Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Article improvement

I feel, one of the key article of this wikiproject, Automotive engineering needs a good revision and copy edit. I would love to help in the process as much as viable. Being a civil engineering student I am unknown of some key terms. In addition, i see the need of forming a new article Automobile engineering much famous in South asian countries including Nepal and India to flourish the information regarding the subject and make the area of study open to fellow readers.Franked2004 (talk)

Recent undiscussed page moves

For everyone's information, BrightDrop Zevo was recently moved to Chevrolet BrightDrop, and GMC (automobile) was recently moved to GMC (marque). The former appears to be at least technically correct, as GM recently announced that they're now selling those vans as Chevrolets. The latter, the previous title was the result of an RM, but that discussion was from 2011. --Sable232 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

For the latter, I think there should be a concistency within the project. Why does Pontiac, Plymouth, Mercury, Envoy, Geo use "(automobile)" but Mini, Rover, Sterling, Smart uses "marque"? Why MG is "MG cars"? Why is Chrysler (brand) named like that, is it because "marque" is associated with British English? Then why are we using "(marque)" for Chinese brands? I think this should get sorted out...

Andra Febrian (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It probably isn't possible to get a project-wide and trans-Atlantic consensus. If it was easy it would already have been done.

You might have already seen the various opposing thoughts in this recent discussion, that you started. Rally Wonk (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind a regional consensus. If the decision is to use automobile in America and marque for RoW, then so be it. But this time we can't really say that the title "GMC (marque)" is an inappropriate title, other than the fact that it is an undiscussed move. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd support reversion to (automobile) if necessary. However, I think GMC (automobile brand), GMC (automobile marque) or GMC (automobile manufacturer) (whatever the article needs to be) is better. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend using natural disambiguators for marques that have them (e.g. Jaguar Cars or MG Motors).

Then:

• Marque in brackets for British and European marques which need to be disambiguated and don’t have any other possible way which would follow Wikipedia:Commonname.
• Brand in brackets for North American marques with the same conditions as above.

Adriazeri (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

What if there's another brand with the same name? For example, Mercury. Andra Febrian (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It’d need to be car brand in that specific circumstance then. Adriazeri (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally use British English so I recognise marque as being in respect to an automobile brand. If that’s not agreeable to speakers of North American English, or it’s not considered appropriate for use on a North American auto marque. Then brand would make sense. Adriazeri (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Marque can still be used for other vehicles and even products nothing to do with transport: yachts, busses, rifles, shoes, pens, jewellery ... and so on. Although, it's fair that it isn't widely used.

Marque is more accurate than brand because it's the brand of the maker/manufacturer when models/model ranges, trim levels, performance specs, technologies are also usually always brands. Subaru Impreza WRX STI has four brands in the name, whereas the manufacturer is (or was) Fuji Heavy Industries. DS is an automobile marque spun off from the Citroen DS sub-brand which was inspired by the Citroën DS model. All brands. I'm not sure what GMC is, but the problem there is within the content of the article, not the disam naming. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Marque, make and brand are just synonyms. Different countries had preferences for each but at the international level they mean the same thing. And just like how some companies own other countries, you can have marques, makes and brands owning other marques, makes and brands. Beware of trying to count how many angels can dance on the badge of a car.  Stepho  talk  00:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

They're not all synonyms, unless you can show an example of product branding being described as a marque. Marques are branding of the manufacturer/seller. The selling manufacturer is not always the maker manufacturer and related ownership is not always the case. Brands don't own anything, so marques cannot own other marques, but sometimes the marque is synonymous with the manufacturer/company name, e.g. Ford.

I've doubts to what 'make' is commonly used for, but see this coachbuilder example. For me, the marque is Overfinch, the make is Range-Rover, the vehicle manufacturer is Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, with branded product options like Aurora, Shadow Chrome, Centurion and Cyclone. As sold straight from JLR, a Range-Rover is then the marque. I wouldn't call JLR Ltd a brand, but the rest all are.

