Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Manufacturer/parent company field clarification in the infobox

Quick question about Template:Infobox Automobile. What is the consensus with what should appear in the manufacturer and parent company fields? For example, would the values be Lincoln (automobile) for manufacturer and Ford Motor Company for parent company in the Lincoln MKS infobox or just Ford Motor Company for manufacturer and nothing for parent company? roguegeek (talk·cont) 05:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we reached a fairly good consensus on the subject about a year ago: the manufacturer is the legal entity, the particular business, that built the car. So in the case of the Lincoln MKS the manufacturer is Ford Motor Company. It would be inaccurate to say "Lincoln" built the car, because it's not a "Lincoln" plant staffed by "Lincoln" employees: it's all Ford Motor Company.

It should also be noted that subsidiaries are legally separate companies that are owned by another, and we should use them more specifically if applicable. The manufacturer of the Lamborghini Gallardo is Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., because it is built by employees of Lamborghini at a factory owned and operated by Lamborghini. This despite the fact Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. is owned by Audi AG, which is itself a subsidiary of Volkswagen Group. -93JC (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is what I thought. The problem was I couldn't find the discussion. The infobox documentation doesn't really specify exactly how these fields should be handled either. At least not in detail. Also, the conventions page doesn't list how this should be handled. What does everyone think about expanding one of these pieces of documentation for clarification? Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 01:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In cases like Lincoln, it might be a touch ambiguous (tho I'd say add Lincoln as maker & FoMoCo as parent); for (say) Lambo or Ferrari, maker is Lambo, parent is FIAT, while Jag, maker is clearly Jag & parent FoMoCo (or have I got it confused with GM?). Put it in. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaand this is why some people were a little averse to following what I outlined above, arguing it would confuse the readers. Ferrari is a subsidiary of Fiat. A current Jaguar's manufacturer is Jaguar Land Rover, which is a subsidiary of Tata Motors. Lamborghini's parent company is Audi. Audi's parent company is Volkswagen Group. Which one do you put in parent company? I don't know.

I argue that the parent company field is not pertinent to car, therefore it should be removed from the infobox template altogether. Is the reader interested in the legalities of the ownership of the Lamborghini automobile company when they read the article about the Gallardo? I doubt it. If one wanted to know about the ownership history of Lamborghini they'd click the Lamborghini wikilink in the infobox under manufacturer, and the Lamborghini article explains it. -93JC (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup. I can see where the confusion can come in. All the more reason to reach a consensus (or find the previous discussion that came to one) and document it fully. You bring up an interesting point, 93JC. I really don't see how the parent company is important to the reader of those particular articles. As such, I think it would make a whole lot more sense if it was replaced completely with a field called brand. In the case of a Gallardo, the manufacturer would be Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. and the brand would be left blank. In the case of an MKS, the manufacturer would be Ford Motor Company and the brand would be Lincoln. Thoughts? Maybe this is a discussion to take to Template talk:Infobox Automobile? roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a brand field is useful either. We already know the Lincoln MKS is a Lincoln: it says so in the title and throughout the article. This is why the discussion about manufacturer came up in the first place. There was a time when the manufacturer field was simply filled with the brand, so for example the Pontiac Vibe's manufacturer was 'Pontiac'. DUH, of course it's a Pontiac, it's called PONTIAC Vibe, but who's the company that built the thing? (NUMMI) -93JC (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Where can I pull up this last discussion on the subject? I would like to reference it if we are going to update the documentation. roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 18#Manufacturer rule. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Parent company is related to the brand, not the individual models. It already exists in Template:Infobox company and should be used there. Can anyone make an argument for keeping Parent company in the Infobox Automobile template? --Vossanova ^o< 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent OSX! Thank you so much for taking the time to find this! Alright, it's off to update documentation now. roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Old Truck identification help sought

. I am working on expanding Antelope Island State Park with the hope of getting it to FA status. I am coming here for help in identifying this old pick up truck. Any information would be great. All I know is that it's old and rusty and my attempts to discern its make and model and hopefully year have brought me here. Thanks in advance. Dincher (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it looks very similar to a Toyota BX, which was based on a Chevy heavy duty truck from circa 1950. So I'd look around for pics of old 1950 Chevy trucks.  Stepho  (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dincher (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at pictures of Old Chevys and it looks like some grill work may be missing from this truck to help with identification. I couldn't find any pictures of a Toyota BX from the 50s. Would a Toyota BX from that era have been sold in the United States at the time? Dincher (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I got the right year but the wrong company. Further searching turned up the 1948-1951 Dodge (Fargo?). The holes for the missing chrome work seem to line up with the Dodge pics, the hood ornament looks the same and the front indicators are in the same place. 1948 advert old truck adverts pics of dodge trucks  Stepho  (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It certainly looks like a Dodge. Your research supports the identification as a Dodge for my purposes. Dincher (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

::By no means expert, but I'd question it's a Dodge at all. The fender lamps look set further back and in than the Dodges, to my eye. (Could be the perspective is distorting that.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Need verification on Taiwanese assembly of GM vehicles

See Special:Contributions/91.89.156.99. This IP has been adding "Yulon" as a manufacturer and Miaoli (a city in Taiwan, however the edits all used "Republic of China" because that certainly isn't confusing at first glance) as an assembly location on various Cadillac and Opel articles, among numerous others I haven't yet checked. Per this article, I began reverting the edits and the IP responded by claiming the German Wikipedia as a source. I've asked the IP for a reliable source, but I expect that even if one is provided it will be in German, which I don't read.

Can anyone here verify this information? Is Yulon now actually building Cadillacs and Opels or are they assembling them from CKD kits (and what bearing does that have on what should appear in the article), or is this incorrect altogether? --Sable232 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been very active on tons of pages - especially for Japanese vehicles. His main source is listed as the equivalent article on the German WP. But looking there his source (if any) is usually listed as the entry page of Chinese web sites and he leaves the reader to wade through hundreds of Chinese web pages. I've tried searching through some without success but my Chinese reading skills are pretty rough. Like Sable232, I suspect these are assembly of CKD kits but I can't verify this either way. Here's what I had to say about his changes on the Toyota FJ Cruiser. The German editors don't seem too happy with him either.  Stepho  (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I can gather from Yulon (en) and http://www.yulon-motor.com.tw/index_en.asp (en) the company produces Nissan vehicles and from 2006 to at least 2008 manufactured the original version of the Buick LaCrosse from CKD kits. All other GM vehicles appear to be imported. The December 2008 article linked above states: "The Buick brand cars will continue to be built at the venture through technical licensing, while Opel and Cadillac cars will continue to be sold as imported units." OSX (talk • contributions) 12:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This same IP added also Mekong as manufacturer for several new Fiat models, there is no source given, and Im quite sure these are not made in Vietnam, Mekong has earlier made couple of older Fiat models though. If no source Ill remove those in couple of weeks. --Typ932 ^T·C 14:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the v6 engine is being referred to as a "Buick" v6. I know in the last generation toronado, it was a series 1 corporate v6, which was a general engine, used in just about every American General Motors brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmaj (talk • contribs) 02:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It comes down to common name—the engine is usually referred to as 3800 or as the Buick V6. Probably because it was first used by Buick. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Volkswagen Group = "VWAG"?

