Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Project notice?

Do we have anything like {{tl|Cvgproj}} for this wikiproject? The CVG project is sticking their template on almost all talk pages that they might edit. While we don't necessarily need to do that, I think that if there's a person who ocassionally visits something like Category:Automobile stubs, it would be good to point them towards this project. --Interiot 17:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I followed my favorite Wikipedia rule: "Be Bold" and took the liberty of creating a prototype template. This template, {{tl|AutoProject}}, links to the project page and the discussion page. You can change the mark-up as you see fit. Here is the template as of now:

{{AutoProject}}

I have already added the template to the bottom of the Lexus LS article as an example. Thanks, Signature^brendel 19:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's supposed to go on the article itself - the Talk: page would be the right place surely? SteveBaker 19:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Er "commulative" ?

Okay I moved it to the talk page. As I said feel free to change anything about the template you see as inappropriate- if you think there's a mistake feel free to correct it. As of now, it is just a prototype I created. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Lincoln picture that was there is fair-use, and fair use images can't be used in templates. I picked a random replacement from the free auto images that we have, but feel free to pick another. --Interiot 20:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The new image is fine, I actually do like the perspective from which it was taken. Thanks. Signature^brendel 22:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Request to change pages like "General Motors Corsa" to "Opel Corsa"

Well, I knew this was bound to come up. Whoever decided to call Opels such as the Opel Astra the "General Motors Astra" must've ignored the home-market precedent that was supposed to follow. Before I begin, let me share with you someone's complaint from the General Motors Corsa talk page:

I question the point of calling this article "General Motors Corsa".

Despite the fact that Opel's cars are badged as Opel, Vauxhall, Holden and Chevrolet, they are designed and engineered by the Opel subsidiary of General Motors.

I don't see this approch being used for all the other General Motors models.

You don't write the "Ford Motor Company" DB9 for Aston Martin or the "Ford Motor Company" XJ? Or maybe the Volkswagen AG Flying Spur for the Bentley?

It serves no useful purpose as far as I can see. Can somebody please change it?

Another comment from the General Motors Omega talk page:

Why is this article entitled "General Motors Omega" instead of "Opel Omega" when for example the "Pontiac Grand Am" article is not entitled "General Motors Grand Am"?

I have to say that I agree with these comments.

The calling of these cars as "General Motors" vehicles creates a problem. First off, these cars (Agila (with Suzuki), Corsa, Astra, Vectra, Zafira, Sintra, Omega, Combo, Vivaro (with Renault), Movano (with Renault), Calibra, and Tigra) were designed by Adam Opel AG in Russelheim, Germany. For those of you who don't know GM's apparatus very well, Adam Opel AG is owned, technically, by GM Europe, which also Vauxhall Motors Ltd., of Luton, England, UK. Now, since most current Vauxhalls are really just RHD Opels (the VX220 and the Monaro being the exception), there is obviously a problem. However, I don't see just a problem in regards to Vauxhalls - I see a problem with all of the Opels in general. Now I know that some people in here that can interpret the "home-market" precedent to what is being done on, say, the General Motors Corsa and General Motors Astra pages. However, I think that there is a problem. You see, although all the cars mentioned in these pages (for example, regarding the Corsa, the Opel Vita, the Opel Corsa Lite, the Chevrolet Corsa, etc.) might look different, visually and also with engine choice, they are all the same Opel Corsa, designed by Opel, engineered by Opel, and built/sold by Opel (and by GM subsidiaries all over the world as either a Opel, Chevrolet, or other brand) with Opel quality. Yet why is it a "GM" Corsa? This sounds like GM New Zealand way back in the 1980s when GM NZ tried (and failed) to make "GM" the main brand. Do we want another GM NZ on our hands? Who knows - maybe those complainers were right. Maybe the Daewoo Matiz should be the General Motors Matiz; the Chevrolet Malibu the General Motors Malibu; the Holden Commodore the General Motors Commodore; the ASEAN/Indian-market Chevrolet Tavera the General Motors Tavera; the Chevy Niva the General Motors Niva; etc. It doesn't stop there - how about the Ford Motor Company Taurus to cover the Taurus and Sable; the Ford Motor Company Explorer to cover the Mazda Navajo, the Mercury Mountaineer, the Lincoln Aviator, and the Ford Explorer; the Ford Motor Company Mondeo to cover the Ford Mondeo and the Jaguar X-Type; the DaimlerChrysler E-Class to cover the Merc E-Class, Dodge Charger/Magnum, and Chrysler 300; the PSA 307 for the Peugeot 307 and C4; the Toyota Motor Corporation Camry for the Toyota Camry, the Lexus ES, and the Daihatsu Altis; etc.? Do you see the absurdity of the artifical "GM" brand for cars like the Opel Corsa and Opel Astra? Therefore, I propose that in keeping with the home-market naming scheme, all cars that currently have the artifical "GM" name in them (the General Motors Agila, the General Motors Corsa, the General Motors Astra, the General Motors Zafira, and the discontinued General Motors Omega and General Motors Calibra are the ones I can think of off the top of my head) be changed to reflect their Opel heritage (i.e. the General Motors Calibra becomes the Opel Calibra; however the derivaties will also be given some mention - see the General Motors Zafira article).

I apologize if I sound a little bit harsh - must be my debating skills going a little bit out of hand. But this is one thing that can't be ignored for much longer. -Daniel Blanchette 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you make a point it is the Opel Omega, not the General Motors Omega, the Omega nameplate was only used by Opel, not Holden nor Vauxhaul nor Cadillac. The versions of the "Omega" from these companies such were, however, almost identical such as the Cadillac Catera, Holden Statesman, and Opel Omega. I for one support your petition for having the name changed from General Motors Omega to Opel Omega, as we already have different articles for similar vehicles (which I favor as opposed to merging articles), and the Omega was only sold under the Opel name. Besdies one could create a platform article to cover the similarities between vehicles. The Lincoln LS and Jaguar X-Type are related, of course there is no Ford X-Type/LS article, but there is an article for the platform both vehicles share. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is a need to re-evaluate our so-called "naming convention", which was never agreed upon. I cannot recall the exact reason the pages were renamed "General Motors xxxxx", but I think it came about because of a conflict between the "naming convention" "adopted" by this project (which would name these vehicles Opel) and that of Wikipedia itself, which is to name the article according to whichever name is most prevalent in the English language (Vauxhall). I for one feel we need to scrap the "national origin" convention and come up with something better. "General Motors Astra" et al. and the Chevrolet Aveo et al. move to the respective Daewoo pages were idiotic.

--93JC 18:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes any convention which resultet in the Opel Omega being called the General Motors Oemga needs to be re-evaluated. Holden, for example, never had the name Omega in its line-up, instead the vehicle was called the Statesman, for Cadillac it was called the Catera. The bottom line is that car articles always mention the name of the marque under which a car is sold. Its not the General Motors Escalade or the VW Azure. No, its the Cadillac Escalade and the Bentley Azure. It is the same with Opel and the Omega, we already have articles for the Vauxhall, Holden and Cadillac versions of the car, so the Omega article solely deals with the Opel version and thus like all other car articles should be called the Opel Omega. Signature^brendel 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I of course support Dan in what he said - all the vehicles he mentioned are first and foremost Opels that have been later adopted by other GM overseas divisions. Cars are quite unlike many other subjects of Wikipedia articles in that their names are often not directly related to the technical content (various name for the same vehicle as well as same names for different vehicles). I believe we should focus on the technical content, and not the name, but we need to name the article somehow. I believe that the "home market" rule might serve as a rule of a thumb unless it causes confusion (like in the case of Kalos/Gentra).
There are a few issues I'd like to address that were mentioned during the discussion and need straightening out here:

1. Vauxhall Astra etc. is probably not the most frequently used name in English, except if we take UK only as the proving ground. If you'd look at the almost 100% English www.gminsidenews.com, the Opels are more frequently mentioned than Vauxhalls. A lot more people use English than just THE English :D
2. The DEW98-based (Lincoln LS counterpart) Jaguar is S-Type, not X-Type. X-Type is related to Ford Mondeo. IMHO, either are too distantly related to be considered fit for their articles to be merged.
3. The Australian Commodores were not identical to Opel Omegas. They were related, more by their styling than technically. The Statesman is the stretched version of the Commodore, it has even less in common with the Omega.
4. The same applies to W210 (former E-Klasse) and the LX platform.

One more thing - the "GM Astra" article, for example, causes the need for not only Opel Astras, but also Vauxhall Astras and Holden Astras to be included, while those nameplates have a different history and therefore deserve individual articles IMHO (even if at some point merely directing the reader to continue reading at the appropriate point of the Opel Astra article). The same applies to some extent to the cases of Chevrolet Vectra and Chevrolet Omega. --Bravada 20:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but the we already have an article for the Vauxhall and the Holden versions as well as the Cadillac version of the Opel Omega, we already have an article for the Holden Statesman; thus the General Motors Omega article only deals with the Omega, which was only sold as the Omega by Opel. Therefore just like the Holden Statesman article is called Holden Statesman, the Opel Omega article should be called Opel Omega and not General Motors Omega. Also it was never my intend to merge the LS and S-Type, I said calling the Opel Omega article General Motors Omega is like calling the Jaguar S-Type the Ford S-Type article or the Lincoln LS article, the Ford LS article - which is nonsense. The Omega is only made by Opel not Vauxhall and not Holden (we have seperate articles for those); thus the article should be called the Opel Omega. Thanks. Signature^brendel 23:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that with this debate (as with the manufacturers name in infobox debate below) we should ask ourselves what the reader needs. In the end, that is the ONLY thing that matters. So - for the name of the article: What will the user type into the Wikipedia search box and hit "GO"? Probably the shortest form of the name. "Corsa" - not "Opel Corsa" or "GM Corsa" and FOR SURE not "General Motors Corsa" because it's too much typing - but whatever the article is named - you should most certainly have redirect pages from all of those other names so that the end user is not presented with a 'search result' when they wanted a quick way to find a simple answer. That is our job here in naming articles...one stop shopping. If by some fancy set of "rules" posted by Wikiproject Automobiles, we cause a single user to have to make an extra mouse click - we have made things worse.