If this is not important to you then I think that's a shame. I think it should matter to anybody contributing to improving articles. Rally Wonk (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

marque redirects to brand. There it mentions branding irons (used to mark ownership of cattle). Also mentions making marks on pottery to show who made it.

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/marque says "a well-known make of a product, especially a car, that is expensive and fashionable". Clicking on "Word Origin" says "early 20th cent.: from French, back-formation from marquer ‘to brand’, of Scandinavian origin."

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/marque says "a well-known make of a product, especially a car, that is expensive and fashionable".

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marque says "a brand or make of a product (such as a sports car)"

This shows that all 3 mean the same thing. It's just that certain regions prefer to use one over the other in certain circumstances (eg, in Britain they like to use French words for fancy stuff and English words for common stuff). However, other regions choose different circumstances, making the distinction useless in an international encyclopedia.

I find it a shame that we waste time on trivialities instead of actually improving things.  Stepho  talk  14:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is timewasting to continue this discussion with you. There's nothing I can possibly say that will return value to my efforts. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

We had the same discussion in 2011: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_29  Stepho  talk  14:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you’re over complicating things:

• Brand or marque simply refers to the manufacturer or the brand that the manufacturer operates under.
• Model refers to the automobile itself

Adriazeri (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I asked WP:Brands to help out as you saw, but as I'm sat here waiting for a bus, I did my own research and found out I was correct all along:

• Marque refers to how the manufacturer wants to brand itself.
• Model refers to the products a manufacturer will without doubt brand as part of standard marketing procedure.
• Manufacturers protect their marque's and model's branding (and trim/technologies/coachbuilding/auxiliary services) legally using trademarks, including registering brand names

Sources:

• law firm
  • "A brand consists of several elements, including: Image, Character, Identity, Personality, Essence, Culture, Reputation. A trademark can be used to protect various aspects of a brand, including: Brand name, Signatures, Words, ..."
  • "all trademarks are brands, but not all brands are trademarks"
  • "The brand name is chosen by the business on how it would like to be identified. Trademarks, which are sometimes called “service marks,” carry legal weight and protect the business and its services and products."
• legal advice site
  • "All trademarks are brands, while not all brands are trademarks."
  • "Trademarks can be specific words or phrases, .. which are a vital part of your company's brand.
• IP company
  • "All trademarks are brands. However, not all brands are trademarks."
• Agency that picks brand names for products
  • "While the following product naming rules are simple, our clients find them very helpful as we work together to create a winning brand name."
• article on product branding
  • "The company's brand positioning focuses more on innovation and being a long-standing leader in its field, while its product brands each have their own unique brand identity."

If brand and marque are interchangeable as you say, then model names like Impreza, Evoque and Camaro are not brands, right? Nor WRX, AMG, Quattro and other non-car products like say, almost everything on Template:Kraft_Foods_Group. If they're not brands, they are not trademark protected as per the above sources. I simply don't believe that.

Hopefully somebody finds this useful. The next person to tell me I'm wrong really ought to use some sources or examples if they want to be convincing. Rally Wonk (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Camaro, Evoque and Impreza are model names of a car brand, to try and liken a name to a brand is a bit peculiar in my opinion.

I don’t know why you’ve brought up non-automotive at all, but your thing about Kraft Foods is also wrong, those are all brands that Kraft operates under, just like for example Cadillac is a brand GM operates under. Adriazeri (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Rally Wonk, going through your sources:

• law firm - this compares trademarks vs brand. We are not talking about trademarks. It does not talk about brand vs marque vs make. So we can reject it.
• legal advice site has large sections that are word for word the same as the previous source. Same deal. Rejected.
• IP company has different words but the same faults. Rejected.
• Agency that picks brand names for products talks about choosing a name. This is quite different to defining what the words brand/marque/make mean. Rejected.
• article on product branding has different words but the same faults. Also diverges into product branding, which is not the same as company brand (it even says so itself). Rejected.

