seen here on WP. My writing largely lead to the elimination of Affirmative Action as it was practiced in the 1980s in US colleges, something few people dared to question. People here hate to be proved wrong. As much as they claim to be objective and fair, they simply abuse people and turn it into a word-paintball battleground. They construct non-facts and dismiss contradicting citations, even a half dozen. I may be minority, but a majority cannot define what is right, my old math teacher told us you cannot vote on the value of pi. I'm not going to be the only person adding material to the WP, you can be inclusive, or you can continue to fight defensive actions against other people like bull-dozer. I'm only the third person to try to correct the Spirit/Aries problem, and hopefully will be the first successful one. I'm very dissapointed by the disrepectful, destructive, inhumane, inconsiderate, rude, exclusionary behavior, attitudes and "piss fuck" language of the editors here. In all my years on posting on various newsgroups I have never encountered such a hostile bunch, I feel like I'm donning a flak jacket and strapping on my parachute every time I edit an article. Aviation only had Mmx1, though a few others evidently tolerate and condone that sort of behavior. Here on cars, it looks like nearly a dozen like minded people, but nothing like this on any of the pages I've run across. You people should be proud of yourselves for constructing such a team. The movie Sky High had such a team, they were the bad guys. So far I have only received one apology from Apolloboy. I don't mind his age as long has he's right, but it is intolerable to go around reverting everybody and everything as wrong with his own record of errors. It's not too late to defect from the dark side and join the rebel forces. --matador300 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps you should ask yourself the question as to why other editors are so "hostile," towards you? Signature^brendel 18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Before you ask yourself anything, maybe should think about re-editing this page to move your comments? You've managed to screw up the formatting with this edit and this one. -- DeLarge 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Wairthu, if everyone is so hostile towards you, then why ar you persoanlly attacking members on your userpage? Karrmann 19:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To assuage hurt feelings, I've removed names, but not examples of behavior I find consistent with the bullying I feel we need less of here on WP. That have a nice day crap that everybody puts up on their user pages is just nonsense in this threat-rich environment. For Chrissakes, I've run into friendlier environments even among competing car salesman. You folks aren't even paid on commission, yet you've managed to out-do the meanest, cruelest, most abusve people I have ever worked with, some of those guys brought knives into work. They don't hold a candle to the treatment being dished out by this project, and from what I've seen, I'm not the first victim, though maybe the first to have gotten at least one apology. If there were awards given out to the dirtiest, meanest bunch of bastards in the wild wikipedia, I really don't know if this project would win, but it's certainly the one that I know about. I've already written about this atmosphere in Asian Week, published in San Francisco and the internet, and at this rate it will hit Wired or Newsweek sooner or later when other writers figure out what a haven for playground bullies this is. The airplanes only had one guy like that and he's just fine now. That's really, really bad, and all of you should be concerned, or at least your mothers should be concerned if you want this space to be friendly and not feel like you're walking into a bar room brawl. I don't think there's a single woman in this space, I'm certainly not acting like anybody's compliant Asian guy, and everybody's acting like a bunch of big badly behaved boys. It should not have to be like Sinclair's Jungle when somebody exposes the magnitude of human abuse and suffering that goes into trying to get corrections or information on these pages without getting jumped all over and cursed and lampooned. It seems that you all like it this way. If I end up teaching all of you some manners, as I detect a very slight improvement in all around behavior compared to when I first walked into here, a little discomfort will be worth it. I can already edit freely about the aircraft pages without getting molested and harassed, I look forward to when the same can happen within these project pages. Now everybody hum Just imagine (John Lennon) and have a nice day, damn it!..... --matador300 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to assuage my feelings. I've re-affirmed my identity as a supplier of good quotes on your userpage. Frankly I'm kind of glad I'm on your proverbial 'shitlist'. --93JC 00:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

