Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 55

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 50

←

Archive 53

→

OBD Lists - Add them to each make/model, or start an OBD project?

As motor vehicles move increasingly to digital management, maintaining them requires a new set of references called DTC Codes (Diagnostic Trouble Codes) that are read by an On Board Diagnostic (OBD) computer that stores the fault codes. Some serious faults are signalled with a dash board light or a message telling the driver to take the car to their mechanic, and in severe cases, the system places the car in "limp mode" where it barely can be driven to prevent catastrophic damage.

Each manufacturer issues a list of diagnostic codes with explanations about what each means and what its probable cause is. Over time, as the car gets older (typically after 10 years), the dealers drop off the older lists. The manufacturers place the lists in the public domain where they can be found in various repositories on the Internet. However, private sector hosts come and go, and there is a need for a permanent repository of encyclopedic capacity available to anyone seeking a quick reference.

The list can be added to the particular make and model, or, perhaps Wikipedia would decide to establish a whole section dedicated to DTC codes. It is likely that both manufacturers and car forums would then populate the list with their particular cars.

The other benefit of this is to allow "aging probable-causes". The DTC list developed when the vehicle was new will not be comprehensive. Over time, new causes will pop up - for example, a poorly-designed fuse box allows moisture to get in each time the car dealer pressure washes the engine, but the corrosion caused by the moisture may take months before the fuse box starts throwing off error codes - long after the used-car dealer sold the vehicle. The codes will refer to the components that are fused, not the link in the middle (the fusebox), and the mechanic may spend a week before they find the problem (that was unlisted on the original DTC list) - in this case, that the fuse box had corrosion, thus the OBD received bad data. If that mechanic then publishes that finding, the next person with the same DTC code will know to check the fuse box in the first ten minutes.

Tangential question. How does the finding become encyclopedic? My suggestion is that the mechanic be allowed to enter findings directly on the Wikipedia page in a special column called "aging probable-causes" rather than a volunteer having to reference some other web site - especially because Wikipedia has a tendency to blacklist car forums. Other interested mechanics will correct erroneous postings, the same way Wikipedia's checks and balances corrects all entries.

Key question: Should there be a heading of OBD DTC Codes with each page being codes for that make/model/year, or should such codes be added to the existing web page for that particular car? My thinking is that it should be the former, and Wikipedia should actively invite car manufacturers, dealers, mechanics and car forums to populate the lists as time goes on.

Thoughts anyone?
CDT1997 (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with your proposal.

The OBD2 standard lists a number of standard DTCs. The manufacturer does not have to implement them but if the manufacture does use that code then it must be according to the standard. So manufacturers use non-standard codes. These are almost always proprietary and the manufactures guard them jealously. The expansive OBD2 monitor systems paid handsomely to get those lists. Any list found on a website is either standard (which we already have) or proprietary (which we are not allowed to have). There may be legal issues in copying or even pointing to those lists.
Sites that tend to have those types of lists also tend to disappear. Which makes it hard for us to put in supporting references so that readers can check our facts.
If the ECU says it has a short in the fuel pump relay then that also includes all the wiring between the ECU and the relay - including the fuse box. If we start telling people that DTC's for fuel pump relays means check your fuse box then we will be misleading people when the relay fails. A mechanic knows to checking everything from the relay back to the ECU - which will eventually find the fuse box problem if that is the cause.
The list of standard DTCs is huge. The list of proprietary DTCs is even bigger. And they are different for each combination of manufacturer, model, grade, engine, generation and sometimes the country it was sold in. A truly daunting task which I would not like to maintain.
Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. See WP:NOTHOWTO.

So, the idea is nice but bites off more than we can chew. Stepho talk 04:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. IPBilly (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Stepho. Basically, adding OBD codes would add a ton of difficult to access and difficult to maintain data with very little meaning for the average reader. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Something like this is well outside of Wikipedia's scope. I don't know if it would be suitable for something like Wikibooks or Wikisource, but it definitely isn't workable here. --Sable232 (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

CarZing: Article Review

Hello - I'm writing on behalf of my client, CarZing. CarZing’s mission is to make auto financing quick and easy while providing a modern, hassle free way of shopping for cars. The article (see draft) was submitted back in December 2020, and is still waiting to be reviewed. Google Search is currently showing outdated company info until this article can help update SEO, which is causing some customers to get confused. My client and I would greatly appreciate if someone could assist in reviewing the article draft. Thank you so much for your help! - Chase — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:C244:2300:2D42:BA6C:A33F:FD27 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Two separate articles for pretty much identical topic

This has baffled me for a while. There are currently two separate articles regarding Hyundai's N brand: Hyundai N brand and Hyundai N. Both were created in a very short timeframe (5 days, the former being created first and has more revisions). Previously, there was an undiscussed merge proposal prior to being closed on 14 April. Which one should be merged to? (in this case to a more appropriate title) 182.30.205.232 (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It should be Hyundai N, as long as there's no ambiguity. See also BMW M, Lexus F. --Vossanova ^o< 12:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hyundai N brand to Hyundai N merger

Hello, fellow members? I believe that to create more consistency in this encyclopedia if we didn't have two different articles with the same name. Therefore, I shall try to merge the Hyundai N brand article to the Hyundai N article. Would any members of this WikiProject assist me?JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 17:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Update: I just did that by myself :P--JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 19:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Automotive industry in Japan