Something they all had in common was they talked about brand image. "Brand image" is different to "brand". Coke is a brand. The red colour, the white swirl, and the font are brand images that conjure up the brand in the customers mind and have a lot of protection under the law but are not the brand themselves.

You asked for sources but gave irrelevant sources of your own and totally ignored the dictionary definitions I listed earlier (using both British and American definitions).

You mentioned model names. Agreeing with Adriazeri, in most cases they are not brand names. In "Ford Mustang" we have the brand/marque/make "Ford" and the model "Mustang". Only in a few cases do model names become brand names - eg "Morris Mini Minor" later became the brand "Mini (marque)".  Stepho  talk  08:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I ignored your dictionary definitions because if you look up Brand in the same dictionaries you do not find them using the word Marque. Your argument that this makes them synonyms is weak. A dictionary is not a thesaurus, and even if you used a thesaurus we are discussing technical differences that they wouldn't.

Maybe we easily mix brand with brand name and brand image across this discussion. Have a look into this context (Global brand variables#Brand name). 'A brand name constitutes a trademark', it says. But you reject talking about trademarks as irrelevant. It's absolutely relevant. Do you want to tell me that any of the brands we discuss as either marques or models are not actually brand names? Is this not the conversation we are having? Do we disam GMC as GMC (reliable, trustworthy, affordable) instead or something? That section also specifically mentions names of products. Please don't continue to write that off and tell me I'm wrong without using sound logic, reason, evidence.

You are right, the second source is very similar to the first. There are a plethora of other search results to choose but I'm wasting my time if it's all still irrelevant.

I was curious and found where Ford registered just the word (no images or text extensions) Mustang in the UK with the Government intellectual property office: 1 2 3 4 5 There are plenty more registrations for the string Ford Mustang and also their slogans, logos... there's thousands for Ford. We've been told trademarks are brands from multiple sources. Do you still want to reject it all using your own conjecture? That's your choice, but I will remain unconvinced by it. Rally Wonk (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it is peculiar, but sources say that it is that way. These models are trademarked, trademarks are brands. Wikipedia is built on sources, not conjecture of the loudest/ biggest bully editors. I don't know how to spin out discussion of that point.

Years ago, Honda had a brand reputation of making cars for old and retired people in the UK. Meanwhile, Honda had a brand reputation of making hot hatches for youngsters to tweak and attend cruises on retail park car parks. Maybe the branding of the products, trim, technology had something to do with achieving that duality?

With the Kraft point; If you're saying Kool-Aid is the maker (like a marque), not the product, what is the product or is there not a product? Because that article makes it sound like a product. "Kool-Aid was invented by...", "this powder was named Kool-Aid", "Kool-Aid is usually sold in powder form, in either packets or small tubs." If you are saying that article needs many improvements than this is where I am with so many car articles too Rally Wonk (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs has demonstrated that your “sources” are irrelevant to the matter. Brand image is also irrelevant to this matter.

It appears to me that you’re grasping at straws because you’ve been proven to be bringing up points which are not relevant to the discussion. Adriazeri (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

! Rally Wonk (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's some more peculiar straws in the form of ordinary use of car models being described as brands. I've tried to restrict this to reputable sources:

"Mustang Dark Horse is the most track-ready series production Mustang and the foundation for the Mustang brand’s motorsport campaigns." Ford.