First off a G20 would compete with a C-Class. An I30/I35 would compete with an E-Class, while a Q45 would compete with an S-Class. Lexus's lineup winded to four sedans in 2001 by adding the IS that slots below the ES, and Mercedes-Benz winded up to four in 2005 by adding the CLS-Class to slot between the E-Class & S-Class. I35 heavily competed with the TL & ES, but also the GS, which was shorter than the I35 & ES. Q45's competitor is the LS, but the I30/I35 was Infiniti's only midsize until the M45 arrived in 2003. Now the M is Infiniti's only midsize (even though it includes 35 & 45). An I35 was cheaper than an E-Class or 5 Series, but was priced similarly to a Q45. Q45 almost competed with the GS & E-Class. Q45 competed with Acura RL, Lexus LS & Mercedes-Benz S-Class before the M45 arrived. The I35 did not quite rival the C-Class or 3-Series, because they were rivals of the G20. Infiniti's always had 3 sedans (except for 1996, 2003 & 2004). -- Bull-Doser 04:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll have to add that to my list of despicable Wikipedia tactics. Scheinwerfermann and 93JC have been guilty of policing an incomplete and unverifiable POV, and deleting new information cited from freaking AUTOMOTIVE REFERENCE BOOKS for pete's sake. I thought the other guy was the only one who denied every reference up to and including Aviation Week and Janes, now over here the rule is that a website by Consumer Guide, and 2 15LB reference books are wrong. I figured out the deal is that Spirit/Acclaim were intended to replace Aries/Reliant as any dummy might guess by looking at the cars without resorting to going to price list and concluding the wildly different Sundance and Shadow which were designed to replace the Omni were also originally designed to replace the K-cars. (Does anybody besides MrS seriously believe this??) The internal document is a) not put into a proper citation, it was put into the talk page, that's an error for those of you who think Scheinwerfermann is infallible b) not publically available in any library or website since it was intended only for dealers c) only states that on introduction Shadow was to replace Aries, which it could not since Aries was not canned until mid-season, while 600 was already discontinued. Since these sources do NOT conflict except over the minor detail as to whether Shadow replaced Aries immediatey, or after Aries was retired, there is no reason to DELETE (that's vandalism) information since it is a) not contradictory and b) even if allpar, partstrain, a consumer digest 10 lb book and website, and the standard catalog chrysler's professional editors are wrong, and Sch., an amatuer is right, it is the obligation of Sch. to document what everybody else thinks rather than DELETE this new information. Am I right? I'm the one standing up to bullying behavior, so why is it that I'm the one being put up on trial for putting up verifiable information? It is also NEVER vandalism to put up cited edits in good faith, so that's ERROR NO. 2. Is this sort of stuff condoned over here? If the author of the Standard Chrysler catalog tried to correct this error, should he have to don a helmet and flak jacket and a list of 300 sources to do it?? --matador300 14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Proper conduct would be

• No premature deletes on talk page
• Good-faith edits are never vandalism. Read the rules. Again. I already got an apology from another editor on that one and he promised to NEVER EVER do that again to anyone or ever be a bad guy again.
• New information that is cited shall not be deleted. If cited sources are believed to incorrect, you will write something to the effect that "while sources xyz state pdq, they are believed to be incorrect by sources GHI," and provide contradicting sources.
• Thou shalt provide verifiable sources available to the public, or post excerpts that can be seen.
• Thou shalt not categorize 10 LB automotive reference books and websites of the 2nd largest consumer publication as unreliable sources.
• Put sources in ref /ref form, not on the talk page
• No one is dictator for life for any article. Content must be negotiated between editors in cases of conflict.