Would some members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at Automotive industry in Japan#Car Brands? It seems rather excessive and unbalanced to have an image gallery of logos right after the lead section and it was a bold addition made by an IP editor a few weeks ago. Of course, being bold and being made by an IP aren't necessarily bad things, but in this case a little more discussion might be a good idea. There is some more information about Japanese automobile manufacturers in Automotive industry in Japan#Manufacturers where perhaps these logos might be better incorporated, but at the same time there's doesn't really seem to be a lot of encyclopedic relevance to adding them to this more general article per WP:GALLERY, etc. since their use appears more decorative than contextual, at least it does to me. There's also a problem with non-free content use because there's pretty much no way to justify the use of any non-free logo in an image gallery such as this per WP:NFG. The ones currently shown all appear to be from Commons; so, that's not an issue at the moment. Someone has, however, tired to add several non-free logos to this gallery and they have been repeatedly removed by a WP:BOT because their use isn't policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I already removed this gallery, just now saw this comment. WP:BRD and all that. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers:. The edit summary you left here was probably because my above post was a bit confusing. While it's true that non-free logos can't really be used in a image gallery like, freely-licensed or public domain logos can. Since the gallery you removed didn't contain any non-free logos (a bot had already removed them), there were really no non-free content use policy concerns that needed addressing. However, the gallery did seem undue and not very encyclopedic, and removing it was (in my opinion) the proper thing to do; just not for the reason you gave. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

List of production battery electric vehicles table expansion/merger

We need an expert (not me, currently I'm dumb) to restore the "completeness" of the table in List of production battery electric vehicles after the epic merge.JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 21:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted the merge because it is a massive removal of information. Regards, Andra Febrian (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's obvious a merge is necessary. The title List of production battery electric vehicles (table) is an egregious MOS violation, and the two pages are content forks of each other. That said, I thought I advised that the content should be merged (both sets of content on one page) as an intermediate stage, not replaced. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be merged to make this encyclopedia more easy to use. We're improving, and I will only re-merge when we reach a concensus, which should be soon. The article List of production battery electric vehicles (table) clearly needs to be updated, violates WP:MOS and WP:CFORK policies, and should have been merged a long time ago to avoid me getting in trouble for blanking.If we agree that the table is the right choice, then we will work together to merge the two articles. If the list is after all better, then I will CSD the table as an unnessecary disambiguation page. And my mentor will probably hate me.JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 12:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

GM and Opel diesels

Hi y'all, does anyone know any more about Opel's new diesel threes and fours? I have sussed out that they share their architecture with GM's new Duramax I6 engine. The three-cylinder engine is currently included in GM Medium Diesel engine, but I don't know that this is correct as it is a whole new design. Maybe they should be part of the Duramax I6 article, but this would need a new name. Does anyone know what Opel calls this engine? Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

General Motors companion make program at FAC

Hello,

I just wanted to let you know that I have nominated General Motors companion make program at FAC here. Thanks!

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Simca Horizon

I started a renaming discussion at Talk:Simca-Talbot_Horizon#Requested_move_9_May_2021, please weigh in there if you have the time. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 23:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox racing driver has an RFC

Template:Infobox racing driver has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

GM platform disambiguations

GM A platform (1936) was recently moved to GM A platform (1925) with the claim "further research shows the platform was first introduced in 1925, when the B and C platforms were also introduced" (but no content was added to the article to that effect nor was any source provided).

But that brings me to a thought I've had for a while: why are these articles titled this way? Until 2013 they were all disambiguated with "FWD" or "RWD" in parentheses. This was changed with a claim of such disambiguation being "nonstandard" but I found no discussion of the sort. Now is as good a time as any to have that discussion. I believe the original nomenclature should be restored - "FWD" and "RWD" are hardly uncommon in general automotive journalism and unlikely to be confusing to the average reader. Having the year there instead may even be more confusing, on account of the fact that GM's platform lettering is much more closely associated with 1960s and newer cars and something like "1925" or "1936" is probably unexpected by most readers. --Sable232 (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm just startled by this pronouncement leading off the article you refer to: "The GM A platform (1925) (commonly called A-body) ". I don't see how a pressed steel chassis is a platform. And —if someone wants to call it a platform for whatever reason— then why call it a body? !!! Eventually, I believe, the US auto industry did develop something they chose to call unitary construction (invented in Madison Avenue?) where they welded lots of things together (into a "unit") but I am unconvinced they were doing anything like this in 1925. More likely they were trying to remove a lot of the wood from their Fords and beginning to talk of all-steel Bodies? Maybe I'm quite wrong? Eddaido (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

See car platform, and the "__-body" is a colloquialism in common usage by enthusiasts. But in any case, this is completely off-topic to the naming discussion. --Sable232 (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think using years as a disambiguator for something which existed for so long is quite confusing. Given that the main change is the configuration, I would agree with changing them back to (FWD) and (RWD). A7V2 (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I second restoring these titles. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I am also in favor of restoring these titles, not to mention expanding the "GM" as I've raised here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: I cannot help viewing the introduction of the word PLATFORM in the name of this article as absurd. It simply confuses the issue to please a particular editor. Hard on everyone else ! Eddaido (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The articles' titles don't necessarily have to be pleasing to anybody – I believe that titles should precisely define what their articles are about – even if that means that they appear like an internal type designation rather than a model name. Recently, we had a similar discussion on the German language version of Wikipedia on whether or not the Mercedes-Benz W 100 page should be moved to Mercedes-Benz 600. In the GM-platform case (and I also believe that the word platform should be used), characterising FWD and RWD seems more reasonable to me than using years. That is, because in the American automotive industry, model years are used, whereas in other countries the "year of manufacture" system is used instead. Years can be confusing to those who don't know the difference. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

About the word "platform" only. Of my four adult family members and two friends, only I knew what the term "platform" meant about autos. I think this is another case where editors think that field specialty terms are more commonly used than they are.