"This is the V8 version of Chevy’s muscle car Camaro brand, known as the SS." BBC Top Gear

"But the appeal of the Beetle brand gives the concept a better chance of appearing in showrooms." Daily Mail

"the continued success of the Impreza brand. And it is a brand; from its early beginnings as a misunderstood and unglamorous rally car spin-off for the road to cult hero and supercar baiter, the car and brand is a core part of Subaru's operation." The AA

"have Land Rover taken the Evoque brand a step too far?" Auto Express

"the Coupe makes the Altima brand stronger by appealing to a new segment of buyers" Nissan

"The debut of the Civic brand in July 1972 represented Honda's first 'mainstream' car" Honda

"the manufacturer wants to leverage its existing investment in the model Y brand" Google (Not Tesla but same context)

"minor model changes were also made to increase the luxurious image associated with the Corolla brand" Toyota

I can't make my points much thorough or suitably sourced. Brands/brand names/branding are not restricted to marques/makers/companies; marques are not restricted to cars, and car models and general products can be brands. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You keep bringing up Mustang; it is considered somewhat a sub-brand of Ford. It almost acts as a spun-off brand of Ford but it is still a Ford model, a little bit like what Range Rover is to Land Rover. The article for the Ford Mustang still has the brand Ford in the title because Ford is the maker.

The other ones you mention such as the Beetle are by definition, models of the manufacturer’s brand, and would never be titled on Wikipedia as their own article without the brand in front. As is demonstrated with Volkswagen Beetle, clearly having Volkswagen in the title as Beetle is not its own brand. Adriazeri (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

In the scope of the article, should GMC be a business with legal responsibilities that employs people, manufactures products, makes money and pays taxes; or is it a brand; being the values and reputation of the products or entity represented officially with IP in PR and marketing? Or, does it want to cover both? The first sentence, wikidata item and infobox say 'legal entity' whilst the short description and title say 'brand'.

In an article Brand (brand) (or marque), I would expect to find content about the marketing, advertising campaigns, surveys of brand recognition, sales figures, product associations, celebrity endorsements, etc. I would not necessarily expect information about who founded the legal entity and when, where the HQ is, production methods, what other brands and companies the parent company purchased, etc.

If the article was named General Motors Truck Company, I could expect all of that; as there is no reason why Brand could not be a section where it is a property or possession of the titled company or its products, and where size and/or notability doesn't warrant a split.

GMC (automobile) is not discriminatory in this regard, the article is fine covering both legal entity and brand content, but if it's only seen as incorrect because trucks and vans aren't seen as automobiles, maybe GMC (vehicle) or something is sought?

I can't help but think a guide to article naming along these lines could be included in the project page somewhere if consensus was in agreement. Rally Wonk (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

GMC (automobile) would make it sound like the article was referring to a vehicle called GMC, rather than a marque. GMC (vehicle) would be even worse in that respect. Adriazeri (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of disambiguation to establish the topic, not define the name? Using the first suggested at WP:Disam for example, Mercury (mythology), Mercury is not a mythology itself but a God.

What about other brands/marques called GMC? (And thinking globally if consistency among project articles can be established). Rally Wonk (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment This post looks dead, just a note for the future. As a US English long-time driver I have no idea how to pronounce "Marque". My guess is "Mark" but I don't think I have ever heard it used. In my state they use "Year/Make/Model". No search, no grammar, just common use in my area. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Your pronunciation is correct. English words ending in "que" are derived from French and are pronounced as though ending in "k". Eg antique, technique.  Stepho  talk  00:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. My meaning, though, was just that I don't think the word "Marque" itself is commonly used in the US. Again, thanks. Sammy D III (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Move GMC back to the earlier title - "marque" has a fancy, aspirational vibe to it, as per the dictionary citations presented by Stepho earlier. Brand is neutral and is commonly used in the UK as well, not to mention all of the other English-speaking nations.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As I'm from a country where the mother tongue is not English, I'd like to give the following into consideration. First of all, the English WP articles of course are not only a source of wisdom for users in the UK, USA, Australia and other English speaking countries. Because the articles often are more extensive than their equivalents in 'local' languages, or because the articles simply do not exist in certain languages, the second choice often is to go to the English article. This means that English is a world language, whether we like it or not. So keeping that in mind, the discussion about locally used vocabulary (color or colour, trunk or boot, etc. etc.) probably will never end anyway - users in e.g. Sweden, Brazil, China or Gabon don't care, as long as they can understand what's written.