This OBVIOUSLY means that we must have redirects from as many possible names for the car as we can come up with. We have to guess all of the likely names they might type - and redirect ALL of them to the "One True Name" of the article.

So what name should be chosen for the "One True Name" of the article? I believe it is the one that is least likely to need to become a disambiguation page in the future. If a redirect has to become a disambig - then that's no biggie. But if the article itself becomes a redirect then you may have to go in and fixup hundreds of links that used to point to it that now point to a dismbig. The word "Corsa" (for example) is too short. It might have other meanings in the future - which means that it might have to become a disambiguation page eventually - so it's a terrible name for the main article and should be a redirect. But I really don't think it matters whether "Opel Corsa" or "General Motors Corsa" is the name of the article - just so long as whichever one ISN'T the "One True Name" is a redirect. The user types "Opel Corsa", hits the "GO" button and finds themselves at "General Motors Corsa" and probably says to themselves "Huh! I didn't know Opel was owned by GM." and happily reads the article. However, we should be very careful to say (somewhere in the first few sentences of the introduction) "...also known as the Opel Corsa" just to be sure that the user doesn't think they arrived at the wrong page somehow.

You aren't ever going to be able to come up with a single standard - there are enough examples of cars being made by one company in one country - by a subsidiary in another, by a company that bought the original company and either did or didn't change the name - by marques that are better known than the actual manufacturer or by consortiums of companies who happen to use the same design. No convention will ever withstand all of that messiness. So lets make the convention a pragmatic one: I propose: "Pick any one of the possible names - but be sure it's one that won't ever need to become a disambiguation page in the future. All other names should become redirects. Make very sure that somewhere in the introduction of the article, you give all of the alternative names so that the reader does not think he's been sent to the wrong article." SteveBaker 14:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Manufacturer name in the infobox

I just noticed an inconsistency in the infoboxes for vehicles produced by the same manufacturer but sold under differen brand names. In the infoboxes for Jaguars, for example, it states that the manufacturer is "Jaguar Cars" which is the marque but not technically the manufacturer, but for the Rolls-Royce Phantom it states BMW as the manufacturer, same for Lincoln and Cadillac where we state Ford and GM as the manufacturer and Lexus where Toyota is stated as the manufacturer. Should we use the actual manufacturer such as Ford for Jag and Linc, GM for Caddi and Chevy, and VW for Bentley or should we use the marque under which the vehicles are sold such as Lincoln, Lexus, Infiniti, etc...? Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of globalisation. I think that the manufacturer should be stated as the marque name. Jaguar should be made by Jaguar Cars and Bentley by Bentley Motors otherwise we get into a real mess. Take for example the Ford Galaxy, Seat Alhambra, VW Sharan, essentially the same vehicle made in a joint Ford/VW/Seat assembly plant in Portugal further complicated by Seat being part of VW. Who is the manufacturer there? Then there is Mazda, a third owned by Ford, it gets worse.Malcolma 19:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest dropping it altogether if it was just to include the brand (Jag, Mazda etc.), as the (original) brand is usually included in the title of the article. If it was to stay, I propose a solution like the "Corporation Link" @ Global AutoIndex (e.g. Mazdas have "Corporation Links" to Ford). Just a sidenote - Ford's stake in Mazda is considered controlling by the Japanese law, so Mazda de facto is a part of FoMoCo. --Bravada 20:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not quite that complicated in all cases. The Rolls-Royce Phantom is made by BMW as that is the parent company and thus the manufacturer. VW owns Bentley, Toyota owns Lexus and Ford own Lincoln and Jag. All these brands are very clearly owned by another copertation. But then what about Nissan which is in part owned by Renault? I think listing both comanies might be a solution if it is somewhat unclear who the parent company is, in the case of Mazda, both Mazda and Ford would be listed. If we don't mention the manufacturer but just the brand, we would have to remove Toyota Motor from the infoboxes on the Lexus articles and replace it with Lexus, we would have do the same for Lincoln, Cadillac and all the other GM and Ford brands. It seems that the best way to go is to always list the company which has a controlling share in the marque. So, for Jag its Ford and Bentley its VW, for Chevy its GM and Dodge, DaimlerChrysler. Any other suggestions? Regards, Signature^brendel 23:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again - forget about this being a formal convention - what does the end user need? If the car is called a "Rolls Royce Phantom" - then telling them that it's made by Rolls Royce has very little information content. Telling them that it's ACTUALLY made by BMW has a TON of information content - a lot of people won't know who owns RR. So the info box should clearly mention all of the parent company names that are not part of the name of the car...but go ahead and add that name too because of the issue we've been discussing of "Opel Corsa" versus "GM Corsa". Some people will know the car by one name and some by the other - so BOTH need to be in the info box so that whichever kind of reader you are, you get to find out the other name. One could argue that this should be discussed in the body of the article - and perhaps it should - but the Infobox also serves the purpose of nudging the article writer (and the Peer reviewers, Good Article nominators and Featured Article nit-pickers) to make sure that all of this information is present in the article SOMEWHERE. SteveBaker 14:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether some kind of little diagram would help here. Maybe have BMW-->RollsRoyce-->Phantom in that example...or (warning ASCII ART!) in a more complicated case...

   BMC --> Austin --> Austin Seven
   |   |
   |   +-> Morris --> Morris Mini Minor
   v
   BritishLeyland --> Mini
    | |           |
    | |           +-> Traveller
    | v
    | Innocenti (Italy) --> Mini
    v
    Authi (Spain) ----> Mini

...indicating that BMC manufactured the car under both the Austin and Morris marques with the car having different names in each case - with BMC becoming British Leyland who manufactured the car under a different set of names - and who had two other companies (subsidiaries or consortium members) making the car in other countries...possibly with other names. The trouble with this is that this diagram will be too complex to fit into an infobox in some cases - and we already have a complex set of templated diagrams that attempt to capture (with varying success) the tangled web of companies, parent companies, factory names, marques, car names and model names. SteveBaker 14:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that diagram is a bit complex ;-) Currently we mention the manufacturer (or parent company) in the infobox while the marque and vehicle name are mentioned in the header. The thing is that some on some articles such as those for Jaguars, the brand name was mentioned under manufacturer. For the S-Type, which is related to the Mondeo, for example it stated Jaguar instead of Ford as the manufacturer, even though Ford aquired the company in 1989. My question is: should we state the marque in the space for manufacturer, as was the case for the Jags, or should we put in the manufacturer the parent company. I prefer the latter since stating the brand name twice, once in the infobox header and once under manufacturer is redundand. As to the issue on who is the manufacturer I think any company which has a controling share in the brand qualifies for being the parent company and thus the manufacturer (So, yes for the new Mazda 3 its Ford). I also don't think we need to mention the entire coperate history in the infobox. For the Range Rover I think we can just mention, Rover, BMW and Ford as manufacturers with dates behind in parentheses. For the LR 3 we only need to mention Ford as it was not produced while Land Rover belonged to BMW but only under Ford ownership. Also I have noticed that the Primier Auto Group is used as a manufacturer for Land Rover, by this logic Lincoln-Mercury should be mentioned for the production of Lincolns instead of Frod. Citing the next highest subsidary in the coperate hirachy is not specific enough and PAG doesn't tell the readers anything, Ford does. Redards. Signature^brendel 18:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Gerd - I found your post somewhat hard to read, especially the last word. Anyways, I feel that the intent of the "manufacturer" line was to list the manufacturing company - General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, etc. This is wacky when it comes to cars like the Pontiac Vibe, Smart ForFour, etc, but in a way it's illuminating to see Toyota and Mitsubishi Motors there... I'm not sure what the answer is really - maybe we linkify the marque and list the actual manufacturer or maybe we eliminate the manufacturer line and put a marque line there instead. Note too that Ford doesn't consider Mazda a subsidiary, though they DO consider Jaguar one. I put Jaguar Cars on the Jag articles since they're manufactured at a factory controlled by Jaguar, but it gets weird quick. How about AutoAlliance International for the Mustang? --SFoskett 17:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The manufactoring company is of course the juridical company that ownes the factory were the car is built. Quite simple really, some car brands are divisions meaning they get the mothercompany listed as manucatorer. Some companies are subsidiaries meaning they get their own name as manufactorer. --Dahlis 01:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the project, Dahlis! Let me add that starting your activity within a project by being impudent (to say the least) to another project member, especially one that has been a longtime contributor and the spiritus movens behind the creation of two of our scarce Good Articles, is not the best idea. It is also not quite what is being encouraged by WP rules.

Now, concerning the issue you brought about - the biggest problem here is that the automotive articles on WP are in various stages of development, and there can almost always be an article found which will prove on or another thesis (like "see how something was done in the XXX article'"). I agree this MIGHT be confusing, but I believe what would be most appropriate is following the example of articles that reached the GA or FA status (a list can be found here. As you might see, the parent company is invariably listed as mnaufacturer there, though perhaps those are simpler examples than your main interest (Volvo).

I believe the "manufacturer" field should perform a similar role as "corporation link" at Global Autoindex, but on a model level. Perhaps the name is a bit unfortunate and might be misleading, but I can't think of a better one anyway. The role of such field is to inform the reader who the PARENT automaker was during the production (and presumably design) of the model (any resulting issues should be discussed in the article). The fact that Volvos are manufactured by Volvo should be quite obvious to readers, especially that it is usually stated in the first sentence of the article. Information on the fact that Volvo was an independent automaker or Ford-controlled at that time is very important and should not be omitted.