This and the following section seem related, MPV above too, this section is active. ReTeam (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"Platform" is accepted nomenclature for describing the common underpinnings of various automobiles, it doesn't refer to a physical platform any more than it does when the word is used to describe software. A quick internet search will return millions of results, just read this one for instance. If I was to ask my family members what a pushrod was none would have a clue either, but that doesn't mean we don't use the word "pushrod" as there is nothing else adequate to describe it. Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

GM "Platforms"

Why is a 1925 pressed steel chassis being called a platform when it is obviously no such thing? Eddaido (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

A platform, as used in the industry now, is a chassis system, basically a floorpan (or family of floorpans), some suspensions, somewhat interchangeable, and a buncheroo of drivetrain options. Enjoy. Greglocock (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, so why's it being used for a 1925 attempt to do a part of the same job? Eddaido (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a case where we are better off using the nomenclature of the time vs trying to force modern terms onto the older designations. Also, in terms of "platform" we should keep in mind that a platform could be a common chassis or it could be a common set of components/family of components. A truck with a short and long wheel base clearly is a different chassis but could still be part of a common platform. Springee (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

perhaps a more pragmatic modern definition is that a platform is a thing that goes down the same assembly line. That is, of course, bollocks in reality. We used run all sorts down the line. Greglocock (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't get too hung up on a single definition of the word. We talk about computer platforms (Windows, Android, the Web), political platforms and car platforms. Platform just means something that can be built on to make the final product. See https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/platform Stepho talk 23:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. "Car platform" is a commonly used concept. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Then we are agreed:

Eddaido (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't in that case since both of those are rather similar. They are a rolling chassis without body. The Plymouth looks somewhat similar to a modern pickup chassis which is a foundation for a range of trucks and SUVs. If a MFR called it a "body" or a "platform" I generally think we should use their terms (GM W-body cars for example). However, if we want to use "platform" as a universal term for vehicles that share a common design per their mfrs then I'm also OK with that. We shouldn't assume that "platform" implies something about how the vehicle is manufactured. Springee (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I see, but isn't your opinion a highly personal view? I strongly disagree with it - which is why I brought the matter up here. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is. I mean look at the Android software platform. That looks nothing like the pictures you have posted but it's still considered a platform. If we move back to the automotive world, look at the Ford Panther platform. Here is a picture of the chassis [[1]] which looks very similar to the chassis shown above. Springee (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

But you make my Very Point ! The marvellous elasticity in your use of words to mean whatever you'd like them to mean at that particular moment. Doesn't it have to stop somewhere? I just put into the Google search box "biden's platform" and guess what, WP sprang instantly with the answer Political positions of Joe Biden. At some stage you have to decide what a word means within its context. You simply can't use it for vehicles the way you have begun to try to. Eddaido (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

""Car platform" is a commonly used concept" has been posted above @Mr.choppers:. Used by who? Everyone on this page knows the idea, of course, but how many common readers? (From a US POV here). Do you think most people think of their cars as "platforms"?

In the US the term "platform" wasn't common before the "world cars" (I don't know about Europe). Before that they were bodies. This Motor Trend's 1977 New Car Issue used (letter)-body except for X-car. Now we are using the term for a 1925 Chevy retroactively (ex-post facto?), long before the term was used at all?

@Springee: posted: "I think this is a case where we are better off using the nomenclature of the time vs trying to force modern terms onto the older designations". I agree. Sources from the time aren't going to use "platform". It is not authentic(?) to the time.

I think "platform" screams "industry jargon". Screams. Maybe that's not bad for today. But going back and using it in 1925 screams enthusiast jargon. Sort of revisionist history.

Or is this a US/Br/EU English ENGVAR garbage deal? They weren't platforms here then and I'd be surprised if they are commonly here now.

For whatever reason I believe editors have used industry jargon common to them where it wasn't originally used, doesn't fit very well, and isn't needed. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sammy D III: I mainly bristle at the notion that we are not allowed to use commonly accepted words to describe various concepts (see MPV discussion above), and "platform" is not an unusual word to describe the common underpinnings of several designs. I do see your point, however, in that this may be an unsuitable neologism in this case. General Motors A-body (RWD) is probably a better typical title for these pages. While "body" is even less accurate than "platform" for describing a shared chassis and mechanicals, it is what GM and most commentators use. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

A problem with using "-body" in this case is that it only applies to certain instances - many platforms are not referred to in that way (e.g. GM Delta platform). Consistent terminology across articles would be preferable.