I'm involved in a long-running dispute with the user at IP address 78.32.143.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) over various issues regarding Volkswagen Group in a number of articles, including ones such as List of discontinued Volkswagen Group diesel engines, List of Volkswagen Group platforms, VR6 and Suction Diesel Injection.

Firstly, the user seems to be conflating "Volkswagen Group" with "Volkswagen AG" and uses them as if they were exact synonyms - a brief perusal of Volkswagen AG's 2008 annual report [1] makes clear the distinction between the two, in the "Key Figures" page (near the front) and the "Structure and Business Activities" section (p.106). In short, Volkswagen Group (or Volkswagen Konzern in German) refers to the whole business group, including subsidiary companies, while Volkswagen AG is the name of the parent/holding company of the group, which is also responsible for producing Volkswagen-branded cars and commercial vehicles. I think it is important not to confuse the two in WP articles, although sometimes it requires some thought to work out which name is the most appropriate one to use in an article.

The user also insists on referring to either Volkswagen Group or Volkswagen AG as "VWAG" in WP articles, even when there is no real need to abbreviate the name in the article, and even resorting to edit-warring when other editors think its use is unnecessary. As has been pointed out by another editor, this particular abbreviation doesn't seem to be in particularly common use, either by the Group itself (it's only found in six out of hundreds of English corporate documents on the http://www.volkswagenag.com website) or in secondary sources (searching the websites of the popular automotive press in the UK and US, eg. Car Magazine, Motor Trend or Car and Driver, finds no occurrences), so I don't see how the use of it in WP articles really improves the clarity or accuracy of the article. In addition, referring to the Group as "VWAG" would lead to confusion between Group and parent company as described above. A more common abbreviation for the Group, often used in the press, is the fairly obvious "VW Group".

I'm hoping some third party input might help resolve this issue. Letdorf (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC).

I generally dislike abbreviations when there is any chance of ambiguity. Of course, sometimes they can help to clean up an article, and work if written in full on first use, with the abbreviation alongside. But in the example you give, there sounds like being too much chance of confusion. Another factor going against the abbreviation is that it corresponds to "Volkswagen Audi Group" which I'm sure I remember being the name in the 1980s?

Have you tried referring the anon user to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)? This doesn't give a satisfyingly categorical answer to the issue but does emphasise that confusion and ambiguity are bad, whilst consistency is good. – Kieran T ^(talk) 14:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah... "VAG" is a different matter, and another dispute I've had with this user. It is/was widely presumed that VAG was short for "Volkswagen Audi Group", but according to this account by Bertel Schmitt, a former VW marketing consultant, there was no official explanation of the abbreviation, and I haven't, as yet, seen anything authoritative that contradicts this. I have pointed out the caveats in the MoS regarding abbreviations to the user in the past, but it didn't persuade at all. Letdorf (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC).

The IP user is most probably the same guy who used sing in name earlier...., mostly doing VAG articles, Im also tired with him, what ever you try to tell him he does not understand...so I gave up with him.... --Typ932 ^T·C 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

P-metrics

I'm not sure if this is useful anywhere (I couldn't find a place for it), so... Recommended rim width to tire width:

P185:5in

P195:5.5in

P205:5.5in

P215:6in

P225:6in

P235:6.5in

P245:7in

P255:7in

P265:7in

P275:8in

P285:8in

P295:8in

P305:8in

From Hot Rod, 3/86, p.28. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not strictly a Tire code but it makes a reasonable match. Otherwise put it in tire.  Stepho  (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It was the ill-fit at tire code that left me dubious. Seems there's no really good fit, but tire code looks least bad. So inserted. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Industrial design and Design portal

Hi guys! We just opened the Industrial design WikiProject (and Design portal) for business and would appreciate if you could put a link to it in the 'Sister projects' section of your page. Thanks in advance! --AlainR345^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 05:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Top Gear Race to the North GA review

The Top Gear Race to the North article is of interest to this project. The GA review has been put on hold for seven days to allow editors to deal with the issues raised at Talk:Top Gear Race to the North/GA1. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rolex Monterey Motorsports Reunion

I added this at the Motosport WikiProject, but with no response there I thought I would bring it here, too. It would be great for some editors from this project to weigh in at Talk:Rolex Monterey Motorsports Reunion about the content of the article. There is a discussion going on if this race is a continuation of the Monterey Historics or a brand new event. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Supercars and other classification issues

Swaq put a nice summary of the consensus about not using the classification "Supercar" in the infobox. Rather than have an editor have to dig through past talk pages, perhaps putting this consensus where it is more easily retrieved would be helpful for editors. How about either at either Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions or Template:Infobox Automobile, or both? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'd support putting it in both places. swaq 19:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added a stub section "Classification" to the conventions page. It needs expansion and editing, but it's a start. Thoughts? swaq 18:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fastest production car

Dunno what should be done with this ridiculous article, maybe just delete, this is just list of some fast cars, its not any record list just randomly listed cars. any opinions? --Typ932 ^T·C 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete. There's a superlatives page already. If any of it's sourced, move it to the respective model pages. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion --Typ932 ^T·C 12:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It was nominated by WP:PROD, which any editor can remove, and I did just that. According to WP:PROD, the prod is not permitted to be replaced, for it only works for uncontested deletions. As for why I think the article should me kept, please see my comments at the article talk page. AFD ` DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So everyone give your opinion on there, that we can see if we need these kind of lists --Typ932 ^T·C 13:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you hear about the Fenix? That does 258mph, apparently. Also, why don't we include a sub-page on cars that were never fully tested (e.g. TVR Cerbera Speed 12)that could have been the fastest production car. I'm sure there are many....--Aubs 400 (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