So, I believe that the practice should be (and in general is, as the cleanup of automotive articles progresses) to mention the top-level automaker, i.e. the automaker of which the brand is a division/subsidiary or which controls the company (so, I would advocate FoMoCo in appropriate Mazda infoboxes too). The French Government and such are not automakers, so they are not a problem here. Another use for this field is mentioning non-brand-specific manufacturing companies, such as NUMMI, Auto Alliance, Pininfarina and such, as well as clarifying the situations where "shared" models are manufactured solely by one automaker (like VW should be the manufacturer for MK I Ford Galaxy minivan).

I hope this does clear the issue. Bravada Talk to me! 02:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bravada, its the parent company. The thing is, if I visit the the Volvo S80 article, I already know I'm looking at a Volvo. So, why mention the brand name twice? That's why we mention the parent company as the manufacturer. So the reader gets more info. Regards, Signature^brendel 03:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My though was of course not to join this project to be impudent, as I had no idea that the practice was to list the mother company as manufactorer. The only thing i knew was that somewone edited the autoboxes i had added without giving a legitimate reason. Now back to the point, I strongly believe that listing the mother company as manufactorer is wrong since it eliminates all form of diversity. All car companies are not run the same (GM) way with all brands as divisions, and the current practice does not acknowledge that. This practice does also eliminate companies like Pininfarina that are hardly recognized at all. --Dahlis 15:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Go the car company article, here you'll find out whether or you're looking at a subsidary or a division. Otherwise the parent company in many cases such as Volvo and Ford is the manufacturer as it controls the factors of production. Also, I contacted you right away after changing the manufacturer from Volvo Cars to FoMoCo. Thanks, Signature^brendel 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have a solid policy. My view is that the complex detail of which car company owns which car company and what's a marque name and what's a factory name is largely irrelevent to an article about a car. Those messy details need to be punted out into an article about the car company - and linked to from the car article. So if you take that view then it's much less critical what we say in the car article - so long as we link to the place where the full details are explained. I conclude that we should take a relaxed attitude and use the most common name for the most commonly accepted "car company" (whatever that means) in the infobox (which really needs to be kept short) - and just make sure that we link to the in-depth information in the article itself. Also - use the available car company timelines and 'cars made by' templates - which do a great job of expanding on that information. SteveBaker 15:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Car Company article is the best place to present the ownership structures. --Dahlis 16:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This depends on each individual case, as I explained to you, the first time I reverted your edits. If I vist the Volvo S80 article, I already know I am looking at a Volvo, I don't need for the infobox to tell me what I already got from the title. So, we mention the parent company manufacturer in most cases. This way the user just gets more info. Also, in te case of Volvo, considering the control FoMoCo has over the brand and how Volvo and Ford are sharing components and personell, it only makes sense to list Ford in the infobox. Also, Ford controls the factors of production - If you control the factors of production, aren't you manufacturer? Thank for contributing! Regards, Signature^brendel 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont see how the reader gets more info, I would say its the opposit since one link in the chain is skipped. Say im reading an article on a car model, then i want to know more about the brand and its history so i click the manufactorer link and end up on a page that has nothing to do with that. --Dahlis 16:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain how the reader gets more info - the first sentence of the article should specify and provide a link to the brand. There is no need to reiterate this information in the infobox, besides for most people familiar with cars as such it is quite obvious that Volvo C70 is a car from Volvo. But then, in the infobox they might find the information that the car was made when Volvo's parent company was Ford, Volvo AB or that the vehicle was made at Nedcar. Of course, the same info might be put somewhere in the article, but the infobox (more or less on par with the "summary" in the first paragraphs of the article, or perhaps just the first sentence) serves as a "first glance info" source and I believe that such info is important enough to be put there.

Now another thing is that referring to the parent company as "manufacturer" can be misleading, and therefore I believe we might use a more suitably named field in the infobox. I don't have a very good idea for that name at the moment, perhaps simply "Parent company" or maybe "Corporation link"? The manufacturer field could then serve as optional to mention cases such as NedCar, AutoAlliance or coachbuilders like Pininfarina (with appropriate indications, if this refers to specific body styles only). How about that? Bravada, talk - 17:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea.--Dahlis 17:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We could also just list both. I myself once had the idea to have a "Parent Company" field in the infobox and a different one for marque. Maybe for now listing both is the best idea. Thanks. Signature^brendel 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mini to be on front page!

It looks like the Mini article will be on the Wikipedia front page as 'Todays Featured Article' on April 17th. I'm told that vandalism is a HUGE problem for TFA's - so it would be nice if we could get more people to help patrol the article for vandalism on and around that day. Thanks in advance! SteveBaker 03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I have temporarly added the article to my watchlist. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Template images removed

Just as a heads up User:Ed g2s is removing all of the logos from the automobile templates because they are not allowed to be there under the fair use rules. When removing them, he uses FU for fair use, which I have told him is rude. In any event, I have placed a discussion point in the WP:FUP talk page to ask that the policy be amended to allow for logos in cases where the company is defunct, and used only in reference to those articles about the affiliates. I don't think it will fly, but its worth a chance. Stude62 21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about WikiPedia policies concerning images and the rationale/legal stuff behind them, but it is annyoing for me - the template SHOULD include a corporate logo, and in general corporate logos are used all over the Internet, not only by the copyright holders, AFAIK. If some auto magazine does an article on Chevy, do they have to ask GM for permission to use the Chevy logo? And if somebody here got up and did a photo of their Lacetti's bonnet, cropped the bowtie and pasted here instead of the previous Chevy logo, would it be OK (apart from the fact that it would look absolutely horrible)? --Bravada 21:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Bravada. If you feel strongly about it, then you need to go to the Fair Use policy page and comment on the talk page. I have had the most unpleasant expirience with the person doing this. On my talk page he charged me with not having good faith because I reverted his edit; he went onto tstate that he didn't explain himself on the talk pages of the templates because it would have taken too much time. It must be a heavy burden that one carries that replaces efficiency for manners. Stude62 21:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually I feel strongly about it, but that's going against Wikipedia as a whole and not only Ed Sanders. The whole policy is a bit retarded IMHO, as I infer from you said on Ed's talk page that the law allows for the use of corporate logos in templates, and it's only Wikipedia policy that specifically said it's improper to do so for some elusive reason somebody please explain to me. Is there any reasonable solution to get the logos back, or are should we grab the cameras and head to parking lots (or would it be "FE" too)? --Bravada 22:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

We could that, but we can also do some other things that are completly within Wikipolicy...Let me try a couple things out...Stude62 22:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't we create our own logos using photoshop. With many logos such as Lincoln and Chevy, one could easly create my own copy of the logo. Would such practice still violate the copyright tules (which I mostly dislike as well)? The problem here is of course that some logos such as Cadillac are very difficult to copy and it should be noted that this is only a temporary solution by any means. This rule, not allowing logos in the templates needs to be amended. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, closely replicating logos would generally be a copyright/trademark violation. Re: Bravada, lots of websites violate copyright, but Wikipedia strives for higher standards, particularly because it's a large entity, and does have monetary assets, and could have larger damages awarded against it. --Interiot 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree that the WP:FUC page DOES say that fair use images should not be used in templates - so it's hard to say that User:Ed g2s is wrong . In WP:FUC's talk page, I argue that this is bad policy. However, the policy DOES have a "get out clause" attached to that particular ruling: It says "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)." - OK - so then we can use logo's so long as we don't violate the other fair use criteria (and I'm pretty sure we're OK there) - and so long as there is a broad consensus view that this is necessary - which (from comments here) I think there is. So - how about we all sign up to a consensus view that low resolution corporate images are safe to use in the SPECIFIC CASE of automotive company logos in timeline and product lists for that company? Is that enough? SteveBaker 23:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Steve, this works for me. How do we move forward? Stude62 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that's a good idea. Sign me up. Thanks. Signature^brendel 23:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sign me up too! My understanding is that an encyclopedia should not only contain raw data, but should also try to convey facts in a most convenient and informative way. It's like Dorling Kindersley "Eyewitness" books - you could just write a lenghty essay on a topic, but thanks to thoughtful layout and use of picture, the reader assimilates knowledge more easily and his experience with the book is much more rewarding.

Same applies to "proper" encyclopedias - I happen to have ;) a few encyclopedias at home, and there are many editorial touches there that clearly serve the enhancement of visual experience (sight is the sense you use when you use an encyclopedia, isn't it?). I also have a few automobile-related semi-encyclopedical publications, and they do use logos in places similar to our templates here. --Bravada 23:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Without Steve's advice, I think the thing that you both need to do is chime in on the WP:FUP. The more voices, the better the chance. Stude62 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly new to the politics of Wikipedia - I'm not really sure what to do next - but I suppose we should do the following:

1. Have every one of us here chime in on the WP:FUP talk page so that it is clear that we (The WikiProject:Automobiles members) believe that this is not an appropriate rule and should be modified for the specific case of very small company logos used on templates that describe either: The history of the company...or: The company product line.
2. If that effort results in a change in official policy then we can revert User:Ed g2s's changes with official backing.
3. If the policy makers on WP:FUP disagree - and after a suitable period of debate, it appears that we are indeed in the wrong - then we leave User:Ed g2s's changes and live without our logos.
4. If (as I suspect) we get no clear direction from WP:FUP's talk page after (say) a week - then we post a consensus view here - on this page - that we believe the automotive timeline and product templates are a clear exception to WP:FUP - and we can vote on that. If we show clear consensus (policy says at least 60% support - preferably 80%) then we should simply adopt our own consensus rule - revert User:Ed g2s's changes and get on with life.