I have an issue with assuming complete incompetence on the part of the average Wikipedia reader. Most with enough of an interest in the subject to click the link for one of these articles are probably not going to be completely bewildered at the concept - and for those who have never heard of it before, car platform is linked in the first sentence in most (if not all) cases. In fact, "platform" is what the pertinent infobox field is titled - what's the alternative? --Sable232 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

While I see the inconsistency issue, I think we should use the wp:COMMONNAME. I just noticed that the GM F-body cars are listed as F-platform. The problem is no one call it that. [[2]][[3]][[4]]. One of those did say "F-body platform". However, this might also be a case of confusing terms. The GM F-body article covers several generations of Camaros/Firebirds where there is basically nothing in common between those from the late 60s vs from the late 90s. They wouldn't be considered the same GM platform. I think GM used body to refer to a size/market segment rather than a common set of parts as they did with the Alpha and Gamma Platforms. In this case we really should change articles like GM F-platform to GM F-body since this follows both common name and common sense given how GM was using the term. Springee (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I enjoyed watching that, it got me thinking. No real focus, though.

Side note: I didn't know that MPV is an aka for Minivan (US POV). Ross (I ask too) thought Unimog. I know the term, of course, but using it for a whole type? (Interesting story). Someone who grew up in a MPV market just assumed I knew that. That looks like a huge US-centric knowledge gap to me, and I didn't notice.

This isn't ready, but the real world... My problem isn't with using the word "platform", just where. Especially in titles for pre-"platform" common use vehicles.

Platform is industry jargon here, I haven't gotten any hits either (computers come up). Every editor probably agrees that world cars have platforms, even though the readers may not know. It almost has to go in the text of one, it'll be in context or linked.

I question whether the term should be used for vehicles from before it was common in auto circles. Especially in titles.

I don't know Br/EU English, when did "platform" become car-talk there? VW and Renault (shudder) had real platforms, but was a Reliant Kitten (Flipping Bangers) on the same "platform" as a saloon in the UK Motor Trend whatever at that time?

I think I saw a world car article with several international names with "platform", that made sense as a device. You are grouping different names together and "platform" is as good a word as any, "family" seems like writing down. I wouldn't think "platform" was confusing used like that.

I thought the whole point of "MPV" was what incompetence is. Just because someone doesn't know as much as me doesn't mean they're incompetent, only that they haven't the knowledge on that particular subject and I shouldn't assume that they do.

Or I can be obsolete. I spend time in the past, using archaic/industry/scientific words which apply to the subject in context. And I think a '25 Chevy is in the past. But maybe everything should be updated to contemporary languages.

I'll try harder next time, circumstances. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the "platform" expression does not need to be applied retroactively, at least not when those items already have accepted names - in addition to the A-body and X-car etcetera, I just realized to my dismay that the Tipo Quattro has been titled Type Four platform here (in Scandinavia it was referred to as the "Club of Four"). I really do not think "platform" is the correct word for many of these articles. Are there any editors who oppose some judicious renamings, mainly for the very clear cases? Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement in cases where the mfr and/or publications do not refer to it as a "platform". Wikipedia should not try to change terms used in sources to fit out current views. Springee (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I thought I might add a few comments as to whether the term should be "platform" or "body" and thought maybe we could look at how it began in the very early days. GM in 1909 bought several companies to include Oldsmobile, Buick, Oakland and Cadillac. As they were still making cars using the process at the time which was bare chassis, engine and suspension, then contracted the coachwork or "body" to former buggy makers, the body for GM cars was done by Fisher Body and then individualized for each brand, meaning lots of chrome on Cadillacs and basic appearance items for Chevrolet. In 1925, when the A-, B-, and C- "body" were introduced, it was so they could standardize production at Fisher. If you look at the cars from 1925-1940, all GM cars are almost identical, with minor changes every year. The "body" used was influenced by the wheelbase while the coachwork came from several Fisher factories which shared body pieces for each brand. When Harley Earl retired in 1958, every GM car and truck all had an almost identical appearance with dual headlights, probably a tribute to Mr. Earl, then in 1960 everything changed radically when Bill Mitchell took over. So, should the term "platform" which is more modern, or "body" be used? I think the GM fanbase would say "body".(Regushee (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC))

Just a note: I think that someone doing this will find out that US Chrysler also used Letter(=size) body designations in the 1960s-1970s. No idea about Ford. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ford did it at least with the Fox-body. While the article is called Ford Fox platform a look at the citations makes it clear the "Fox-body" is the common name. It's probably worth listing out articles like this so we as a group can change the names. Springee (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

And this is only US English so far. @Mr.choppers: sort of showed the nightmare non-English names could become. Sammy D III (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this wouldn't be a problem since we should only use "-body" where sources do the same. We have that for many US Ford and GM platforms but I don't think we have that for source talking about platforms outside the US. I also think Ford and GM moved away from the term as they started to adopt more "world car" designs. Springee (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You could be right, it was just a thought. I have no idea what the British call their autos. I'm also thinking definition, but I'm not from here. I personally think all world cars have platforms and have seen it done correctly as a title. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we are starting to reach an agreement that some of the "x platform" articles should be renamed based on what sources call them. I'm trying to decide the best way to phrase things. Take the F-body cars. The F-body refers to multiple, largely unrelated generations of Camaro/Firebird cars not unlike the F-series refers to many generations of Ford trucks. Thus I wouldn't be OK calling this the "F-Body Platform" as it's actually a series of platforms. Also, would we call it a "platform" if it only sits under one car? For example, is the Corvette C7 a platform or just a single car? I personally think it would be OK to call it a platform that just happens to underpin only one car. In the case of the F-body cars I would suggest saying "F-body" was the name of a series of platforms. Springee (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