City car up for deletion

FYI, city car has been nominated for deletion. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

this is not nice deletion request, because almost all articles in car classification category can be in danger zone to be deleted soon...I really dont understand this gets so much attention compared to that ridiculous Fastest production car list.... --Typ932 ^T·C 22:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's because there are people who want to delete everything that doesn't match the rigour of science papers. They don't understand that common sense is also part of wikipedia. :-( We need to get all of the project on the case with looking for references to satisfy this. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait for pony car & muscle car to come up next. 80 There may be a save, tho: Piero Casucci, in Northey (ed) World of Automobiles (1974, Vol 4, pp.383-6) describes city cars & claims for a distinction from the microcars of postwar Europe. It's not the best source, but... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ford Falcon GT Interceptor‎

May need some help here with a recalcitrant editor on Ford Falcon GT Interceptor‎, attempting to turn a vehicle that is at worst urban myth, and best a nickname applied to a low volume police only modification. Insisting and placing signatures in article space, caps everywhere, almost insisting that he himself is a credible source. I'll have another go at attempting to clean this up later, but if someone else sufficiently interested might want to weigh in? --Falcadore (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hypercar Royalty AfD

I have listed Hypercar Royalty up for deletion. On a related note, if someone else could help keep an eye on Lamborghini LP670 (talk · contribs) that would be appreciated. He's been creating a whole bunch of new article stubs (generally automotive related) and I'm having trouble keeping up. swaq 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Split and merge Honda City/City Turbo?

I think that the 1981-1994 Honda City (first two generations) should be on its own separate page, as it sat in a different market segment entirely from the current City: The original was a full segment smaller and aimed at the Japanese domestic market, vis a vis the later larger saloons which are aimed specifically at developing markets. This way the Honda City Turbo page could be recombined with the 1st gen City where it belongs, so as to minimize sprawl. Comments? Mr.choppers (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest a variation of the above? Basically, keep the current Honda City page as is, except completely summarise the first two generations and include Main article: links to the Honda City Turbo page (appropriately renamed of course). The Honda City Turbo page could then be specific for generations one and two, with the current 1996 onwards models remaining at Honda City. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

After some thinking I had thought precisely the same thing but you beat me to the punch. I will go ahead with that unless anyone feels that it's unwise. • Mr.choppers (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Article in desperate need of attention

RPO ZR2

This is the most awful piece of fancruft I've ever laid my eyes on. It's riddled with OR and POV and the majority is either trivia or highly specific information beyond the scope of Wikipedia.

The question is, do we merge the usable information with Chevrolet S-10 and Chevrolet Blazer, or do we reduce the existing page to an encyclopedic article? --Sable232 (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's very much a fan page, but I think there's enough content here to justify an article. Most of all, it needs some reliable sources. If, after taking out anything deemed trivial, POV, or unreferenced, there's not much left, then it can be merged into Chevrolet S-10 and Blazer. --Vossanova ^o< 15:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate truck fanboys.

I took and pulled all the trivial/POV/unencyclopedic garbage out of the lead and was naturally reverted by some uptight prick saying "it has been here for years."

Anyone else care to help? I can see how this is going to end if I try and negotiate with these people alone. If I have to deal with these people myself I'd probably just throw it to AFD and hope the whole thing gets deleted since it looks to me like it's no more than free web hosting for them anyway. --Sable232 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not generally in favor of deletion, but that's the worst single example of fanboy garbage I've ever seen here. Merge the 5-6 lines of actual info to wherever it hatched from & delete. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree --Typ932 ^T·C 22:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Template up for deletion

Another vociferously nominated and commented upon deletion nomination is underway; this time it's for the Template:Automobile classification — the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Automobile classification. – Kieran T ^(talk) 23:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why vociferously? Perhaps I should have left my comment on its talk page for another year or two before stamping my feet and following the deletion procedure. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This deletion request is much more than just one template, it concerns every car model article here, evey car classification is based (reference) on that table...we have here much more ridiculous articles which needs to be deleted than this. I dont understand why those dont get any attention... --Typ932 ^T·C 22:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Convention/units

I think we should add convention page how we express turbopressure in turbocharged/supercharged cars, so what units we should use, I think bar is more suitable in Europe than pascals?...what about us/uk? --Typ932 ^T·C 20:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The usual I've seen is bar in Continental Europe, pounds in Britain (perhaps from dated refs), & psi in NAm; I'd suggest bar/psi. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Chopped Merc

After opening a redlink here, I find Hirohata Merc was deleted as "nonsense". Having posted a message on the deleting editor's talk & gotten no response (admittedly, only 2 days ago), I'm reposting here. Given the fame of the car, it seems to me even a stub described as "nonsense", which could be salvaged, is preferable to a redlink. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on having articles for individual custom cars (there are thousands upon thousands of these) but if you really want it on WP then why not put it on the appropriate Mercury page as an image or two with captions? It's not really a big enough subject to have its own page.  Stepho  (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just "any" custom, tho. It's one of a few dozen really iconic examples, to which I'd add Barris' Ala Kart & Cadzzilla, to name just two offhand. (I'd leave off the likes of Mysterion or the Pac Man rod as too bizzare, but doubtless I'd get some argument over it.) Every custom car buff (or just about) knows the Hirohata Merc; maybe not anything much about it, but definitely has heard of it. And it's not really apt for the Merc page, either, being a fullbore custom. WIthout knowing the content of the deleted page, it's hard to know if it's worth keeping. Besides, if there's pages for Pokemon characters, this is certainly notable enough. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out to me. I can see deleted content since I'm an admin. It wasn't "nonsense" but understandable English (so the deletion reason was invalid in my opinion); however, it had been tagged as a copyright violation. I'll restore it to a sandbox on your userspace, Trekphiler, if you give me a link on my talkpage. Please address the copyrighted text issue immediately. It will take some work but I think there a bunch of good content in the deleted text. I am not familiar with the custom car so I have no opinion about the notability - just see potential here. Royalbroil 05:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't move it back into mainspace on a copyvio. I mainly wanted to judge the content to see if it's salvageable. Notable, I don't think is an issue; this is one of the best-known customs ever built (leaving aside dedicated film & TV projects). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's in your userspace right now. The content looks good, except please use the naming feature in references to combine them into 2 references. On the first ref, you add the name using the form <ref name="name1"> ...</ref> on the first instance (similar to what you have) and <ref name="name1" /> on the rest. The name1 word is variable and different for each reference. Even better, check out the Wikipedia:Citation templates which can easily be added to a new button on the right hand side of your toolbar at the top of the editing window. That's how I do it and they're real easy once you get the hang of it. To add them, click "My Preferences" in the upper right of any screen, click the "Gadgets" tab on the far right, then add a checkmark to "refTools" and the button will be added. Also check out "HotCat" for adding categories easily without worrying about misspelling. There are other great tools on that page.