Does this seem like a reasonable way forward? Well, if you believe so - then PLEASE take yourself over to WP:FUP and make a nice, clear, polite statement of how you feel on the subject. If enough people post - it'll wake up the policy cabal and get us some action. SteveBaker 01:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternate solution: If the goal is simply to have the logo on each of the relevant car pages (eg. on pages where they're allowed under fair use), and to not change the visual layout of each of the pages (eg. still display the logo inside the box), then there's another way to do it: I modified {{BMW cars}} to take an optional parameter (image) [1], and then modified [[BMW Z4]] to include the 100px-wide logo, stating that it's believed the logo is allowed on that page under fair use [2]. It would be a bit of work to use this solution everywhere. But it allows the template to be used on pages where the logo isn't allowed under fair use. So maybe the solution would be somewhat acceptable to the various parties involved. --Interiot 12:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

But iusn't that what the template does, with greater consistency? Stude62 13:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't completely grok the no-fair-use-in-templates rule. My understanding so far, is that templates allow images to be spread willy-nilly throughout the encyclopedia, without individual consideration for whether a fair-use image is allowed on a specific page or not. Which is bad, because fair-use images may wind up being used in places that don't benefit the encyclopedia, versus the risk that fair-use images give us. The template-parameter solution would give individual consideration for articles. But I don't know, this stuff takes a bit of time to understand sometimes. --Interiot 14:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This debate seems to have 'fizzled' - both here and on WP:FUP - so I've started a formal request for a policy change. Please chime in on the discussion at: Wikipedia:Fair_use_images_in_templates:_exceptions - let's get company logos back on those templates! SteveBaker 14:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviews needed

Hi, I would like to bring attention to the peer review requests on the Lexus LS and Lincoln Town Car articles. If anyone has the time and would like to make suggestions on the two articles, I would really appriciate it. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Another peer review needed

Could someone with a keen eye take a look at the bio that I wrote for Edward S. Jordan (Ned Jordan)? Stude62 15:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Auto plants

So, there seem to be a large number of short articles under Category:Automotive assembly plants. Is there any chance some of them could be merged together? If not, there's probably enough of them that we should create another stub category for them. Duesentrieb's CatScan lists 72 that are <750 chars. If there's no consensus on what to do in a couple days, I'll temporarily sort them into a separate stub category. --Interiot 10:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, depending on the size of each stub, one could merge the stubs for a certain company in a certain country. For example, one could merge all the stubs for Ford Manufacturing plants in the US into one large article. Since I am, however, for having seperate articles, I seriously question whether such a merger is really that desirable. Otherwise a recategorization of stubs might just be enough. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If they're going to remain permastubs, then merging may be the best choice. However, some are being expanded, so maybe they don't have to be merged ASAP. *shrug* Okay, {{auto-factory-stub}} is proposed over at stub-sorting [3]. --Interiot 11:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually think using {{auto-factory-stub}} is probably the best solution for now. You're right, some are being expanded, but most are probably going to be permastubs. In either case I think the proposed category makes sense. Signature^brendel 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

MINI (BMW) is up for Featured Article

Since peer review comments on MINI (BMW) have dried up - I've moved it on to WP:FAC. You guys are well placed to comment on it - so I encourage you to check out the entry. Many thanks! SteveBaker 15:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a great article. I hope it will get featured.--Bud 04:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

{{wagon-stub}}

Is this new stub compatible with the existing stub organization? So far, we haven't broken things out by car types, we've broken then out by manufacture date. If we further separated out {{modern-auto-stub}}, wouldn't we do something like {{modern-ford-auto-stub}} or {{modern-wagon-auto-stub}}, rather than making a stub that's orthogonal to the existing structure? --Interiot 12:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Owner's club web-sites

On Lincoln LS article a recent probelm has arisen. There seems to be a small conflict of whether or not to include a link to the Lincoln LS Owner's Club (LSOC) web-site should be included. The problem is that most of the LSOC site is off-limits to non-members and thus requires payment. Should such links be included in an article? Any suggestions? Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia:External links's mention that "Sites that require payment to view the relevant content" are to be avoided, and generally the subjective criteria that sites be useful to be linked (mentioned in WP:NOT and m:When should I link externally) means that most likely it shouldn't be linked to. Since there is a small amount of free content available, those specific sections could be linked to (the FAQ, and the one-lap coverage), but those individual links may or may not be useful to link to individually. --Interiot 16:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the WP:EL recommendations on external links to 'Fan Sites' also applies here. It's hard to think of Lincoln owners as 'fans' - but that's what this is all about. WP:EL says that links to fan sites are "Occasionally acceptable" - and that only ONE such link should be made. WP:EL specifically bans links to forums. ("Links to normally avoid...10) Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to.")

So - looking at the article, it seems that you already have more than one 'fan site' link - so dumping all but one of them makes sense. If the LSOC site is primarily a forum system - then it's ruled out - and as Interiot says, it's a pay-to-view site - which is also discouraged. This link has three strikes against it...I think it should go. Actually, I'd dump the LVC site too - it's also a forum system. I would keep an owner club type site if it had a large, free information content with the forum being just a very minor part of the site. SteveBaker 01:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I dunno... maybe WP:EL is a little conservative, I see forum links ocassionally. Though even if one takes the view that external links should be of a fair bit of benefit to the reader (and thus sometimes allowing forums), for-pay sites are much less useful to general readers, and I would think should be even more clearly removed. --Interiot 01:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Multiple photo protocol in infobox?

There are some articles that would benefit from infoboxes having multiple photos. Particularly in the case of badge-engineered identical vehicles (Dodge Caravan / Plymouth Voyager, Toyota Corolla / Geo Prizm, etc.), it would be more parsimonious to have two photos and one set of specs. I have seen this attempted a couple of different ways, and have tried it myself, but none of the results has been entirely satisfactory. What's the concensus on how best to handle this? Scheinwerfermann 03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you link to some attempts? If the problems are more technical, maybe a solution could be found... --Interiot 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I dislike placing multiple photos in the infobox personally. It expands the infobox massively, often causing them to take up more height than the entire article. I suggest instead using a gallery in the article. --SFoskett 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

While I think that in some cases multiple photos would be helpful as similar vehicles sold under different marques usually are differentiated by certain, often subtle, design elements (i.e. in the case of the Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon which currently features a Tahoe but not a Yukon picture). The problem is as SFoskett stated that multiple pictures in infoboxes could extend the infobox to an undesirbable extend and thus not only cause the infobox to become unsightly and somewhat uncomprhensible, such a long infobox can also cause very unsightly line-wraps as well; thus I am generally against having multiple pictures in one infobox. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does it have to go into the infobox? In Mini (coming to the front page on 29th April!), we put a very 'typical' Mini photo into the infobox (which is only supposed to be an 'at a glance summary') - and attached other photos where the narrative of the article demanded them. If you put more photos into the infobox, it's going to scroll the numerical and other data down off the bottom of the screen - which is less useful for people who just want to find a quick fact. If you get into showing all of the varients then for some cars (Mini included) you'd need a dozen photos wedged into the infobox. We'd have needed Morris, Austin, Innocenti, saloon, Elf/Hornet, pickup, estate wagon, panel van and jeep to cover all of the main varients). The infobox needs to be kept short and contain the bare essentials. SteveBaker 23:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, we wouldn't put pictures of each body style of a car model in the infobox, so why put each brand variation of the vehicle in the infobox. Well, on the Chevrolet Tahoe article a picture of a GMC Yukon would be used as the article actually is about two different vehicles which are merged into one article due to their technological similarities. Here the idea makes somewhat sense. I am, however, still oposed to the idea of multiple pictures in the infobox as this would cause the infobox to be of undesirable length, besides the idea of an infobox which is supposed to provide a quick overview of the car would be lost if users would have to scroll down in order to read the infobox entries. Signature^brendel 00:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

sanity check

Is ghostriding a well-defined phrase? My gut feeling is to AfD it as a neologism, but I wanted to run it by you guys first. --Interiot 12:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I think it's a real term. It's a neologism in that it's a relatively newly made up term for a new craze...but it wasn't made up by the person who wrote the article. It passes the 'google test'. You can find a dozen ghostriding (or ghostridin') references. Hopefully a few well deserved Darwin awards will fix this.<sigh>. SteveBaker 23:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Are the google hits consistent with the definition given in the article? (or with each other?) The google hits that I could find seemed to use ghostriding to mean a wide variety of things, often unrelated to the current article. So I was wondering if someone more hip than I had heard it consistently used in real life or something. --Interiot 23:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be under movie stunts, the only place I have ever seen a person exit a moving vehicle is in action movies. Otherwise I think that this article which essentially is a defenition of a slang term should be moved to the wikitionary or for that matter deleted. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Google hits are indeed completely consistent with the article. There are MANY videos out there of stupid people opening the driver-side door while the car is in motion - stepping out so one foot is on the window-sill of the door - the other is on the driver seat. More adventurous people then either jump onto the ground and run alongside the car while it's rolling down the street at maybe 5mph - other people climb onto the hood or onto the roof while the car is still moving with nobody behind the wheel. There are multiple movies of cars slamming into trees and telephone polls...you name it. These appear to be ordinary people - not stuntmen or actors. Sadly, this is all too real and the term "Ghostriding" is indeed the most common term for it. Geez...idiots. SteveBaker 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this stub should be merged with the Stupidity article. ;-) Signature^brendel 19:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Archiving of discussions

As the current discussion page has reached 64 posts (65 posts if you count this one), I would like to archive the first 50, as was done in the first archive. Any suggestions, comments, objections? If there are no objections I will go ahead and archive the first 50 posts in a week (Afterall edits can always be reversed). Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Have at it. Stude62 01:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - do it. SteveBaker 03:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty I went ahead. Thanks for your input. Signature^brendel 05:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Eurovans

I have noticed that the articles on the eurovans (Sevel Nord Fiat/PSA minivans) contain minuscule amounts of individual content and consist mostly of the same information, which can be attributed to all eurovans. So, I have put together a provisional article on all eurovans, combining info from all previous articles (Citroën Evasion, Citroen C8, Fiat Ulysse, Peugeot 806, Peugeot 807), as well as adding some more info (btw, thank you Sfoskett for great pages on PSA engines), e.g. concerning Lancias, who don't have articles currently.