Secondly, English being a world language also means that all those people reading WP articles in the English version, but not coming from an English speaking nation, should just as well be able to understand what's been written. And yes, we have 'simple English' versions of certain pages, but that's not what I mean. I mean that it's sometimes preferred that we use vocabulary and syntax that are more mainstream than others. So whether it be marque or brand, one of those two must be more generally in use worldwide than the other (and I mean that where they are used having the same meaning), and then I'd say let's go with that one (my guess is that in this case it's brand). Erremm (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, English is not a language - it's a group of related dialects used in different countries. I know that I would hate it if WP choose to use only US English. Similarly, Americans would hate it if we used only British English. Our uneasy truce is in WP:ENGVAR where each article chooses an English dialect and remains consistent within the article. Far from perfect but nobody has found a better solution. As for brand or marque having more usage worldwide - that too varies by which country you are in and whether that country has more ties to Britain or the US. What is great for you may be awful to someone else - or vice-versa.  Stepho  talk  00:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say it has to be either American English or British English, because I do understand all the sensitivity around that. I just propose that the most commonly used word is used. There's also guidelines that suggest this: WP:COMMONALITY says under bullet 1: "Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles." and under bullet 5: "... the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred." Erremm (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, English is not a 'pedigree' language itself and continues to evolve with global influences, however that's no excuse not to uphold standards, or to invent a reasoning against convention which is what some users did above.

I have no problem with brand instead of marque but I don't think either helps with disambiguation and there's too much conversation on this brand v marque. The OP question was automobile v marque (or brand). Of those advocating for xyz (brand), there's not much explained what happens when the same brand name from different companies and different product sectors happens. Rally Wonk (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Convert Template unintentional rounding

Many articles put power and torque figures into the Convert Template to provide additional units. However, there are many instances where the conversions are incorrect or unintentionally imprecise, as by default the template interprets ending zeroes as insignificant figures, when that may not be the user's intention. This can be avoided easily by adding a decimal point (.) to the end of the number to be converted (input #1).

Examples:

1,250 PS (1,230 hp; 920 kW) vs. 1,250 PS (1,233 hp; 919 kW)

190 PS (190 hp; 140 kW) vs. 190 PS (187 hp; 140 kW)

280 PS (280 hp; 210 kW) vs. 280 PS (276 hp; 206 kW), which is especially egregious due to the Japanese Gentleman's Agreement :)

Have fun cleaning up these little errors sprinkled everywhere :) Needlesballoon (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

At the same time, I would say it's important not to treat the trailing zeros as significant without a good reason to do so. I would argue incorrectly/unintentionally imprecise is better than incorrectly/unintentionally precise. A7V2 (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There are lots of tricks to make conversion templates behave:

{{cvt|190|PS|hp kW|0}} gives 190 PS (187 hp; 140 kW)

{{cvt|1100|PS|hp kW|sigfig=3}} gives 1,100 PS (1,080 hp; 809 kW); there are cases where this can be useful, like when discussing turbo boosted F1 cars where the max outputs are definitely estimates.

{{cvt|115|PS|kW PS hp|0|order=out}} gives 85 kW (115 PS; 113 hp) - this allows you to maintain the input unit from the source, while having the output lead with kW which is preferred for newer cars.

Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding one's own photos?

I've noticed people add their own photos to the articles on cars. Should people generally leave this to others? Cutlass^Ciera 00:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's a new addition or a significant/obvious improvement, personally I have no problem with that. But if it is replacing an image with more-or-less the same quality or even better quality, then it's a problem. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It's generally acceptable as long as you don't spam it to every car article possible and that the quality is better than what it replaces. See WP:CARPIX for tips but in short use decent light and front 3/4 angle from eye height. Avoid close up pics (car looks nose heavy), high non-factory modifications, gloss black paint (reflections), cluttered/distracting backgrounds and backgrounds the same colour as the car. As long as it is improving Wikipedia and not just an ego trip. Have fun.  Stepho  talk  06:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - my rule of thumb is to think twice and generally not reinstate my own photo if someone changes it (this excludes situations when random IPs go on picture changing sprees or if the replacement photos are blatantly in opposition to WP:CARPIX). If you take a good photo, it is not likely going to be discovered by other editors right away, so there is a case for doing it yourself. As far as ego trips go, it is a hundred times more satisfying when someone else picks your photo, anyhow.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion (PROD): U.S. Automobile Production Figures