Looking at the article from the devil's perspective, all you're describing is someone's car. You haven't really addressed WP:NOTE - why is this particular car notable? You have a blog which doesn't count (a cynic might say that the blog is describing the blogger's friend's car). Looking at the blog at face value, it looks like the car was featured in the movie Running Wild. Now that's a claim for notability! If you can find references to the car in magazines is what you really need to do, especially if it's one from the past few years or decade to prove that is has lasting notability. I see Brittanica has an entry which helps but you can't use [2] . Right now you start out the article by saying it's a famous car. What you need is some magazine to say it was famous and then quote them! That's how you can get away with WP:PEACOCK statements - use quotes (sparingly). Books are great too, so check out Google books [3] and you'll be set. I'll let you develop it in your sandbox. There's no reason that I should move it into mainspace, you can do it when you're ready. It's not an admin action and anyone can do it - especially a well-respected senior editor like yourself. You've recreated the article in a new manner so you won't get in trouble! Thanks for the Eddie Hill review - I think that I've given back a fair trade with all of these advanced editing tips which will help you a lot longterm. I don't understand half of what you're saying but I'll address that on the talk page with you. Royalbroil 13:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

After posting, I accidentally found in that Google Books reference that the car was honorable mention in Rod & Custom's "Twenty Best of All-Time" list in 1991. That one sentence gives it automatic notability! Of wow, even more - cover of March 1953 Motortrend - similar effect to Elvis' first recordings at Sun Records - great stuff. You are right, this definitely needed an article a long time ago! Royalbroil 13:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Royal. (I should've thought to look at Google Books myself. :/ Still wedded to paper sources, what can I say? ;p) Done now, but anybody who's halfway good at consolidating refs is welcome to fix them. (I'd just screw it up. ;p ) Now, if I can find that article on the building of Ala Kart... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What would be nice is a visual dictionary of links on wikipedia that at least attempts to sort various common makes/models of hot rods on one "hot rod identifier helper" page. Obviously you don't need 100 pictures of a 1950 chopped mercury, but at least one vs. a 1950 ford or a 1951 mercury would probably be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.154.226.20 (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you searched Wikimedia Commons? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dodge ram Daytona article

2 of the biggest features of the Daytona edition Ram 1500 was its massive 11 inch wing, and its "go mango" paint scheme. why is there a picture featuring neither of these in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.167.3 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this even an article? It was only an appearance package for the Dodge Ram.--Ridge Runner (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've merged the Daytona article into the main Dodge Ram article. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Automotive Barnstar

You may want to rescue and adopt the Template:Automotive Barnstar by creating a barnstar image (it appears the image was created by a newcomer and deleted). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments

Please evaluate the reverts to the economy car article by a contributor who is now editing under 85.119.112.228. They have removed referenced material and added back statements of opinion, such as "The best of these cars are not merely cheapened or miniaturized versions of conventional cars." This does not seem to belong in an encyclopedia. Thank you — CZmarlin (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Just revert once more if it continues (although it seems to have stopped now), if not then get an administrator to semi-protect the page. 85.119.112.228's edits are very much unsubstantiated. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Separate article for Chevrolet Caprice PPV

Several weeks ago, Roguegeek decided to split up the "Chevrolet Caprice PPV" information into an article separate from Chevrolet Caprice. Based on the fact the the PPV page consists of two paragraphs I reverted this move, suggesting that one of the other Caprice generations would make a better candidate to be split. My actions were re-reverted and a statement was left by Roguegeek on Talk:Chevrolet Caprice PPV. I replied to this with reasoning, but received no reply after two weeks. As a result, I re-merged the article back to its original state. Roguegeek, after failing to reply within two weeks then reverted this move stating that I had not adhered to the WP:MERGE policy despite him not adhering to WP:SPLIT to begin with.

Rather than reverting once again, I have brought the discussion to this page.

• Should the PPV information be separate or should there be a Chevrolet Caprice (sixth generation) page? A PPV-only alone would be irrational as the same sixth generation Caprice has been sold in the Middle East since 2006 (even as a police car).

• Or instead, should there be separate Chevrolet Caprice (third generation) page, as the third generation information takes up significantly more space than the grand total of three paragraphs devoted to the sixth generation Caprice (Middle Eastern + North American version)? OSX (talk • contributions) 08:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Chevrolet Caprice article is large and each generation has enough information to make up a complete article in their own right. I would split each and every generation into its own article and kept the original article as a summary page - similar to what I did for the Toyota Corolla. Since the 6th gen and the PPV are barely big enough to make their own articles, I would combine them both together as a single 6th gen article.  Stepho  (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but there is no point in having a sub-article for a three-paragraph topic. Once there is more information added, then I would support a Chevrolet Caprice (sixth generation) page, but at the moment I see no need to do this. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If/when there is enough info, I'd recommend creating Chevrolet Caprice (sixth generation) instead. It might be useful to split up some of the other generations into new articles as well, as the main Caprice article is pretty long. --Vossanova ^o< 14:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing vehicle topics

I've updated my list of missing vehicle-related topics - Skysmith (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow that's a LOT of missing articles! Things to point out though: items such as "automatic choke" and "electronic speedometer" should already be covered by the choke and speedometer articles, they don't need separate articles. Also, many items on the list (especially the terminology-like ones) seem more suitable for a glossary or dictionary definition than a full-blown article. At best they could do with a paragraph mention in an existing article. Some of them entries don't seem like encyclopedic topics in their own right. Just a thought. I don't have the expertise to begin cutting down on the list though, nor would I want to interfere with your hard work. Zunaid 18:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Zunaid, the basic list is fine but many items are really sub-topics. Some items are already present within other articles or under different names (eg 'M1130 Stryker CV' as M1130 Commander's Vehicle, 'Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle' as Stryker, and all the tire section in tyres). I assume that items not present at all can simply be added as new articles but what do you want us to do about items already present in other articles or under other names? Provide redirects under your proposed name (and all variant spellings like bias belted tire, bias-belted tire, bias belted tyre, bias-belted tyre), edit your list directly to remove it or post it on the discussion page at User talk:Skysmith/Missing topics about Vehicles. But probably best not to talk about each item in detail on this project page. Certainly nice to have such a list though. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If you think that a particular topic does not deserve or article, mention it in the page. And if you see something that can easily redirected, go ahead and create a redirect - Skysmith (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Old merge proposal

Hello there, I'm going through Category:Articles to be merged from November 2007 and I've got to Suzuki Carry - are its various potential mergees (such as the Maruti Omni) valid merges, or should the merge tags be removed? Thanks. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes as the Maruti Omni et al. are simply Suzuki Carry vans/utilities by another name. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't find that explicitly stated in the articles I looked at. I'll merge them to an "alternate badges" section in Suzuki carry. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

MG

What does "MG" stand for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.110.146.10 (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Morris Garages. OSX (talk • contributions) 18:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

EV pages in general, new Renault Fluence Z.E. page in particular

Heya, I've been adding details and cleaning up hybrid, electric vehicle, EV charging, etc. pages as I read about advances in places like Autoblog Green. I think I'm doing a good job but welcome feedback and would like to talk with people interested in improving and standardizing EV car information.