I would like to ask about your views and comments on the article. It is a working version, I believe you will indicate many "areas for improvement", for which I thank you in advance :D

Would you think it would be appropriate to replace the current eurovans articles with this one, perhaps info on commercial vans should be added (Sevel Nord or the "Surs" too?) and then it should go in lieu of the entire Sevel Nord or even Sevel Van articles?

Thanks, Bravada 23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We talked about this sort of thing before... --93JC 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know! Nevertheless, there seems not to be any firm conclusion or policy on that, so I wanted to ask you about this particular case before I go on with any changes. I believe that a good rule of a thumb in such cases is not whether a vehicle "merits" an article, but whether the amounts of text/information that would have to be repeated in separate articles is significant. In case of the eurovans in their present state, there is actually more "common" than "individual" text in the articles.

My question is also whether the Sevel Nord in general shouldn't be merged into the article too, by the same token, or perhaps the Sevel in general too. Thanks in advance for your comments on that! Bravada Talk to me! 17:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

European cars and infoboxes

I've been editing a lot of articles about European cars lately (mainly French models), and I've noticed a lot of these articles still use old tables that are either incomplete or too short. Can somebody help me out with the task of converting these tables to infoboxes? Thanks. --ApolloBoy 07:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have started with leftover GM cars. Opel, Vauxhall, Holden, Saab, Saturn, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Buick, Chevrolet, GMC, Hummer and Daewoo should be clear now. The articles I have modified follow (users more knowledgeable on the subjects please check whether everything's alright now):

Pontiac Fiero, Saab 92, Saab 900, Saab 9-2X, Chevrolet El Camino, Holden Kingswood, Holden Torana, Daewoo Tacuma ("merged" with Rezzo), Renault Safrane, Renault Laguna

UPDATE: Cadillac is done! Cadillac Series 61, Cadillac Series 70, Cadillac Series 60, Cadillac Series 62, Cadillac Calais, Cadillac Brougham, Cadillac Sixty Special, Cadillac Fleetwood

I guess Cadillac articles need some attention, there seems to be a mess concerning the division of Cadillac models between articles and naming. At least I got lost, I am just trying to fit the table contents into infoboxes :D Bravada Talk to me! 15:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've converted a good portion of the Peugeots to infoboxes (up to the 505). --93JC 20:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, Bravada, you should have merged the Tacuma into the Rezzo and not the other way around. The car is called Rezzo in Korea and most of Europe, including France and Germany. The Tacuma name is only used in the UK, Portugal, Spain and Italy. --Pc13 23:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of the Daewoo times actually, when the Tacuma name was more widespread - it was quite popular as Daewoo Tacuma here (not that I think it is a good reason, I am just explaining my simple ways of so-called "thinking"). Still, Daewoo Tacuma returns the most hits in Google (rather than Daewoo Rezzo, Chevrolet Rezzo and Chevrolet Tacuma, in order of hits). Feel free to do it the other way around if you feel that's appropriate - I do not feel strongly about it either way. Bravada Talk to me! 23:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Future automobiles

An anonymous user keeps adding information about a supposed 2011 Audi S4. Audi has not released any official information on the next-generation Audi A4, although German magazine Auto Bild has published a speculative piece on the next-gen's engineering and styling. This user first added his own speculations here, which, by his own reference, is based on this, although he has claimed to have inside information on Audi. Here, this user reduced the size of his speculations. Here, I actually added a better sourced piece of speculation, which actually refers to the S4. However, I am not happy with it, and would like consensus on the exclusion of any information about future models that does not come from any official sources. --Pc13 08:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball/gossip column. Same applies to some timeline templates, which extend into the future and speculate what will a given automaker have in store for 2010. What source enables us to say that there will be a new MX-3 in 2008? Until Ford confirms this officially, I believe nothing can be said, and even so, I believe it should be stated that "Automaker X declares that..." rather than "Model Y will...", as everything may change. Bravada Talk to me! 10:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a "warning template" banner for future products that can be used. It appears on some speculative auto pages, such as the Lincoln MKS. There may be other similar banners out there, perhaps even with a stronger warning about adding unsourced speculative information, or against publishing secret corporate "inside information", which could constitute an anti-competitive antitrust violation, and which could be illegal and expose the Wikipedia to litigation. If such a banner does not exist, then perhaps someone should make a new one. Anyway here is the one I am aware of: --T-dot 10:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

(Updated with actual "Future automobiles" banner) -- T-dot 10:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC) {{Future automobile}}

I suppose as long as some speculation comes from automotive magazines and newspapers, I don't have a problem with it. The specific problem with the Audi S4 is that this anon user isn't even using sourced information. The future models forecast on the Motor Trend website simply says nothing more "2010 Audi S4: Redesign", and based on this, he is speculating there should be in an S4 in 2011. This is ridiculous. Even Auto Bild doesn't give a date for the S4, the webpage I pointed to in the references mentions the A4 Avant will debut in 2008, and does give an engine lineup, but doesn' mention a date about the performance vehicles (S4 and RS4). --Pc13 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Verifiability pretty clearly says unsourced material "may be removed by any editor" and "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." So, if there's no date for the S4, then it can be discussed and ultimately removed. --Interiot 22:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate Pc13 essentially going behind my back on this. I am the so-called anonymous user. I have been working (or attempting to work) on the article for several months -- before Pc13 had even touched the section, in fact. I've made sincere attempts to frame our current dispute as unbiasedly and politely as possible. If you are actually interested in helping, please refer to

Talk: Audi S4 -- this essentially chronicles the whole thing

I have made an informal request for comment at:

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Question_on_speculation_issue

I have also made a formal request for comment at:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All -- under the technology/engineering section

Lastly, I just have to add this, somewhat off the record comment: I feel that Pc13 is acting in such a way as to actually hinder rather than help the development of the article. I have made every effort to refine, to source, to cite, and, in general, to use moderated language. There are a scant two paragraphs on the 5th generation, but what is there is cited, it is interesting, and it is useful.

Also, I feel an extreme lack of reciprocity. When Pc13 and I had an initial conflict over this section several months ago, I took what he had to say seriously and I made a major revision to the article, removing speculation and the like. Pc13 hasn't afforded me any similar degree of respect: arbitrarily deleting the article, using a single new found source (on his part) to replace the entire content of the article, etc.

We are clearly in need of assistance.

(This comment was left by 141.161.69.68)

Now I might have not read everything associated with the issue, but I started reading your paragraph and it begins like that:

Despite the recent release of the B7 platform S4 in 2005, it is not too early to begin speculation on the future direction of the S4...

There we go. It IS too early to begin speculation, because Wikipedia is not about speculation. It's not a car magazine. We care about facts here, not speculation. Somehow Audi A4 and RS4 do fine without speculation on future models.

You have devoted more than a half of your edits to this case. I guess it really isn't worth it. There are plenty of articles waiting to be expanded and improved with factual information, some of them haven't even been started yet. There are many other ways to contribute to Wikipedia without causing frustration to yourself and other users.

Besides, signing in to Wikipedia and singing your edits on talk pages is really is not that much fuss and allows you to be better recognized by other Wikipedians.

Excuse me if I got a bit too emotional here. Have fun with further contributions! Bravada Talk to me! 00:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This issue is actually quite easy to solve. As Bravada said, this is an encyclopdia, there is no room for speculation. Yes, if something is in the near future and has been anounced by the newsmakers and published in several authoritive publications we can include it and in the case of car use the future product banner. If you do not have authoritive sources for anything you write about that is in the future then what you wrote may be deleted by any other editor. If an article from the Auto Bild states that there may be a redesign in 2010, then only that sentnece may be incorperated, preferable with the sources cited in the text itself. For Example: "According to Auto Bild there may be a redesign of the Audi S4 in 2010." This way the reference has the neccesary authority to appear here on Wikipedia. Also 2010 is too far in the future, anything beyond 2008, maybe 2009, is just pure speculation. So, if you add a section concerning a future product use the banner and only state what is published in widly respected sources, and please cite these sources so it is clear to the reader. I think we really have to be careful about going to far into the future and the speculation that could result from doing so; thus we have to be very precise and careful of our sources and information when writing in regards to future events or products. Thanks for contributing though, Signature^brendel 01:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Concept Vehicles

I was wondering what we should do about concept vehicles? i think they should have some sort of template similar to the future products one. a lot of the information is heresay or read in magazines and just put up here with a photo.

a lot of the articles are also lacking information. so i think there should maybe be a stub template for concept vehicles. please share your ideas. ren0^talk 05:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How about this one --T-dot 14:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