Anybody disagree with these principles of civil conduct? --matador300 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You can shut the hell up Wairthu. You are the poster child for someone who can't follow Wikipedia rules to save your pathethic soul. You have no room to lambast people, as you lambast people and cars on a daily basis. YOu can take that depicable list and shove it. I am so sick you you and your childish behavior. Karrmann 17:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please please please keep it civil. Even the worst offenders shouldn't be spoken to that way. If need be, take it WP:RFC/USER, but please try to keep a modicum of civility. --Interiot 17:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Whilst good-faith edits with references are never vandalism - they may still be off-topic, irrelevent, unencylopeadic, POV or just plain wrong. So it is very possible that a good-faith edit may none-the-less be deleted. IMHO, the code of conduct at that point is:

• If you revert a good-faith contribution - you should provide a good reason why you did so in the edit summary. There is plenty of room there for a detailed explanation. If you need more room to explain, make your revert message say "Explanation given on Talk page" - and list your reasons there.
• If someone reverted your good-faith contribution and you don't understand why - then you should certainly discuss matters before getting into a revert war. The only time I'd put back a reverted contribution without discussion would be if the reversion itself was the work of an obvious vandal - without adequate explanation.
• If someone re-reverts something that was deleted after a reasonable explanation without discussing the matter then that is unacceptable behavior - if they replace it repeatedly - in the face of multiple reasonable people telling them why it's not appropriate (as was the case with the stupid toy car crap in the AMC Matador article) then IMHO, it's vandalism.

...and giving yourself a nickname that's different than your username (which is in itself a nickname) is skating awfully close to sockpuppetism.

SteveBaker 19:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So, I looked again on MSN Autos, and the Integra DID have a sedan in its final year of production. Now, let's start this Acura vs. Infiniti vs. Lexus vs. Mercedes-Benz info.

Pre-2001:
Integra Vs. G20 Vs. ES Vs. C-Class
TL Vs. I30 Vs. GS Vs. E-Class
RL Vs. Q45 Vs. LS Vs. S-Class

2005-Present:
TSX Vs. G35 Vs. IS Vs. C-Class
TL Vs. M35 Vs. ES Vs. E-Class
RL Vs. M45 Vs. GS Vs. CLS-Class
Q45 Vs. LS Vs. S-Class

Note the Acura RL was downsized in length after 2005 to compete with mid-priced sedans. As we all know, the RL is a fullsize. -- Bull-Doser 00:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the Q45, RL and even LS are quite a bit cheaper as the S-Class but just like the TC and DTS they still compete w/ the S-Class. As for the M45 and TL I think they comete against the E-Class. The Lexus ES is an entry-level luxury car, the E-Class is one higher, a mid-level luxury car. The TSX competes w/ the IS, true but the C-Class also competes w/ the Lexus ES. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the IS is. ES & GS are similar in length to an E-Class, the ES being an E-Class competitor, the GS being a CLS-Class competitor. TL is about the length of an E-Class. C-Class is shorter than TSX or IS. The next C-Class (178 in. in length) will still be shorter than the TSX (183 in. in length). -- Bull-Doser 02:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that you cannot use mere length as a measurement for whether or not a car is a competitor, otherwise the Crown Vicotria would compete w/ the S-Class and the Impala w/ the Town Car. The IS is prices as to compete with the TSX, both of which are priced quite a bit below the C-Class in the near-luxury car. Regards, Signature^brendel 04:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the ES cheaper than the IS? Then how can it compete with the E-Class? I thought th ES was created to compete with more traditional FWD near-luxury American cars. And Lexus does not have a CLS-competitor, because the CLS is a coupe. --Pc13 08:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ford is doing much worse than GM in revenue. GM is still profitable today, despite being the largest car company in the world. I like GM over Ford. One of the only Ford cars I like are the Lincolns and the Ford Fusion. I wrote a Way Forward-related article on the Ford Crown Victoria page. Even GM's restructuring plan killed Oldsmobile. -- Bull-Doser 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Ford'll ever get rid of the Crown Vic, keep in mind the Crown Vic still does very well in the fleet markets. --ApolloBoy 02:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Lucerne is actually a Crown Vic competitor, but the LaCrosse is a 500 competitor. The longest sedans in their companies are GM's Cadillac DTS, Ford's Lincoln Town Car (which will be discontinued next year), and DaimlerChrysler's Mercedes-Benz S-Class. They're all luxury cars. -- Bull-Doser 02:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I never said anything about competitors. --ApolloBoy 03:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