I just wrote my first page from scratch (borrowing from the Nissan Leaf page), the Renault Fluence Z.E.. I wrote this before the page for the main car it's based on (the Renault Fluence) has been updated, but I'm less expert on gasoline vehicles :-) -- Skierpage (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Engine break-in

I have had a bit of a go cleaning up Engine break-in but it still seems to be full of, at best, half truths and confusion. Can someone else give it a look over. For example, should you really change the oil after 15 minutes as advised in "Start high power" Malcolma (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I think the article should be deleted altogether. Wikipedia is not a manual or how-to guide. 93JC (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 93JC.--Ridge Runner (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree --Typ932 ^T·C 20:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the article should stay. It's still important to tell people what break-in is for and the major parts of the operation. But as you said, we shouldn't be giving step by step instructions. The article should be cut back to give just the basic facts. Also, it seems to put both gentle and hard break-in on equal footing, whereas in the real world all manufacturers recommend gentle break-in and only a handful of tuners recommend had break-in (ie a minority view).  Stepho  (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could trim the how-to information and add it to Wikibooks? I agree with Stepho-wrs; the article should remain, but only discuss the basics. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Flags in car brand templates

should we remove those or what do you think? this style is soon spreading more and more.. --Typ932 ^T·C 06:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Done --Typ932 ^T·C 07:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Road tax rename

FYI, Road tax has been nominated for renaming. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Cadillac article under attack

Cadillac Seville

The same IP who destroyed the DeVille article has now moved on to the Seville, adding over 10 MBkB of unencyclopedic junk that looks like it was ripped from a fansite. I removed it, but of course the IP reverted and then added more garbage along the lines of "Taking the name of a fabled old city in Spain..." and such.

Hypothetically, were this article to ever go to GA review with all that rubbish intact they'd probably laugh and speedy close the review. We need a strong consensus to get the prose and the amount of information in these articles under control so this kind of stuff can be reverted on sight without question.

Thoughts? --Sable232 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "under attack" and "over 10 MB" are a bit of an exaggeration, but I also sense that it's a fan, or someone copying from a fansite, adding a bunch of insignificant/trivial info. Either revert it or slap an overdetailed (aka fancruft) tag on it and get an idea of what could be summarized and what should be taken out. --Vossanova ^o< 18:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That should've been 10 kB, sorry. Got my units mixed up.

I did revert it once, but I'd rather not do it again unilaterally which is why I'm posting here. --Sable232 (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

BMW 3 Series (F30) at AfD

This wikiproject may be interested in the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BMW 3 Series (F30) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Chinese models

I live in China AND have a camera. What are the odds? If there is an article for a Chinese car that has no image, let me know and I will try to track it down, avoid getting run over by it, and take a photo for the article. I am at your service. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two vehicles I remember well in China. One is the two-wheel tractor with trailer attached crawling along the side of highways, taking farm produce to market (see second image in article). I saw many of these with a plain wooden board for a bench seat and a simple canopy to keep the sun off the driver and his family. The second is the split level, sleeper mini buses. These were mid sized buses that had normal seats but also had bunks suspended from the ceiling (running lengthways down the bus, each bunk with a long, low window above the normal seat windows).  Stepho  (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't see anything like those here. I am in Hainan, so maybe that's why. We have funny little tractors that go "but-but-but-but-but-but", but they have three wheels. The sleeper buses are full-size. We have Army motorcycles with sidecars, an Army Hummer-thing, Chinese-built civilian cars, motorized rickshaws of various types, etc. Describe what you are seeking, or if you see a copyrighted image on the web, send me the url so I know what it looks like. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I saw plenty of both around Canton and Shanghai in the 1990's and could have sworn I saw some of those tractors in Hainan circa 1996 but I guess China has moved on since then. I also remember a rugged vehicle for the police with all four doors being the same shape - with the lower rear corner cut off all four doors so that the rear doors cleared the rear tyres.  Stepho  (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have any photos of the Nanjing Yuejin Soyat (see [4] or [5]). We have some photos of Volkswagen Santanas in Commons, but they're not great, so some more good three-quarter views of Chinese Santanas would be welcome. Also if you see any Roewe 550s, that would be good too - we have one photo, but it's of a Chilean-market MG 550 (same car but different badge). I'm sure there are others. Thanks! Letdorf (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC).

Okay. I will look. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Subaru Legacy and Outback merger

I have proposed a merger for the Subaru Legacy and Subaru Outback articles here: Talk:Subaru Legacy#Merger. All comments are welcome. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirection of Template:Infobox automobile generation

Since Template:Infobox automobile generation is an exact duplicate of Template:Infobox automobile, the former should be redirected to the latter. In the past, the generation infobox had some slight differences, but they currently share the same parameters. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep if they are same --Typ932 ^T·C 17:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Convertible article: "different terms due to the convergence of body styles over the years"

I realy mean the end of the lead-article is wrong. The writer suggest the different designations of 'open-top cars' is caused by: "different terms due to the convergence of body styles over the years". In my eyes is it purely a question of national habit: America = Convertible. Britain = Roadster. France = Cabriolet. Germany = Cabrio (even for american/european Ford's). Italy = (mostly) Spyder.

It's only due to the widespread of 'automatic hard-tops' in late years that these designations have developed: Peugeot designates as example their hard-top's as 'CC' (as: 'Coupe Cabriolet') wich not have been used for the earlier fold-roof models. In this matter is the designation of the Peugeot 205CTi with fold-roof, to be translated as a 'Cabriolet'-version of the existing GTi-model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.55.134.141 (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In Italy it is usually Spider not Spyder...Spyder is used more in Germany --Typ932 ^T·C 18:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think all these terms are exactly synonymous. Not all convertibles are sportscars. A "roadster" is generally (IMHO) a small sportscar. I think "spyder" also usually implies a compact sportscar. On the other hand, "drop-head" is a traditional British term for any convertible, but has fallen into disuse in recent years. Letdorf (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC).