{{concept automobile|*}}

How about making it more general? eg. {{tl|future vehicle}} or something like that. --Interiot 14:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

that template already exists as "future automobiles" (aka "upcoming automobiles") - (see a few paragraphs up). The distinction is - "future" or "upcoming" vehicles are strongly indicated for production in the near term (1-2 years) while concept cars are more speculative, further out, or they never entered production. --T-dot 14:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need to use a concept template. Most of the times, concept cars are made specifically as an exercise for stylists or to showcase a brand new piece of technology, but the car itself will not be the basis for a particular model. As long as we begin the text, as something like "The Volkswagen GX3 is a concept car created by Volkswagen", with a link for concept car, I don't see how potential readers can mistake these for real road-going cars. --Pc13 15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Very Good Points. The upcoming and concept vehicles templates were requested by other users, and thus created. If there is consensus among the majority of concerned and interested users that either (or both) of the templates are not required, and add no value to the Project, then they can and should be deleted. I think the real intent here was to try to warn readers that the information and specifications posted on upcoming and possible future automobiles may be very speculative and should not be considered "final". There have been a number of reversion wars over these issues, and compromises, like these templates, are being worked out and tested. Thanks for your input. --T-dot 17:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For vehicles that are actually in development and expected to be released at some not-completely-specific date, there's lots of precedent for that. For vehicles that aren't currently in active development though, I agree that we probably don't need a template for those articles. --Interiot 17:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that a special template for concept vehicles is not needed. Usually it states right in the first paragrpah that the subject is a concept vehicle. Besides concept vehicles are not usually subject to speculation as are future vehicles. The template for future vehicles exsits as a warning since an article on future vehicles, unlike an article on concept vehicles, features descriptions of events that are planned by have not actually taken place. Articles on future vehicles feature speculatory content that is sbuject to change, as is the nature with any article concerning planned events. Articles on concept vehicles on the other hand describe a vehicles that was actually built and goes into further detail concerning the reasons for the production of the vehicle. The difference is quite simple, a concept car is a vehicle that was actually built and the article concerning it, should not feature as much speculation as an article on the planned production of a vehicle. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: The text of the proposed template says that the article may contain text of a speculative nature - this isn't really likely. Many concept cars existed far into the past - and so long as the article talks about the actual concept car - and not some hypothetical model that might come out of it - then there is nothing speculative about it. You can write an article about a concept car - such as Lincoln Futura - that was around in the 1950's - you can say lots of things about the actual concept car (which in this case was turned into the Batmobile!) - without saying anything speculative at all. So whilst it might be useful to have a concept car template (I'm never very convinced of the value of such things) - it most certainly SHOULDN'T give the impression that the article is automatically badly written (because it's speculative) - when in fact it's a perfectly good article about an actual object that really existed and about which certain verifiable facts are known. SteveBaker 21:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, i think i may have been drunk or something (if i even drank... pff), cause now that i look back i can't even make sense of what i was originally asking. i really agree that there shouldn't be a template for concept cars. even though it seems like i was aiming at that as my question. plus a lot of you made good, valid points. but then again obviously if a concept car is speculated to turn into a production model (think Plymouth Prowler, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Toyota FJ Cruiser, etc..) you would place the future vehicle on there, correct?

i do, however, think there should be a concept car stub. votes? thoughts? ren0^talk 00:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A concept car stub is astually a good idea, but we have to see whether or not there are enough articles to justify such a move, which I think there are. Also, yes when a manufacturer states that a concept car will enter production such as in the case of the Lincoln MKS, it becomes a future vehicles article. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This brings about yet another issue - should we really have so many articles on "future", "speculative", "possible" vehicles (and many "vehicles somebody would want to come true"). Today's Edmunds says that the Astra-based compact Saab, previously rumored as 9-2, will be 9-1, and immediately there's a 9-1 article. But that's as speculative as can be, tomorrows paper might say it's 9-1.5x or something and then the Saab 9-1 article would have to be deleted or what? Until GM provides us with a definitive press release, I think there are so many other uncovered REAL vehicles that we could focus on... Bravada Talk to me! 02:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Defenitely, there should always be a press release by the manufacturer, as many publications speculate on the nature of future automobiles. Only if GM states that there will be a future Saab should there be an article. Take the Lincoln MKS for example, while Ford has not yet anounced a production date, they have anounced the future production of the MKS. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Toyota Supra article

i have done some heavy editing in that article and i keep seeing people adding bullshit to the MKV section. they are trying to pass the information off and say its a "future vehicle" when it is not, and it never will be until toyota says otherwise (or they surprise us). then they go off and say blah blah, lexus. and try to say lexus will have the new sportscar (which is most likely true). lexus is a different marque of cars and shouldn't have info in the toyota supra article (obviously). then aside from that, i think toyota is smart enough that they WILL NOT release a new supra with a V8. they have always been straight-sixes and i'm willing to bet toyota will keep them that way (if they ever do release a new one).

so what should i do about this? i'm thinking just to remove it, and maybe add a section titled "future generations" and state that "toyota has continued to state there will be no more additions to the toyota supra line". (i have references.) maybe add some other things in there about how lexus is where toyota is putting any new sportscars. ideas? agreement? ren0^talk 00:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How do I join?

I'm new to wikipedia. How do I join this wikiproject (it is my area of expertise)? Also, could someone please explain how the "Pages needed attention works" section works. Bok269 01:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Just sign you name on the project page in the "project members" section and you'll be all set. The "Pages in need of attention" section is merely a list of articles that need to be improved. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, but how do I/We decide what goes on the list or where? bok269 21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss it right here, or you can just add articles to the list. Thanks for joining. Signature^brendel 22:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Another idea for the Infobox

I was thinking about what things the reader of an article about a particular car might be curious about. We have Infobox sections for "Predecessor" and "Successor" - which help you to understand what this design replaced - and what finally improved on it enough to obsolete it. But wouldn't it also be interesting to know what other cars were competitors at the time? That would allow readers to contrast other contemporary solutions to the same set of design problems. Hence, (to take my usual example), the Mini article's template could add "Competitors: VW Bug, Fiat 500, Citroen 2CV, Ford Anglia". That gives users a powerful navigational tool to find other, similar cars from the same era/price-range/performance-bracket. SteveBaker 21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't we already have such a section called "similar?" I think this sections is intended for featruing a vehicle's competitors for the reasons you listed. In the Lexus LS article I have used it to list all competitors. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Veteran-auto-stub

The cut off date for this stub is given on the project page as 1900. The standard date in Britain is pre 1905 as given at Brass Era car. I cannot locate a reference to 1900 in any of the articles but I won't guarantee not to have missed something. Is there any reason for the 1900 date? Malcolma 08:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The template at the bottom of Brass Era car doesn't agree with the body of the article either! Terms like 'Veteran', 'Antique' and 'Classic' have different meanings depending on who you talk to. Here in Texas, there are specific legal definitions for those terms because your tax, license, insurance and smog exemptions depend on which catagory your car falls into. SteveBaker 22:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm new!

I've joined this one, it's great to have a WikiProject on this!! --Sunfazer | Talk 10:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

I'm trying to get Honda Civic to featured article status. This article is good so far, but needs a bit more work to get it on the main page. If anyone can help me, let me know here or on my talk page. Thanks! --Sunfazer | Talk 10:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Exotic Car Pictures

I have 300 pictures of exotic cars (Enzo, Carrera GT, 1930s Rolls, Murcierlago, DB4, Ford GT + many more) which I'll authorize for use under the Creative Commons Attribution License v. 2.5 with the byline of "By Brett Weinstein (Wikipedia User: Nrbelex) taken at the Scarsdale Concours in 2006". I have a picture of (almost) any of the cars on this list (which is a picture in a Word file) so leave a message on my talk page with requests. Nrbelex ^(talk) 23:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool - how should we find/link to them from articles? SteveBaker 02:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: 216 of the images have been uploaded to this galley. Uploading them all here seems unnecessary so upload them here as you see fit. They are authorized for use under the Creative Commons Attribution License v. 2.5 with the byline of "By Brett Weinstein (Wikipedia User: Nrbelex) taken at the Scarsdale Concours in 2006" (see Image:1957 Maserati 200SI.JPG for an example as to how the citation should appear). Again, a list of the cars is at [4]. It rained that day so a few didn't show up but it was a good showing. Good luck! Nrbelex ^(talk) 04:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've downloaded them all and have begun identifying them. The fun begins again!  :) --SFoskett 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Whew! I have almost all of them identified now and will begin uploading soon. Funny thing - some of them are NOT what they seem to be. The supposed "Aston Martin DB4 Series 4 Vantage" is almost certainly a series 1 or 2, for instance. Altogether some very nice cars there this year! --SFoskett 14:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough for going through all this work! The reason some cars are there which shouldn't be and some are missing is because the owners knew it was probably gonna rain and took some liberties with what they brought. It was fairly annoying but we still had a fairly decent turnout. Thanks afain, Sfoskett!!! Nrbelex ^(talk) 18:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

All done. See the Commons. Thanks again for providing these great photos! --SFoskett 18:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you so much for doing that. I see you even started adding some to articles. Thanks again! Nrbelex ^(talk) 00:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

External links to owners' club forums

I've edited one or two Mitsubishi-based articles, and one of the things I've noticed is the vast number of links to Owners' Clubs. I'm not opposed to them per se, but articles like the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution or Mitsubishi Eclipse have quite a few, many of them very "regional".

It's easy where a user has done nothing but spam their club and they're in violation of the Wikipedia:External_links policy ("Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at Wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked."). But I've been reverting some linkspam by User:24.129.36.149 of 4g63hp.com and User:Jhrody of DodgeTuners.org, and it seems incongrous to delete one Owners' Club link while leaving six or seven others behind. Any consensus on how draconian we can be in this matter?