In titles only use anything when necessary. - In the US for titles on pre-"world cars" you could just default to "body", both the commonname and usually "official" name". - In the blurb editors will always use platform whenever they want, and since it is sort of a vague term they'll be right most of the time. - I can see a C7 's body platform, the part of the car the components attach to. The idea of it. I don't think the C7 is a platform because there are two different bodies, hard and soft top. I would like a wider range, but that's just my outside opinion. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I see your point but consider the GM Kappa platform that was under the Saturn Sky, Opel something and Pontiac Solstice. These would generally be seen as a rebadged jobs with only two body styles (and changes to non-structural panels). This as opposed to a flexible platform (for example Ford's CD3 which produced both sedans and SUVs). Anyway, I guess the answer is, "use your head when making changes". Springee (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

BrightDrop COI edit requests

Hi! I'm a COI editor BrightDrop (a subsidiary of GM, a client of my employer). I've posted some edit requests to the talk page for that article. If anyone here has time to take a look, I'd appreciate it! Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

We should never have created a standalone article about an announced future brand or unshipped product, per WP:CRYSTAL #5: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. BrightDrop needs to be redirected to General Motors, with a few sentences saying the GM announced a new brand (WTF are they calling it a "startup"? If we're not speaking English here any more, nobody told me) and said they'd ship an electric pallet mover in late 2021. If they do ship the pallet mover, we might want a standalone article, if it gets significant coverage, per WP:PRODUCT. It is totally fine to mention a company's announcemnts on articles that are on otherwise notable topics, but creating separate articles is not fine.

It's still not too late to redirect Tesla Roadster (second generation) while we're at it, instead of giving fanboys a place to post gobbledygook about Tesla's, um, flying rocket car? That article has turned into some kind of joke meme. Adults, please? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Arbiter. WPA's choice of names is a guide for those writing about automobiles in English

It may give a few motoring journalists a bit of a laugh but I think the members of this project should face up to their responsibility. You people decide the terminology used particularly where editors are using English as a second language and are aware they can misuse or misunderstand English words. Don't let it become a muddle. Eddaido (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That's okay - I also got quite a laugh when I saw lot's of 'infart' and 'utfart' signs when driving around Europe (they mean entrance and exit). We will never please everybody because English differs around the world. We still argue about bonnet vs hood, boot vs trunk and petrol vs gasoline. Such is the world we live in. Stepho talk 06:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Stepho, not at all what I meant. Which English-speaking country was it used those 'infart' and 'utfart' signs? Love to hear about it. Send an email. Eddaido (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Your mentioned non-English speakers reading English. My example was the same thing from the opposite side - English speakers reading non-English. Even Brits reading American English and vice-versa can have trouble. I've had instances where I wrote "windscreen" and some Americans couldn't figure out that it was the same as their "windshield". Stepho talk 06:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

That's Swedish (and other Scandinavian languages). "Uppfart" is a driveway, or whatever it is called in y'alls part of the world. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times help needed

Opinions needed at List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times Drachentötbär (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Drachentötbär: Could you be more specific? Thanks, A7V2 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Just click https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_N%C3%BCrburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times&action=history to see the dispute. A new user appeared and keeps moving a car from the non-series/non-road-legal to the production/street-legal section. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"Late model"

The Late model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article starts with an intro section about production cars, and then all the rest of the article is about the unrelated topic of racecar racing. Latemodels in stock car look like Dali-esque silhouettes of 1970s cars, and not recent production models (which top line stock car racing uses). To me, this should be split into two articles, one on late model production cars, and one on late model racing. What do you guys think? -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. I wonder though if the article should simply be moved to Late Model Racing and remove reference to road cars. Is the term really that common when referring to road cars? A7V2 (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. The reference to road cars may still be appropriate somewhere in the article, but definitely not the lead. I don't think it's a common term referring to road cars, which is why somebody would want to look it up in the first place. It's such a trivial definition that a separate article is unnecessary. IPBilly (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It's fairly frequent description of road cars in police blotter reports -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Small car

There is a discussion going on Talk:Small car if it is a good idea that a redirect (established after an RfD) can be changed into a disambiguation page. The Banner talk 12:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Delahaye 175

A Delahaye fan has taken over this article and it has mushroomed into an enormous chunk of mostly uncited text and insane amounts of cruft. Does anyone have the energy to tackle this? Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh good lord. I don't have the energy right now, but I put an overdetailed template on it, at least. --Vossanova ^o< 21:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

B-segment has an RFC

B-segment has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge

It has been proposed that Roadable aircraft be merged into Flying car. You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Flying car/Archive 1#Merge proposal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Flying car infoboxes

We have an infobox template for cars/automobiles in Template:Infobox automobile. There is a parallel template for aircraft at Template:Infobox aircraft. Now that flying cars are moving from the curiosity box to production engineering, it seems time to decide how to do their infoboxes. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Flying car infoboxes, on the Aircraft WikiProject talk page, in which you are invited to participate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Notification of a move discussion

There is an ongoing discussion regarding whether Citroën C3 R5 and Škoda Fabia R5 should be moved to Citroën C3 Rally2 and Škoda Fabia Rally2 respectively. I invite interested editors to participate at Talk:Hyundai i20 R5#Requested move 10 July 2021. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

List of VW diesel engines

Hello,

I am proposing a major change to the List of Volkswagen Group diesel engines at the corresponding talk page, see Talk:List of Volkswagen Group diesel engines#Major issues with this list. Please feel free to comment. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Supercars