Speaking as a traditional Brit, drop-head or cabriolet are terms that would generally only be used for something pre-war. Soft-top, roadster or convertible are pretty universal, interchangeble terms for everything else without a roof. But roadster and spyder have also been used in the UK by manufacturers as part of the model name - Alfa Romeo's are always Spyders (or more rarely Spiders), never roadsters or convertibles, but MG's though always officially Roadsters, are often called convertibles by their owners. ----

This is going to be one of those imponderable, almost unprovable ones, so we'd be better just offering the alternative terms and not doing and original research by making pronouncements about "who" uses which term. (As an example of the difficulties, I'm a Brit too, but I've never heard anybody say "roadster" for any car at all unless it was actually in the model's name. It's convertible for most people I've heard, cabriolet for a few - biased slightly by the actual model names, again.) – Kieran T ^(talk) 01:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In the 1940s and 1950s some British sportscars (British term) were marketed in North America as roadsters (because the importers believed that to be a more suitable and native North American term for a "fun" car). Hence the misunderstandings above. Roadster is an attempt to use American English in place of British English.Eddaido (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that sentence way back when we merged all our convertible articles into one. It's completely original research based on my understanding that "cabriolet" originated from the original horse-drawn cabriolet, whereas "roadster" originally meant a vehicle without side windows or a roof, and "convertible" meant a latter-day (after the hard-top had been invented) vehicle whose roof could retract. In summary: "cabriolets" came to be powered by engines, "roadsters" grew side windows and roofs, and "convertibles" were always just vehicles with folding away roofs, thus the "different terms due to the convergence of different body styles over the years", it depends on the evolutionary path the different body styles took to get to the convertible/cabriolet/roadster of today. Where spi/yders and barchettas fit into the whole mix I'm not sure.

Feel free to remove/reword that sentence though, it's my own (well-intentioned) reasoning. Zunaid 11:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

the groundclearancy of the allroads are expressed in unlikely terms of fact`s

Please, could the ride high of the two models of the car be corrected, it says in the article that 208mm , or 8", and yet it`s told in the article below that it raise to 185mm or so,and that equals higher groundclearance than the previous, wich is right`thank`s for the space, regards pasi from sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.76.65 (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

His English is hard to understand but I think he is asking about the two different ground clearance measurements given in the Audi A6 allroad quattro article. I know very little about the Quattro but it seems to be something to do with differences between the C5 and C6 generations.  Stepho  (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox automobile engineer parameter

Hi all! With regards to Template:Infobox automobile, it has the "designer" parameter, listed as "designer: the name of the individual designer, or the "design house". Makes sense to me, but in the same vein, what about the chief engineer? For example, Bruno Sacco was the chief designer of several S-Class generations, while there's no field (at present) for Wolfgang Peter, who was chief engineer of the S-Class. It's quite common to my knowledge for car generations to have a chief engineer leading its design. Any thoughts on this being added? Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that having the designer parameter is unnecessary. This kind of information belongs in the body of the article. A single designer rarely designs a vehicle unaided, and there is always going be a bias against the exterior designer(s). Are the interior designers ever mentioned? OSX (talk • contributions) 02:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, we want to avoid clutter in the infoboxes. Also agreed that it is usually a design team. Although if a chief designer is listed, the chief engineer could be equally if not more important--as they often head the whole project, and the design team reports to him/her. Anyhow, it was just a thought. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The designer parameter is unnecessary. This kind of information belongs in the body of the article." Sorry, I don't get this. I agree that the infobox shouldn't be cluttered with non-essential parameters, but I would definitely give priority to notable information over trivial stats, reagrdless of where else it appears on the page. The infobox to me has always been a summary of the article as a whole, so it should contain info that is mentioned later. Otherwise, all you end up with is a bunch of unreferenced statistics. I'd roll my eyes in exasperation if we deleted designer from the infobox, while leaving such trivia as fuel capacity or wheelbase behind.

Now I'll admit that these days car design is far more likely to be the work of a team than an individual, and I'll also acknowledge that the media goes for the exterior stylist at the expense of others. But as a tertiary source, it's up to us to reflect that bias. Alec Issigonis is the one man most closely associated with the Mini; Giorgetto Giugiaro with the first VW Golf; Raymond Loewy with the Studebaker Avanti. Like it or not, designers are the closest thing the automotive industry has to celebrities, and they get the lion's share of the attention from the reliable sources we rely on. Maybe that's one of the reasons Bruno Sacco has been a blue link for almost two years, but Wolfgang Peter remains red at the time of writing. --DeLarge (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if we need to remove something it must be the fuel capacity, and what comes to chief engineer , that data is not available usually, so that would be used only in very few articles. --Typ932 ^T·C 20:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good points all, thanks. And yes, the fuel capacity parameter can take up a lot of space. It's true also that we have more automotive designer articles, but there are also a certain number of engineers, including chief engineers, at Category:Automotive_engineers_by_nationality. Anyhow, thx for the input. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see an article about him, as long as we can justify it with sources. Unfortunately, I did a bit of Googling and can't find anything substantial. You may have books or something though, especially of German origin, which have better info than the interweb. --DeLarge (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Questionable edits regarding assembly location

Special:Contributions/TheAutoJunkie

This user has added Caracas, Venezuela as an assembly location to numerous articles, linking only to a Spanish-language site of unknown authenticity to support the claim.

First, does anyone here know enough Spanish to determine exactly what the referenced web pages say? Secondly, I suspect that if the edits are indeed true then in the vast majority of cases the cars were probably assembled from CKD kits, and I don't recall if there was a previous consensus one way or the other whether those are included. --Sable232 (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't read/write/speak Spanish (apart from words obviously similar to English) but using Google translate, that page [6] only displays the technical specs of the FJ62 Land Cruiser. It doesn't say if it was manufactured from raw materials in Venezuela, assembled from a Japanese CKD or imported whole. Which means the reference is no good for our purposes (although it is an otherwise excellent site for trawling through). It doesn't bother me that it is only a fan page if it is well researched.