And just to make an open declaration, I am a member of clubvr4.com and I included a link to it in the article about the Galant VR-4. I thought it was OK in this particluar instance.  ;) -- DeLarge 13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

well, on the Toyota Supra article there are quite a few links to regional enthusiast sites. i just visit each link and decide by myself if it is relevant and should be there. for example, lately an ip has been adding a link to a site with no real content on the supra (other than three pictures). it is just chock full of ads, so i remove it. so i guess what i am saying is, visit each site and if you think certain sites should not be there; remove them. if an ip address adds them back, i say remove them again. cause i mean, if they aren't taking the time to register with wikipedia and get an account i honestly don't think they should be adding any content, or at least what they add should be heavily monitored. but then again, if someone that is registered re-adds the site, i say talk it out with them and come to a conclusion on what to do. ren0^talk 14:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WP:EL says "forums should generally not be linked to". I don't know, maybe that's a bit harsh since clubs are an important part of car culture, but maybe if in doubt, it's best to discuss it in Talk, and/or remove forum links? --Interiot 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the intent of the admonition in WP:EL is to tell people not to link to the CONTENT in forums because it tends to be ephemeral. I don't think it would be inappropriate to have ONE link to some kind of single international owner's club or umberella organisation. I think it's highly inappropriate to link to local owner club forums because to do a comprehensive job would require hundreds or perhaps thousands of such links - and Wikipedia is not a link directory. I think a reader who wanted to find out about a particular kind of car would be very interested to find an owner club - so pointing to a place where they could find one would be a good thing. SteveBaker 02:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, just to let folks know - I came across a third "owners club spammer", User:68.101.64.76, whose five contributions to Wikipedia consist of linking to floridaeclipseclub.com in the Mitsubishi Eclipse article. I checked Alexa to guage how big a club it is, but it's not significant enough to cause a blip on the radar. In fact, it's existed for barely a month as far as I can see, and has less than 70 members. I've left messages on both the article discussion page and the User's talk page without reply.

I just wanted to alert people to the fact that I'm trying to follow WP protocol as far as preventing linkspamming. However, I'm fairly new here (2-3 months), so would prefer it if a more experienced editor could keep an eye on me. Anything I should be doing which I'm not? Cheers. -- DeLarge 23:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, here is something you can do DeLarge, STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS! You have accused me time and time again of owning a car club I DO NOT OWN NOR OPERATE. If you have proof then give it to us, otherwise, stop harrassing me.

Here is another recommendation, DO NOT DICTATE. You do NOT own the page and I don't either, it belongs to everyone, leave it that way. -- User:68.101.64.76 20:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that means that everyone has the right to change it, including DeLarge. --ApolloBoy 18:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Uniformity

--CBecker 21:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First I'd like to say hello to everyone, as I'm both new to this project and Wikipedia in general. However in the few days I've been reviewing this project page and the discussions going on behind the scenes, I've noticed a great lack of direction and uniformity (in regards mainly to automobile model pages, specificly). I've noticed that there is general agreement that there should be an infobox, but as to what information it contains and how that information is displayed there is no general consensus (unless I'm overlooking one). There also seems to be no agreed upon example page, which is pretty disheartening. This project has been going on for a while now and yet there's no definite example to go by? I also noticed that there seems to be no uniform layout for all those templates. Compare the Volkswagen Group to the Ford to the Lancia templates (though if I could vote for the style I like best I'd pick the Lancia one...). If there really is to be some uniformity regarding model pages, I think we're all going to have to reach a consensus as soon as possible regarding page layout, infobox layout (and what information to include), external links layout (and what to include/exclude), templates, and any other aspects of a common Wikipedia entry that I failed to mention. With this consensus, throw an example page together and we'll all go from there. If I'm overlooking anything that has already been officially decided, it's probably because there is no clear mention of it on the main project page. Any official decisions made about layout etc I definitely vote should be referenced on the main page. What a great idea for a project, and if any online community can pull it off it's this one. Now it just needs to be more standardized and uniform. Questions? Responses to questions? Comments?

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Wikiproject! Please be informed that it is compulsory for all new members to listen to Kikki Danielsson at least four times before editing the talk page. Thanks for complying with the rules.

Referring to what you said, the general impression you got regarding the lack of uniformity stems from the fact that the number of automotive-related articles, and those on specific models in particular, is huge, while the cumulative amount of time all the members of the project might devote to editing them is seriously restrained. There is a general consensus on including the infobox and the information included in the box is each time determined by common sense and simply availability to the editor at the moment of writing.

Now you are probably right regarding the layout of the article etc. being uniformized and agreed upon. I believe we are on the right way towards it more by means of collaboratively editing subsequent articles than formalizing it even further. On the other hand, a layout fit for one article might be totally unfit for another - what I believe might be the right thing to do is to try to elevate as many articles as possible to GA or FA status, and model the remainder after them (in hope many of them could also become FA or GA in due course). Most issues that really require a uniform decision being cast are being discussed on this very talk page and usually there are consesuses reached.

As concerns templates, well, thank you for your comment on the Lancia template :D I don't think there will ever be and should be a uniform template layout - each and every case is different, we have brands that are present in a single market for less than two decades, and brands with history spanning over a hundred years in many markets, with a multitude of models. In each case, an appropriate solution must be found to present the information in a useful and visually appealing way. Besides, the whole aim with the Lancia template (which is a stopgap measure anyway, containing only a part of the links it should) was to reflect the brand, which would be rather impossible with uniform template layouts.

Thanks for reading all that, Bravada Talk to me! 02:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Bravada, thank you for the reply. However, I'm a bit upset that I was compulsed to watch that video one time. Anyone that could be compulsed to watch it four times is out of their mind... heh heh. Anyway, I was not trying to imply that our fellow contributors have nothing better to do with themselves than to carefully base each model page on a standardized example. I'm well aware most people here have lives offline! Let me simplify my main point. I would like to see an example page agreed upon very soon, so that people new to Wikipedia and/or the project, have a page that everyone views as a standard of excellence from which to base a new model page on. I'd like to know what it's going to take to get this done. Can you briefly explain GA and FA status?

Also, your answer regarding the infoboxes is logical, but not specific. Obviously, if there is no information available to provide for a particular section of the infobox, that section would have to be left blank. But that was not in question. My question was regarding the existance of a single common infobox to be used on all model pages (standardized) which the author would fill in with as much information as possible. Or instead does each author create his own? I would prefer the first method. If that is currently the case, then we're already on the right track. :)

As for the templates: of course they will and should be different. The template G.Brendel showed below of a company's model timeline would have many different categories, years, models, etc from any other company with a model timeline template. My idea was simply to have any template of a particular type aesthetically resemble other templates of that same type (model timelines in this case). If that makes more sense. For example, same colors, same font, same graph, etc. It looks like that is also being handled. But there are other templates, too, that list a company's models (without putting them in chronological order). For example, the Volkswagen model template and the Lancia model template. These two look nothing alike layout-wise. My idea was to find a style that can be used for this type of template so that from page to page and company to company there is a better organized feel to our Automobiles project, rather than a collage of many differently styled templates. Are the model timeline templates being designed to phase out the other model template style? Or will they both continued to be used? Perhaps I could try to start us off by replicating your Lancia template to use for another company. So um, does that sound better to you or equally as useless? Haha, oh well I'm new to this. I will find a way to contribute somehow, I promise!--CBecker 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why were you upset by Kikki? This is an absolutely great video, when you would go and watch it multiple times, you would suddenly feel relaxed and unbent! You can also simply listen to this great song in the background :D

As concerns example article layout, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Layouts - this is a bit outdated now, but can give you a good overview. I also believe that articles that were promoted to Good article and Featured article can serve as good examples - click the links to find out what GA and FA are. There is also an uniform infobox for individual vehicle articles, as well as a similar infobox for vehicle generation, used in articles dealing with vehicles that had more than one distinctive generation. You can find an example of usage of such infoboxes here. There is also an infobox for automotive platforms.

You can also see some articles still featuring the old makeshift table format, these are leftovers from earlier times, and we are currently updating those (where "we" is an euphemism for ApolloBoy, who does most of the dirty work here.

Now, as concerns templates - I have commented on why the templates cannot and should not be uniformized in the following section. But they can for sure be improved. some members here believe that timelines are better than standard templates, as they are more informative, but on the other hand they can get pretty cumbersome in case of brands present in various different market, exisiting over a longer time, frequently changing models or simply having a wide lineup. You can often find yourself in need of placing two or even three timeline templates beneath an article, which makes them take up more space than the entire article, and defies the major function of a template - making navigation through articles more convenient. I believe that we might consider either using more advanced tools to develop more sophisticated, concise and good-looking templates, or move timelines to separate articles, which is what I believe is a good idea for now.

Feel free to use the Lancia template as the starting point, but please take note that it has been specifically adjusted to reflect the style of the brand and is only suitable for this individual case. I would advise you to go and search for examples you find appealing in this and other Wikipedias (I actually found inspiration for the Lancia template in the Italian Wikipedia) and experiment with them in your sandbox. It took me a good amount of time to devise the said Lancia template.

Oh, BTW, the notion that people who regularly contribute to Wikipedia have lives apart from that is entirely false :D Bravada, talk - 23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again Bravada thank you for the quick and lengthy reply! Good to hear about the infobox situation. It sounds like that is right where it needs to be in terms of adding to the excellence of the overall Automobiles project. The timelines I do agree could get cumbersome, and perhaps would fit better in an article of their own (which could be easily linked via the model or company page).

I will check out the "outdated" layout section in greater detail soon. However it is not that section that troubles me, it's the area on the front page which explains that we, as a project, have no example page to go by. Don't you--or anyone else besides myself--see a kind of urgency here in getting that accomplished? Does anyone know what it would take to get this accomplished so that everyone can pitch in and get it done?

As for the model templates: I think we're in agreement that improvements can be made. At the very least I'd like to see a certain level of quality reached across the board, if layouts could not be somewhat standardized. And in regards to the Lancia template, I did not plan to copy it exactly. However, if you have any more specific information for me about the unique style, please explain that. If you mean how the color of the template matches the colors in the image, or you were referring to the image itself or the way the models were arranged, or something else altogether. Basically, whatever you feel is unique to Italian design or Lancia more specificly, I will try to avoid replicating in my own version. Sometimes I can't always grasp every little meaningful detail and nuance in an object of simplicity unless it is explained in some detail. Thanks again.