An extremely energetic editor is adding dozens of pictures and dubiously formatted content to all modern super and luxury car pages. If anyone has spare energy, I suggest going here to see. Rolls-Royce Phantom (eighth generation), for instance, had four images but had eighteen after ගොඩය was through. I give up. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I have edited the Rolls-Royce Phantom VIII page (Special:Diff/1038579886), because I agree that these pictures and text additions are not particularly good; basically, there were only primary sources and various pieces of information on interior details that I believe are hardly information but free marketing. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Pferdestärke edit warring

I have been witnessing a unit conflict here on the English language Wikipedia for a while now and I suppose it needs resolving. Now, I don't wish to blame anybody, so I will focus on the problem itself rather than involved editors. If described in a sentence that can easily be converted into a yes-or-no question, then the problem is whether or not the Pferdestärke power unit should be included in articles on vehicles that were not designed with this unit. There has been back-and-forth editing for too long now (some exmaples: [5] [6] [7] [8])

I would like to give you a brief overview of the Pferdestärke before going into detail: It is a unit of power in the MKPS unit system (sometimes referred to as the technical unit system). The MKPS unit system is an obsolete metric unit system that uses weight instead of force. In West Germany, this system was abandoned in 1972, and by 1978, it had become mandatory to use the SI system instead. This means that all (German) cars designed in 1978 or later come with SI units as standard (i. e. their engine power is always given in kilowatt, and any non kW figures are always converted from kilowatt).

I believe that the reason why this problem is prevailing is the WP:CARUNITS policy. This policy has several issues, most notably that it encourages the use and writing style of SI while not strictly following it, and that it permits the use of MKPS in articles on older cars without specifying what an old car is: "Metric horsepower (pferdestärke, PS) may be included for older vehicles".

Now, I'm aware that such vague wording doesn't always have to be a bad thing, but, in this case, it is. I recommend a better wording that defines better when the MKPS unit system is permissible. I suggest something that corresponds with a car's design units, i. e. that MKPS should be used with pre-1972 cars, but not with post-1977 cars. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? What problem are you attempting to solve? That some editors want to see "xx.x hp (yy.y kw)" and others want to see "xx. hp (yy.y kw, zz.z PS)"? Tomato, tomahto. The real problem isn't with units or serving the needs of readers. It's an example of Sayre's law, "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." Or what Wikipedia would call WP:LAME. I'd prefer we call it bikeshedding but I'm not going to fight anyone over what to call it.

Please note that WP:CARUNITS is not a policy; it barely ranks as a guideline, and it definitely is below Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers in the hierarchy of mere guidelines. The reason is that the Wikipedia community does not think these issues matter that much.

What we should focus on is this: if this "problem" is something an editor is willing to go to war over, should that person be attempting to contribute to a collaborative project? This is not a hill worth dying on. Right? The focus needs to remain on the question of whether editors willing to die on this hill are behaving in a disruptive way. Not whether we should or should mention PS conversions. The fact is, either is fine.

The best approach is identical to WP:RETAIN: if you find an article that does not convert hp to PS, leave it as is. If you find one that does, leave it as is. If you can't deal with that, you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia.

My advice is to let it go. If another editor violates WP:3RR, they will earn a block for it. If one of these articles is a candidate for good article, then the GA reviewer will tell you whether they think the units meet the MOS or not. They will likely accept either alternative, since it's extremely clear that Wikipedia considers either equally valid.

IMHO the best way to avoid this kind of nonsense is to use {{Convert}} with the default results. Input whatever units your source gives you, and let it display whatever the community consensus says {{Convert}} ought to display. The default of that template represents the consensus of two or three orders of magnitute more editors than WP:CARUNITS or any imaginable local consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd very much go along with what Dennis says above. If you've made a big contribution to an article or a series of articles, it's easy to get attached to small points of detail. Take a deep breath and move on, hundreds of automotive pages are desperately in need of far more significant work! Mighty Antar (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

And I would not. Fuzziness does not suit an encyclopaedia. Effective nit-picking stops people scratching (and discourages nits). Eddaido (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, what happens is that when a manufacturer/source uses metric hp, as many of them still do, excluding that unit causes unnecessary confusion. Editors often mix up the units, or contradict existing sources. Here, MrsSnoozyturtle themselves added wholly incorrect data, writing that the S54B32 has 256kW to get 343hp as the output (should be 252kW/343PS). (FWIW BMW uses "hp" for metric hp, i.e. the use of "PS" is in no way the standard, and they were still using metric hp in 2018 at least. BMW's UK branch has used metric hp exclusively (p. 8) since the eighties at least, with no mention of imperial hp nor of kilowatts.)

We should A respect the sources, B make things clear, C try not to misrepresent facts, and D be precise. If BMW claims 115PS/85kW for a car, then why should we write 84.6kW/113hp??? It simply invites confusion as other editors will try to bring it back to read 115hp, as per the sources. The BMW entries in particular have been rife with minor errors in the power figures - It was trying to straighten these confused outputs out that led me into conflict with MrsSnoozyTurtle, who apparently owns BMW's Wikipedia footprint and has spent years repeatedly deleting all references to PS across all BMW articles.