My understanding of the assembly field is that manufacturing from raw materials is good, assembling from a CKD (usually with substantial local content for windscreens, batteries, tyres, etc) is good but vehicles simply imported substantially whole (maybe replacing some minor bits) doesn't count.  Stepho  (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we remove those or mark those with citation needed tag, that spanish site is not proper source --Typ932 ^T·C 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of marking them with ^{[citation needed]} tags? The locations will just remain uncited until someone decides to remove the citation tags, and leave the unsourced location in tact. Unless User:TheAutoJunkie can find a reliable sources, then delete. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of 'citation required' is to show that we are not sure if the asserted fact is true or not. If we have a good reference that checks out then all is good. If we know it to be false then we simply delete it. If it is patently ridiculous, then we also delete it (eg assembly in Antarctica). If the assertion sounds reasonable but we don't know for sure then it gets 'citation required' with a date. After a long enough time without a good reference being found, then it can be considered as very improbable and can be deleted. In this case, Venezuela sounds a like a reasonable place to be doing assembly of CKD kits but the reference sucks, so the assertion should stay, the reference should be removed and a dated 'citation required' tag should stay.  Stepho  (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he added similar info to the Mitsubishi L300 page, and it checks out. I did some Googling, and there's a Reuters article mentioning that Toyota has a local assembly plant there, at least for the moment.[7] Looks like good-faith edits. --DeLarge (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the additions are right, some wrong, I translated some of those with google translate. --Typ932 ^T·C 18:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Chevrolet Cruze image

User:Areaseven has edited the Chevrolet Cruze article to include a blurry photo of the car for the lead infobox image. This is despite there being a better version available. Because the better photo is of the Holden Cruze (which the same as the Chevrolet except for a different grille insert), User:Areaseven states that it is "misleading".

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Images: "The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle". Thoughts? OSX (talk • contributions) 07:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the Chevrolet Cruze, NOT the Holden Cruze. Posting a picture of the Holden version as the main image is just misleading, even if they're both the same car. Also, the Holden brand is not used outside Australia, while Chevy is more well-known worldwide. And another thing: the article already has three existing pics of the Holden version.

As for the blurriness of the Chevy pic, I've tried comparing all of the existing ones on the Commons. It's not my fault that the Chevy pics are inferior to the Holden pics. - Areaseven (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is appropriately illustrated by a photo of any of the models covered in the article. If you feel the two versions are too dissimilar to belong in the same article, you should propose that they be split, not use a lower-quality photo. IFCAR (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The section on the first generation says that it was designed by Holden, so there is a reasonable case for renaming the whole article to the Holden Cruze (with a redirection for Chevrolet Cruze of course). Then the whole argument for not having a Holden Cruze photo disappears down the drain. I'm not serious suggesting a name change but am pointing out that disallowing a Holden photo because it is a Chevrolet article is a worthless path to follow. Also, the info box says 'aka Holden Cruise', which means that the Holden photo is just as valid as the Chevrolet photo. So, it should come down to whichever photo looks better.  Stepho  (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"The article is about the Chevrolet Cruze, NOT the Holden Cruze." This is incorrect; the article is about all versions of the vehicle. We have Chevrolet Cruze as the title for reasons of simplicity, not because we want to exclude the Holden. Look at where you end up when you click on Holden Cruze. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Revert name changes

I recommend that the Hyundai Click and Kia Morning articles be reverted to their international names - Hyundai Getz and Kia Picanto, respectively. The reason being is that the names "Click" and "Morning" are not being used outside South Korea, and that the "Getz" and "Picanto" names are more widely-used in the global market. -Areaseven (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I think, based on the articles themselves. WP:CARS has accepted more a WP-compliant naming convention since these pages were last moved. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Those page moves were performed by myself in-line with our previous naming convention of using the original market name for all article titles (i.e. South Korea in the above cases). Our policy is now more accommodating to the names used in the main "English-speaking" countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia). OSX (talk • contributions) 23:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mercury articles

Lots of casual/anonymous-IP editors are excitedly making edits to the Mercury (automobile) and current model (Mercury Grand Marquis, Mercury Milan, Mercury Mountaineer, Mercury Mariner) articles now that Ford has announced brand phase-out. As a reminder, please do not change all cases of "-present" to "-2010". These cars are still being produced in the present. "-2010" suggests that production may have already stopped, which is not true. --Vossanova ^o< 16:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Pontiac 301 Turbo page

I recently cleaned-up the Pontiac turbo 301 page as it was a disgrace to the niche engine, and hopefully the "jargon" has been elminated and the useful information added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.103.86 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Cars in Poland, 1991

Hello, I uploaded a picture of some cars I saw in 1991 Poland. Anyone knows the names (of course especially of the front one)? Apdency (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The first car is a FSO Syrena, the second is a Trabant, the third is Polski Fiat 126p, and the red one is a Lada. I hope that helps! CZmarlin (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure it does, thank you! Apdency (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Merge Toyota Camry Hybrid with Toyota Camry?

Please see Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid -- RFC: Merge Toyota Camry Hybrid with Toyota Camry? This is an attempt to gather wider input without some of the contentiousness of previous discussions.

If you have registered an opinion on this merger previously, please make your comment(s) in the "invovled editors" section. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Fuel economy data

What is our stance is on fuel economy information in automotive articles? For cars sold in multiple markets, including the fuel economy data from one but not the other does not really represent a world-wide view. If you include it for every country then you end up with a total mess of an article filled up with government fuel economy figures.

We now have a case where a user has included a complete table with the EPA figures (for the U.S. and California), annual fuel costs, carbon footprint, air pollution score, global warming score, and the smog-causing emissions rating. On top of that, these are all listed for multiple trims, powertrains and transmissions. Seems far over the top and against: WP:Summary style. And this is a car sold in the U.S., Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and much of Southeast Asia.

Then there is a section with independent fuel economy tests (again all from the U.S.). We don't include independent performance tests, so why do so for fuel economy? These figures are completely subjective and you can't compare the result of one car in one test to another car in another test.

I have tried to compromise and allow a short paragraph detailing the EPA figure, but the other user will not move away from his excessive stance.

Please see: Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid#U.S. environmental performance table (v. 2).