FYI, the article U.S. Automobile Production Figures has been proposed for deletion (WP:PROD). The first sentences summarize the subject this way:

• "Automobile experimentation and design in the US started a few years after Carl Benz patented and produced his original gasoline-powered motor car in 1886, and a handful of companies were producing them in the US by the turn of the century. The table below shows the annual unit volumes for the top US producers in each year from 1899 to 2000."

The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:

• "Essay without inline citations"

Note that the article mostly consists of tables of production data by brand dating back to 1899. These table do not use inline references.

If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the deletion notice for what to do.

Thanks, A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Isetta § Was the Isetta manufactured or not in Argentina?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Isetta § Was the Isetta manufactured or not in Argentina?. Peaceray (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

EV battery suppliers added to WikiProject?

Automotive suppliers such as Denso and Bosch are part of the Automotive WikiProject, despite not producing cars themselves. Should battery companies like CATL, which are most prominent for their supply of automotive battery cells and technologies, also be added to this WikiProject? Additionally, should companies like Panasonic, Samsung SDI, and EVE Energy, who are not primarily based in EV battery supply but are still major players in the space, also be added to the WikiProject? Needlesballoon (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion they should be added, does anyone have any objections? Needlesballoon (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be a no-brainer with no downside. Andra Febrian (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Trim level (automotive)#Requested move 28 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trim level (automotive)#Requested move 28 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for American automobile industry in the 1950s

American automobile industry in the 1950s has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Two articles with the same scope

Just wondering, why do we have two articles about the list of automobile manufacturers in China: List of automobile manufacturers of China and Automobile manufacturers and brands of China? Should we merge it? Pinging @Infinty 0: as the creator of the latter article.

A little bit context by the way, Automobile manufacturers and brands of China is apparently a spin-off of Automotive industry in China after these sections were purged due to "[lack of] citation and improper synthesis", can't see why it should be an own article if it was apparently not proper enough to be in an article. Andra Febrian (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think one can be deleted or merged. 750h+ 17:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, merge. Rally Wonk (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose.

The article of Automotive industry in China is more about the development of China's automobile industry at the macro perspective, focusing more on China's industry policies, development status and history in chronological order.

The article of Automobile manufacturers and brands of China is more about the current situation of Chinese manufacturers at more micro perspective. China is different from most countries in the world which has the world's largest automobile industry and market (larger than the United States and Europe combined), and more than 10 major manufacturers and more than 140 automobile brands as numerous as the stars, which deserves the spotlight. The two articles have different perspectives, themes, and logic, so the spin-off is necessary.

As for the problem of citations, it has been updated in the Automobile manufacturers and brands of China. It is welcome for anyone who disagrees to challenge it at the specific description.

The article of List of automobile manufacturers of China is even more different. It is a list-type article, which is more about listing the facts as briefly and completely as possible. There should be an article to depict a more detailed and focused portrait of Chinese automobile manufacturers, like the general introductions, their positions in the landscape of automobile market, and conclusion of their different characteristics, which is exactly the purpose of the article of Automobile manufacturers and brands of China. Infinty 0 (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If each of the manufacturers and/or brands are notable, they should have their own articles. Rally Wonk (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Not each, but major ones. There are 12 major manufacturers in China, each with an annual production of more than 500,000 units, and four of them are above 2 million unit per year, and they do need a overview information to help readers understand the current layout and landscape of Chinese auto market. Infinty 0 (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)