BLACKLISTED LINK REMOVED

I debuted this! -- Bull-Doser 22:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

When I joined Wikipedia a year and a half ago, there was a problem with the automotive pages - there just weren't enough pictures to illustrate the articles. Now, however, I feel that we have the opposite problem - there are far too many! I can understand having one picture of each generation of a car (or at the most, two, if they display the car at different angles), but too many articles are just crammed with photo after photo of the same cars. I don't feel this adds to an article. On the contrary, I feel that all these photos crowd the text and distract from the content of the article. For example, do we really need 17 photos of the Toyota Camry or 14 photos of the Nissan Maxima? This site is becoming more like a WebShots album than an encyclopedia. I'd love to know what your thoughts are. Jagvar 14:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely - one photo per generation is plenty. The reader is not going to be enlightened by seeing the rear lights on the car as well, unless there's specific reference to them in the article.

At the same time, I think the current photographers should stop their eager additions/replacements of existing images, many of which are already adequate. I'm sure someone's already suggested the creation of a list an automobile articles in need of images, which photographers can then search out. If the car's not on the list, don't bother taking pictures. -- DeLarge 08:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

All seems to be a question of 'moderation in all things'. A few photographs to illustrate an article is a fine thing - a load of pictures of car after car is NOT :-). Also, it's nice, of course, for someone to see their car (baby) up on WP but if someone was there before, with a perfectly adequate photograph, the first one there should be allowed to remain. - Ballista 08:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Requested images is created. --Interiot 08:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take this chance to mention that the more technical side actually needs more photos, and if anyone wants to take a picture of their beauty, the following articles have no pictures and could use one: power window, power door locks, power seat, coilover, t-top, filter (oil), fender (automobile), brake, bench seat, Engine Control Unit, shaker scoop, paddle tires, shift light. --Interiot 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll get photos of a T-Tops (Mom's Camaro), Oil Filter, Fender, and Bench Seat tonight. ren0^talk 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I just added a pic for power seats and will add other for other interior power features. Signature^brendel 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to get the word out to everyone, I have added a cell for "parent_company" to the infobox below manufacturer. So now there shouldn't be as many arguments over who is manufacturing what. Signature^brendel 22:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a bit superfluous? What if the manufacturer is the same as the parent company? In that case it would be redundant. --ApolloBoy 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Most categories in the infobox are optional. If there isn't anything entered it won't show up. So in other words, if it is the same as the manufacturer just leave it blank. ren0^talk 01:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactely its optional. I had the same concern as ApolloBoy, espcially since I am also of the opinion that the parent company is the manufacturer. But it is the best compromise as I have recently experienced heated discussion regarding some who do not recognize the parent company as the manufacturer. Regards, Signature^brendel 03:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A number of car pages have so many pictures and so many info boxes (with even more pictures within those info boxes) that they overwhelm and overshadow the text of page. Basicly, the articles are lopsided (and so do not look at all professional), and in fact, cause some to not render properly on a browser. Nissan Sentra is one of the worst, but it is not difficult to find other examples. Should there really be an info box for each generation of a car? Can the info box be compacted some? Something really needs to change. Mrand 12:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely what I have been saying. I raised this issue yesterday, in fact, but have not yet received a response from other project members. As I said, do we really need 17 photos on the Toyota Camry page, or 14 photos on the Nissan Maxima page? So many articles, especially those on Japanese cars, have become so congested with pictures (that add little or nothing, by the way), that it becomes very difficult to read the text. I feel there should be no more than one or two pictures of each generation of a car. Jagvar 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bull-Doser: When you archive a discussion, you are only supposed to archive the inactive topics. Threads that people are still actively posting to should stay in the current discussions area. SteveBaker 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, we usually archive every 50 discussios. I have reinserted discussions that people might still want to participate in and am going to complete the archiving process once the overall discussion on this page has reached that point. Signature^brendel 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I find that rigidly sticking to the '50-discussions' rule is kinda silly - it's only a guideline anyway. Some discussions ramble on for dozens and dozens of posts - others are just a couple of lines. When the discussion page is HUGE then it's time to archive - irrespective of the number of topics discussed. 19:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true, I myself archive 53 posts in the third archive. I do however think that it is important to look at the dates of the previous discussion posts- usually after three days of nothing the discussion is dead and can be archived- as I said, "I have reinserted discussions that people might still want to participate in." Signature^brendel 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you all please keep a close eye on Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Mercedes-Benz W220 and Jaguar XJ? A user by the name of Daimler with no profile and no talk page has been adding his opinion to the S-Class page, calling Mercedes "fat," "hideous," and "certainly no Audi A8 or Jaguar XJ." To the Jaguar XJ page, he has been adding comments like "dream car" and "far better than its German rivals." This is an obvious case of heavy POV, and despite my constant reverts, he is not stopping. Could someone issue him a stern warning, please? Jagvar 15:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop posting your musings and rants over here. This talk page is where the activities and important issues within the scope of the WikiProject Automobiles should be discussed and NOT one's thoughts about car models, their succession, their competitors and their future, as well as NOT the place to publicize personal attacks on other users (which are against WP:NPA anyway), and essays proclaiming one's superiority over other users and dissatisfaction with WP (dissatisfied users are free to leave anytime).