We also have a situation at Toyota Prius where there is a huge section with fuel economy information that basically just includes the U.S. market. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This case is little bit same as performance figures, which are collected from magazines, In my opinion we should prefer manufacturers figures over magazines, now one car can have figures collected from many magazines... whihch makes comparison almost pointless. --Typ932 ^T·C 09:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always been very reluctant to include fuel economy simply because there's no standard way of measuring it. Unlike the physical dimensions of a vehicle, the fuel economy stats obtained by the US EPA are different from those measured elsewhere, not only in their absolute values but in how they're represented: US mpg, Imperial mpg, litres per 100km, etc, and city/highway vs urban/extra-urban/combined. And of course, they're all theoretical figures anyway; in reality each car is dependent on its owner's driving styles and circumstances. As an encyclopedia, I think we should be working harder to differentiate what's notable from what's merely verifiable. Otherwise we're on a slippery slope which ends up with us including paint schemes and options lists. Let other sources act as buyers' guides, while we get on with being an encyclopedia. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. With fuel economy being a theoretical figure as you stated, it makes its inclusion a contentious one. If a "market" section exists I am happy for a brief paragraph to be included for the markets with a sub-section, but verbatim copies of tables directly from the EPA and independent tests should be avoided unless anomalously notable (the best example I can think of is the Mazda CX-7 with the 2.3 litre turbo petrol engine; its "real world" fuel economy is widely reported to be similar to that of a large V8 sedan, despite its class-competitive government figure in Australia).

Proposal: should our conventions page outline something along the lines of the above? That is, a brief mention of the government figure if a dedicated "market" section exists and no mention of independent tests unless the figure(s) deviate strongly from the real-world figure and this is widely reported by reliable third-party resources. The same could be applied to performance figures: include the manufacturer's claim only, unless there is a compelling reason not to. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Fuel mileage is just too subjective, something I noted even as a child reading Auto Katalog, when I discovered that gas mileage numbers were only comparable within each market. The Camry Hybrid table contains just a wee bit too much "info", and what's relevant (the Hybrid will save you some gas money) can be said more succinctly. Of course, a section on fuel economy does make more sense in the Camry Hybrid article than in, say, the Buick Century.  ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ALC (automobile)

The article ALC (automobile) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for reference found no support for this article, Fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It didn't take much Googling to find one reference, albeit a very weak one. In fact it looks as though it was copied to create the article, or - though hopefully not - vice versa. Anyway, it's enough to put a pause on a PROD, so I've added it in. Article desperately in need of more work though, or perhaps a deletion nomination on grounds of notability, which might get somebody out of the woodwork to help on it ;) – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all I was finding was Alcohol (ALC) and English cars. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You can create a single page to hold lots of obscure, short lived brands. Then create a separate page for each brand that contains only a redirection to the grouped page. Probably the grouped page should contain brands for a single major market - ie one page for English, one for German, one for all of Africa, etc. Or we could just make one grouped page for obscure car brands and split it later as markets make themselves evident.  Stepho  (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have found a reference to the ALC in the book "British Car Factories From 1896". It says that it was a re-launch of the equally short lived Alvechurch. I have referenced up the Alvechurch article added a note about ALC and will now create a divert. I can find nothing to substantiate the ALC article ref that states the car was made in London. Malcolma (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Vehicles with seating for 6 or more nominated for deletion

--Vossanova ^o< 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Vehicle Dynamics Integrated Management

Back in October 2009, there was a consensus to redirect Vehicle Dynamics Integrated Management (VDIM) to the Electronic stability control (ESC) article. I feel that this was a bad decision because VDIM is not an ESC system; VDIM integrates ESC, traction control, anti-lock brakes, electronic brakeforce distribution, brake assist and power steering and thus indirectly allows all the systems to work together in a cohesive manner. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this Toyota system? Alfa Romeo has DNA systems which controls engine response, stability control and power steering parameters.I think we could make new article which deals these systems, but what would be the name of this? or then we would end up to have own articles to every brand. --Typ932 ^T·C 10:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, VDIM is a Toyota system and I believe it is the only technology of its kind. From what I can deduce, VDIM is a safety-oriented feature, whereas DNA is a performance-oriented system. DNA appears to be closer to the Normal/Comfort/Sport modes available on many luxury cars; that is, it simply adjusts the level of ESC intervention along with the steering response. VDIM is not a driver-adjustable feature, it is a computer system that monitors the ESC, ABS, EBD, power steering, et cetera and integrates these various functions. In a way, it could be dubbed ESC version 2.0. Regular ESC systems intervene after the skid has been detected (and thus minimise the oversteer or understeer), VDIM goes beyond this and prevents the oversteer/understeer from occurring in the first place. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The DNA adjusts engine, brakes, steering, suspension and gearbox, and yes its more for driver than safety thing. Dont know if we still need a general article of all car systems or then one page per system. --Typ932 ^T·C 15:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Although DNA adjusts certain factors, like as you said, it's more for driver involvement. VDIM senses potential over/understeer and attempts to correct the situation before it is able to occur. I don't believe DNA does this; it simply adjusts the sensitivity of certain factors. So for example, if the owner wants to drive with the car "harder", they can select the appropriate setting. If the road conditions are wet, then the DNA wet-weather setting will alter the ESC sensitivity, and the throttle response, et cetera, to make driving safer (at the cost of driver involvement). Because they have different core functions, then there is little reason to merge both topics. Lastly, because VDIM is in a league of its own, there is no industry-standard name (similar to how Electronic Stability Program is now Electronic Stability Control). OSX (talk • contributions) 13:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not trying to adda DNA and VDIM to same article it was just one example of other systems, but surely other manufacturers have similar systems, are you sure Toyota is in its own league? article here does not need any industry standard name , wikipedia can have just some general names also , but if you are sure this is unique system and cannot be integrated to same article with other systems , then maybe it can be in article of its own, anybody else have thoughts of this case?, Im not familiar with Toyota systems, so cant say much about it.. --Typ932 ^T·C 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any other systems that perform a role similar to VDIM, and I do keep updated with automotive news via several outlets. If and when an industry-standard name is adopted, then it would be logical to move the article to such a title, but for now VDIM seems to be the only name used, as it is a Toyota/Lexus-only technology. Like Typ932 stated, can any other users voice an aditional opinion? OSX (talk • contributions) 00:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may chip in with my 2c (a coin the South African Reserve Bank don't even mint any more so it shows how useless my opinion probably is!), aren't Toyota perhaps making much ado about nothing? ESC systems already use the power steering as one of their inputs and actuate the ABS braking system to suit. EBD comes "for free" with ABS, it's just ABS applied individually at each wheel as they detect slippage. To my mind Toyota is giving a name to a system that is already in wide use and is equivalent to ESC as it is applied by most (all?) manufacturers today. But that's just my opinion, I don't have any references to back this up. Zunaid 09:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have re-instated the article because the redirect pointed to electronic stability control, and that article only brushes on the details of system. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)