Dennis Bratland, I agree in general and I wish it were that easy - but there are usually multiple sources using multiple units (the data farms, such as automobile-data.com, use all three). And when leaving one unit out causes trouble, I see absolutely no harm in including all three units, as long as it appears in reliable sources. This is one recent example of a reader trying to figure out how to include the M5's metric output of 507hp - which had been removed by SnoozyTurtle a year earlier. Contorting information to exclude metric horsepower leading to WP having false data, such as in the case of the BMW S54B32's power being wrong for nine years, is simply unacceptable. Sure, it's somewhat minor, but I don't know that we should accept that English language WP is an unreliable source for information on BMWs or in any other field when it is so easliy avoided. N.b., I do not argue for adding PS where it doesn't belong, such as most articles on British or American cars, quite the opposite. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

People do confuse hp and PS all the time, some even don't realise it's a different unit, so in my opinion our best bet is to include both (along with kW) regardless of era or country of origin. No harm done by doing that. Removing PS is quite counterproductive, let alone having an edit war on it. Andra Febrian (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alfa Romeo Alfasud#Requested move 13 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alfa Romeo Alfasud#Requested move 13 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Flexible-fuel vehicle

Flexible-fuel vehicle has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

DeLorean a.k.a DMC-12

I seem to have started a (another?) debate on Talk:DeLorean Motor Company over whether the "DMC-12" designation should be mentioned at all in this article (or other relevant ones, I guess), even if it is clarified that this was a DMC internal designation only. Other opinions from the WP:AUTOS community would be appreciated. Thanks, Letdorf (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC).

Fluff etc

Do we have a clear policy on this? I notice someone has just added much of the following passage to Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud. A few days ago someone removed a lot of similar stuff from Lagonda.

"A silver 1962 Silver Cloud II appeared prominently in every episode of American Aaron Spelling's Burke's Law (1963 TV series) and Burke's Law (1994 TV series), as the personal transport of millionaire detective Amos Burke. The unusual car, for a working police detective, featured in many show storylines, which included efforts by Burke to seduce females tangential to the weekly murder. [11] [12]. . . the grand prize in a sweepstakes in the 1985's The Wrestling Classic." Eddaido (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This kind of 'in popular culture' info should only be added if it has a secondary source that establishes its significance. And even then it should be brief - even if sourced, the above example goes into too much detail. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:CARTRIVIA is what the project agreed to. The car article only mentions what is important to the design, manufacture, sales and reputation of the car itself. Things that are important to the TV series can be put on the TV series article, not the car article. Stepho talk 11:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, PaleCloudedWhite is correct that the general rule for any article is a secondary source needs to say clearly why it matters that a product or whatever is mentioned or shown in a movie or whatever media. It doesn't have to be so significant as to be notable enough for an article, but it has to be something more than the mere fact that the thing existed. We're not going to list every instance of a Frigidaire showing up in a kitchen in every movie and TV show, or every single time someone drinks a Coke. But if a source says it matters in some way that a character drank a Coke and not a cup of tea or a Pepsi, then that's a reason to mention it. As Stepho-wrs says, WP:CARTRIVIA rule takes that general standard and narrows it even more, only including cases where it affected the car in some way.

Keep in mind that if the design or sales or whatever of the car was affected because it was in a movie, then that event belongs in the chronology of the car's history, not tacked on the end in a "miscellaneous" or garbage dump section like "In popular culture". One of the easiest red flags that pop culture content should be excluded is the fact that you can't fit it in the article anywhere else and have no choice but dump it in a catchall section at the end. Because such a garbage dump is an indiscriminate collection of disconnected factoids, the policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE is what the guidelines discouraging pop culture content are built on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Dongfeng Fengdu MX5 in Aeolus AX7

The Dongfeng Fengdu MX5 and first generation of Aeolus AX7 are same car! The Fengdu have only a different front and rear bumper but the car are the same and was produced only for 1 year! No other difference

Support. Interiors appear to be the same as well. I see differences in power plants on wikipedia, but not well cited enough that I'm convinced they're not in error. Can anyone provide the correct information first? PS: Please sign your requests, thanks. --No coffee, please. (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Pls partition the mega article

Please partition the unmanageable "Automotive industry in India", a mammoth "mother of all" "throw everything in" article, into 4 separate article as suggested on its talk page. Thanks in advance. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Spurious badge for Tickford

The body badge for Tickford Coachwork ? ? ? Imaginary?

When I search for Tickford badge in Google I get something quite different. (Unless its the photo WP has on that page). Is the badge displayed any more than a copywriter's dream?

Should it be removed until the provider can show Tickford has used it and when? Eddaido (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This did not take me long to look up.

* This image from [[9]]

* This image from here.

* This independent image, by a photographer.

...all confirm it. --No coffee, please. (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest: just one swallow, different summers. I mean I believe they are all photos / a representation of the same unique object. Eddaido (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

No, they aren't. If you click through to the above sources, you'll see they come from different vehicles, of the same era:

* 1955 ASTON MARTIN DB2/4 MK II DHC

* Aston Martin DB2/4 MkII FHC.

* 1957 Aston Martin MK III Prototype

The body colours are also clearly different. --No coffee, please. (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Here they are available on eBay in Ontario, 8 new of which 2 have been sold. Eddaido (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a half million dollar vintage aston martin is using a fake badge from ebay, Eddaido? --No coffee, please. (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Why not? Maybe not from eBay but someone who charged much more. (Excuse me sir, that's a lovely Aston you have there but it should have this badge on the side, about here. I happen to have this one from a w/o . . .) Its a kind of thing that happens more and more often. Truly valuable cars (not Astons) have recently been duplicated down to serial numbers on engines, chassis, parts etc etc. If this badge was used by Tickford, If, then it was for a very brief period in the mid 1950s. Aside from the (unreliable for your purposes) images you link to I can find no mention of this badge anywhere else. But I can see it on recent photos of North American resident cars of the 1950s.