In case the matter actually DOES pertain to a given article, like the issue of whether a given car is a successor/competitor to another, please keep the discussion confined to the car's article's talk page. If you would like more input from other users on the issue, do simply inform them here that a given discussion takes place on this and this page.

This way, the WikiProject talk page will be much easier to monitor for REALLY important issues that get lost along the way. Thank you! Bravada, talk - 08:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with this. In fact, I think an editor would be at liberty to cut/paste text from here to the talk page of the user or the appropriate automobile talk page, and it would simply be good housekeeping. -- DeLarge 09:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As some of the latest discussions actually do not bring anything new to most articles and it would be better not to continue them, I have just added them to the last archive - if you believe there was something there that is not a personal attack or rant but rather important for a particular article, please feel free to paste/continue on appropriate article's talk page. Bravada, talk - 10:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rants about predecessor/sucessor/competitor relationships - and which name should be the 'One True Name' for a vehicle are increasingly unproductive. I'm beginning to take the view that we'd actually be better off removing the predecessor/sucessor/competitor fields from the Automotive infobox and coming up with a rule that says "The vehicle name that the article was first written as will remain the name of the article - if the vehicle has other names then they can be redirects and listed in the intro paragraph". The increase in productivity here would more than outweigh any small end-user inconvenience. SteveBaker 12:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this would put an end to a lot of unproductive banter and tension, but on the other hand I think that at least some of the information contained in these fields is valuable and it would be a shame to lose it. We just need to set up more clear rules concerning them, as well as use more careful judgement and not let ourselves be engaged in counterproductive rows and edit wars. My propositions:

• First and foremost, information directly from manufacturer (press releases, sales literature, websites - and NOT media publications by third party, even quoting manufacturer's representatives directly or indirectly) should take precedence over anything else.
• The "similar" field is NOT a "competitors" field. This is not Consumer Guide. The similar field is just there to provide readers with some links which they might find interesting and which might broaden their view on the topic.
  Example: Honda Avancier is listed as a vehicle similar to Opel Signum, even though they were never sold together in one market, and thus are by no means competitors, but they were created from a similar concept. Therefore, a person similar with one of those cars might use the infobox to quickly get an overview of the other vehicle, gathering from it that e.g. the Avancier is Honda's vehicle "similar to the Signum".
  Therefore, I believe that field might not even list actual competitors, especially when we are dealing with unique vehicles, to which some other similar ones might have existed in other markets and even other periods. Sometimes the most similar vehicles are the direct competitors, but then listing ALL possible competitors makes the infobox clumsy and and rather useless for the abovementioned purpose.
  I believe that the optimum number of entries in the "similar" field is between 1 and 3 (though an empty field is not a bad thing either) - if there are more than 3 vehicles similar to the one described, the author should choose the ones that are most similar (remembering not only about market position, but also the technical side, concept, origins etc.)
• The "predecessor/successor" thing brings about several problems, not all of which can be solved by referring to the manufacturers' publications, as they often remain silent on that. I believe the following rules might be useful:

1. General rule - a successor is an automobile sold in the primary market of the model in question, in a period directly following the period in which the model in question was sold, belonging to the same market class.
   Example: The Ford Focus replaced the Ford Escort (European), as its sales started directly after the sales of the Escort ended in its primary market, Europe, even though the model continued to be produced, and often sold side-by-side with the Focus, in other continents.
2. A "grace period" of up to three years would be sensible for some models that did not have immediate replacements, but a similar car from the same manufacturer appeared shortly after the production ceased.
3. The brand and manufacturer should in general be the same, apart from when the manufacturer states differently
   Example: The Talbot brand replacing Simca, Chrysler and Rootes Group brands in Europe after PSA took over Chrysler Europe (this rebranding was officially announced by the manufacturer).
4. As classifications, market conditions and standards change, the most important indicator of whether the car is pricing - taking into account that the pricing brackets for a given market segment do move in time.
5. There is nothing wrong with a car NOT having a predecessor or successor - so do not fear leaving this field empty. Also, when there is a controversy as to the succession line which cannot be easily solved with the above guidelines, I believe it is also better to leave the field empty.

Your thought on such guidelines? Bravada, talk - 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. The "one true name" thing - we DO have a guideline on that, it says that the article should bear the name that the vehicle bore on the original market - which is why all Daewoo models are listed as such, even if they are sold under different brands in most markets (there is a high probability that there were more Chevrolet Aveos than Daewoo Kaloses sold). A swift network of redirects lets the users find the article they are looking for, while this rule helps avoid unnecessary discussion.
Keeping the articles and names as they were created would be against quite many rules and guidelines, and also common sense. For example, some users created three separate articles - Honda Legend, Acura Legend and Acura RL, while rules such as "worldwide view", as well as common sense, make it obvious that they should all be merged into the former.

First, I agree this discussion page has truned into some kind of Auto blog- and I probably shouldn't have participated in the competitor disucssions (they were just too much fun to resist)-sorry. Anyways, the guidelines above do help, espcially the grace period. While I do beleive that there will always be a few disucssions of what is similar to what, these should be quite minor- as these are minor details (the main attribute about a car is not the car that succeded it). Also one other idea to prevent out of control edit wars on successor predeccessor entries- maybe they should be left blank in some cases to avoid an editing war. While I do want our readers to get the most info possible, I would prefer leaving these cells blank rahter than filling them w/ doubtful POV. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's still a good idea to set up ground rules on what constitutes original research and source based research. To declare two automotive references and 3 websites to be in error is original research unless a direct supporting reference can be provided. To declare automotive reference books to be unreliable sources is as ludicrous as declaring Jane's defence publications to be biased in favor of the defence industry. I'm the first guy to put ANY sourced edits in Spirit or Acclaim and I get immediately reverted and insulted by a guy who put no sources at all in the original edit, and does not accept that his source does not even contradict what every other source outside of WP states. The A-body was originally intended to replace the K-cars, but on introduction, they actually only replaced cars that had already been removed from the market. That is directly supported by the book "fifty years" and "standard chrysler catalog". A guy should be able to correct this error made clear by new information without being immediately reverted and called a vandal and egomaniac. Fair enough? And the Eagle Premier is still the first large car produced by AMC since the Ambassador and Matador, and that dismal sales failure DID make the Charger/300C possible, which I think would still not survive the guidelines given above. How frequently do editors routinely immediately revert sourced edits from reference books, calling them vandalism, and is that kind of thing condoned around here?--matador300 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only refer you to the caption of this section. Bravada, talk - 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)