My guess for its origin would be on the 1957 prototype.

If you're correct this badge should not be given the prominence it has at the moment but it could appear in the article much reduced alongside the text about the Tickford of the mid to late 1950s — with a corresponding note. Eddaido (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Give it a rest, dude. Here it is on another car at auction. It can't be 1957, because I've already linked you a 1955. Took me just a moment to find usage as far as back as 1939, with a slightly different emblem. Here's the same emblem on a 1938. The 1938 owner mentions they're an invitee to Amelia Island Concours d'Elegance, a flagship car collector event specifically focused on purist historicity. There's another owner here seeking a recreation badge for the same event. And another documented instance on Hemmings, here.

In fact, I'd say unless you have a proof of another emblem, Eddaido, this is the most documented one for Tickford I can find, at least for 1930-1960. Based on what I'm seeing, it should be the banner image for the Tickford Limited section, spanning that entire era. --No coffee, please. (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

All I can do is repeat "If you're correct this badge should not be given the prominence it has at the moment but it could appear in the article much reduced alongside the text about the Tickford of the mid to late 1950s — with a corresponding note."

This is important too. You should note the difference between a current club badge design and a manufacturer's badge of 65 years ago. Eddaido (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Based on what I'm seeing, it should represent the 1950s era, with the 1930s era represented by the round version, if you can find one suitable for Wikipedia usage.

The original bird-less Solomon badge you first mentioned now clearly seems to be the badge for Solomon before it became Tickford (pre-1930s).

Importantly though, the bird emblem does indeed appear to be the first emblem used by Tickford as Tickford Limited, which makes it essential for the article. --No coffee, please. (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand all of what you say. The current club badge on the 1930s car relates to a club. It is completely historically inaccurate but they don't care and neither should we. This is an encyclopaedia and we have to be accurate.

Who was Solomon? The St Christopher badge is not relevant. (I am pretty sure it is a bezel from around the hole for the crankhandle to wind the hood up or down and St Christopher's badge has been forced into the hole)

The image you like so much is only acceptable if it is placed (in a reduced size) on the article amongst the text about that late 50s period. The business lasted a couple of hundred years. The badge may have been used 3 or 4 of them. Eddaido (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Does the badge on this vehicle seem like a club badge to you, Eddaido? I'm not at all an expert when it comes to club badges, but that looks like an OEM item to me. Jim Wulf seems to be active on https://www.mgexp.com/, you may be able to contact him for further information and confirmation. --No coffee, please. (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I've sent an email to Jim, let's see if we can get him here to clarify. --No coffee, please. (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite sure its not something supplied with that car in 1938. Looks like an old Motometer temperature gauge rechromed with the club badge inserted. I'll be interested to see what he says but it would be better for you to approach a recognised MG (or Tickford) historian. Eddaido (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If you know a recognized Tickford historian, have at it. --No coffee, please. (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Tesla Dojo

Hello, I would appreciate some wider input on the proposed merge of Tesla Dojo into Tesla Autopilot from 20 August 2021. Reason: I don't think Tesla Dojo is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. I propose merging into Tesla Autopilot (or maybe History of Tesla, Inc.) instead, at least until we wait and see if the project ultimately gains notability over time. The chip is yet to be released, and all of the sources are simply echoing Tesla's PR announcement yesterday. And of course Tesla has announced numerous projects over the years that have failed to come to fruition: plans to produce a COVID-19 vaccine[10], battery swapping[11], robotaxis[12], Model S Plaid Plus[13], etc. WP:NOTNEWS says "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". Discussion can be found >>>Here<<<. Thanks Stonkaments (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll add discussion in your link, but this is a strong keep to me. Fundamentally, the likelihood that a project will come to fruition or not should not influence notability, and Dojo is definitely a different project from Autopilot. I think you're really reaching with WP:NOTNEWS here. --No coffee, please. (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal: List of modern production plug-in electric vehicles into List of production battery electric vehicles (and List of hybrid vehicles).

Context: There's a greater discussion of deprecating all 'list of electric vehicle' pages as they become untenable over the next few years, but in the meantime merging is a good first step.

Please see discussion and full proposal over at Talk:List_of_production_battery_electric_vehicles#Merger_proposal:_Integrate_List_of_modern_production_plug-in_electric_vehicles. --No coffee, please. (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Saleen and Tata Harrier

Good morning, I would like to point out that I have corrected the Saleen and Saleen S1 entry by adding the sources and the acquisition of the company by the Chinese Jiangsu Secco Tecnology, if someone can correct any errors in the notes and grammar. And Saleen is a public company? Many source cite is a private and chinese!

also in Tata Harrier there are many Indian news sites and articles and I would like to know if they are suitable for an encyclopedia, many seem superfluous (for example the many competing cars that I eliminated). thanks and good job

sorry but in Tata Motors there is the "Notable Vehicle" section which seems useless and repetitive as already mentioned in the entry and the specific entries are already present.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.97.154 (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Brabham Featured article review

I have nominated Brabham for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"SUV attack in 2021" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SUV attack in 2021. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 23#SUV attack in 2021 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 65.92.246.43 (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)