--CBecker 01:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NOW THIS IS IMPORTANT

I think we really should have a "model article" to link to, at least regarding layout. Unfortunately, current selected articles are not quite good examples here - either they do not comply (like don't use infoboxes) or are quite peculiar and don't give a good overview. I think an example article should:

• be FA, GA or at least close to this stage for the time being
• contain infoboxes containing rather exhaustive information and have a very good layout (sections etc.)
• describe a model with at least two generations to showcase the use of generational infoboxes

What do you think about it? What are your propositions? Bravada, talk - 01:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I was saying: AGREED! Good criteria. Now the question is, how long does it take for an article (once complete) to reach GA or FA status?

I think the idea here should be to take an article that currently holds a lot of information and make it fit for the example rather than try to start a new article.

Suggestions: Plymouth Barracuda, Toyota Supra, Mitsubishi Lancer, Ford Mustang, Dodge Viper, Chevrolet Corvette, or some other widely-known, interesting car.

--CBecker 00:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

GA is a pretty weak criteria. Most articles simply sit in the list for the required 2 weeks - then go though by default. Maybe nobody even read the article. All we know is that none of the people who read it were moved to object. FA is a different matter. We have to go through Peer review (which is easy) - but the FA guys do put the article through the wringer. The whole process (GA, Peer Review, FA and then FA-of-the-Day) takes several months. We could just take one of the half dozen existing automotive FA's though. SteveBaker 17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that any of our present FA's would make a good model article - they are mostly about quite peculiar models, most of which only ran for one generation, and even being FA, they are not structured the way that would make them good model articles IMHO.

I've been watching the GA Nominations page for some time and I must say there aren't more articles that pass than that are failed, and both is usually well reasoned. Most of the articles promoted within the last weeks were really good and fulfilled the criteria, which are quite similar to GA. The important differences are the size and notability criteria, which will probably hardly be fulfilled by most automotive articles here. I would say GA is a better goal for an automotive article than FA, as the latter might simply be unattainable.

I think if we could make an article on a popular mainstream car a well-structured and referenced GA (the good old Ford Mondeo might do, the forgotten and delapidated Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla would also be nice targets), they could serve as a model article for most car models. Bravada, talk - 19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Automobile Manufacturer Hierarchy

--CBecker 21:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Moreso even than the model pages, currently I'm most interested in the topic of automaker companies/parent companies/groups of companies/etc. I was wondering if there has been any thought put into how to organize and interlink pages about these companies. I've seen some of the templates (most of which could really use a standardized makeover) but is there an example page to go by for layout and other aspects? If not, I vote we get on that, too. If a company like GM owns many subcompanies (Chevy, Hummer, Pontiac, Saab, GMC, etc etc etc) in the same way that a company like VAG owns subcompanies (VW and Audi), many of which own further subcompanies (VW owns Bentley, Bugatti, VW, etc; Audi owns Lamborghini, SEAT, Audi...), and most of which work with other sub-companies within the same parent company and other companies altogether.... if you don't follow, my point is proven. It's a confusing mess. So for the good of all, I propose that any company linked to another (sub-/parent-/partner-/etc-) company, be done in an easily understandable, uniform method, perhaps through a template with a standardized layout (though obviously the contained information would change depending upon which companies it is linking). Again, any official decisions should be noted on the main page of this project for all contributors to access easily and use in their updates and new pages. Thoughts?

Now I got lost both in the part where I should and in the subsequent one, where I guess I wasn't supposed to. I understand your problem is that you believe there should a uniform template for linking brands/subsidiaries/divisions of one automaker with the other and the mother company. See my above edit for a comment on that - each case is more or less different, so we would have to decide on so many rules that it would become pure bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Let us just make sure every brand has an appropriate, exhaustive and visually attractive template (which is more or less what is being done) - how about that? Bravada Talk to me! 02:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, somehow I think I have trouble understanding- sorry. But nonetheless, I think I know what you're asking. Okay, here's what we have now: templates with the different models of a brand (see below) and we have templates telling all the brands belong to a company (see below as well). I think this should further help to clarify). If you have anymore question just let us know.

This is what we have for each brand (well almost all of them- we're gettin' there ;-)

This is what we have for each company, these are posted on the articles regarding different brands:

Thanks. Signature^brendel 03:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry Bravada! I didn't mean to lose you at all there. I think G.Brendel got my point though. It's that second template that you have displayed there that I kind of had pictured in my mind but didn't see anywhere on the project page. Perfect example of a "template with a standardized layout" which links related companies "in an easily understandable, uniform method." Maybe that helps explain my point. Glad to see you're already on that, G.Brendel. I'll have to take a look and see if there's any left to make or edit. Thanks! --CBecker 20:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

See also {{General Motors brands}} and {{VW}}, though the latter includes the company grouping as well as the list of cars. --Interiot 21:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Volvo Cars vs. Ford Motor Comapny

It has come to my attention that there is a heated debate happening right now on all of the Volvo pages. Ford Motor Company has been the manufacturer of all Volvos since Ford's acquisition of Volvo in 1998. Therefore, "Ford Motor Company" is listed as the manufacturer on each current-model Volvo page (Volvo C70, Volvo S60, Volvo S80, etc). Recently, however, at least two Swedish Wikipedians have been removing FMC as the manufacturer and replacing it with "Volvo Cars," blindly denying Ford's involvement.

My question is this: Should Ford be listed as the manufacturer on Volvo pages (as it is on the Jaguar and Land Rover pages), or do you think these two people are right in listing Volvo as the manufacturer? And what can we do to stop all of the fierce arguments that are happening because of this issue? Jagvar 14:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• We keep coming back (over and over again) to this question of who is the manufacturer of a car. We debate it a lot - but come to no conclusions. I don't think there is a simple answer. Some "company" names are really just labels stuck onto the cars - others are manufacturing plants, yet others are major divisions of a mega-corporation - yet others are wholly-owned-subsidiaries - or even just majority holdings of the parent company. There are more answers than there are car companies! In my article on the Mini (which was made by maybe a dozen "companies" at various times and in various places - and depending on how you count them), I opted to put the most well known company name into the infobox - then used a company timeline template at the bottom of the page to describe the history of the corporate envolvement. If they care who owned what and when - they can follow the link in the infobox or look at the timeline to discover the history and corporate ownership stuff. This avoids duplication of information (which leads to errors and inconsistancies) and allows for a full exposition of the facts without cluttering up the actual car article. The average reader probably doesn't care much who made the car - they want to see "Volvo" up there because that's what the badge on the car (and the car dealership) said - and "Ford" would be confusing - but we most definitely want them to be able use Wikipedia to DISCOVER that Ford were involved if they care about that. So placing that information somewhere on the page is sufficient to help the user navigate to the information they are looking for - but confusing them by making it overly prominent may not be a good thing either. It gets even worse when the top-level corporate ownership of a company like Volvo changed partway through the manufacturing run of a particular car model. Some Volvo C70's may be truly, genuinely made by a Swedish company called Volvo - where other later models were made by a Swedish subsidiary of Ford. I think the answer is to use the most common name in the body of the article - and to punt the discussion of who owned Volvo and when to a separate article about the Volvo Car company where full justice can be done to the historical details without getting in the way of all of the interesting information about a particular model of a particular car. By all means put a timeline template at the bottom of the page if the corporate history is complex enough to justify it. Take a look at Mini to see what I mean. SteveBaker 14:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ford Motor Company is the "parent" company over Volvo, Jaguar, Aston Martin, and Land Rover, which are wholly owned brands within the Premier Automotive Group. These brands manufacture their "own" vehicles in their "own" factories located (mostly) in their respective countries of origin. PAG maintains overall management control over the brands, and is responsible for the financial accounting aspects, including producing a profit, and also sharing engineering knowledge and simple parts where feasible. Ford Motor Company is not so bullish as to claim to be the "manufacturer" of Volvo cars in the strictest sense, any more than a parent would claim responsibility for a son's game winning home run. The "Ford side" needs to lighten up and let the kids play the game, and the kids need to recognize that daddy is in charge overall. --T-dot 14:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (a Ford guy)

Well, I haven't looked up the history of the article, but there's currently six "manufacturers" listed for the Mini. Maybe the best bet is to remove that tag completely from the infobox if it's going to cause so much friction (e.g. User:Dahlis blowing a gasket)? Otherwise, we have one of two possibilities:

• Use the "brand name", even though it'll have appeared in the line above (for the vehicle name), or
• Use the "parent company", which in this age of globalisation is going to get a bit complicated. The Smart Forfour is built for Smart GmbH - originally a Swiss company and now a subsiduary of Germany's DaimlerChrysler - by Mitsubishi (Japan)... in the NedCar facility in the Netherlands. Aaaaaagh...

Nothing to stop us ditching the manufacturer tag, but linking to the 'brand' page from the infobox, and explaining the ownership structure there. That way you don't get the complication of changes of ownership halfway through a model's life, because (hopefully) individual cars aren't being discussed on the 'brand' page.I've always thought it was peculiar to, say, refer to VW as the manufacturer of the Lamborghini Gallardo. Technically it's correct, but is that where a Wikireader would go to find out? Surely the Lamborghini parent page is more appropriate for that?

I await further discussion with bated breath. Or perhaps not... -- DeLarge 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest continuing the discussion in the appropriate section to avoid confusion. Thanks - Bravada, talk - 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I'm new to Wikipedia. I have noticed that many automotive articles don't link to the official site of the Auto/Automaker. Should I add the link when I see it isn't there? Does that violate any copyrights? Bok269 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't violate any copyrights. Please go ahead and add the official manufacturer site to all articles that do not have it yet. Thanks for contributing and welcome! Regards, Signature^brendel 07:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Concept Car Page

The Concept car page has a subsection titled "Some Concept Cars." As the name suggests, it is imcomplete. An idea I had is that whenever someone comes across, adds, or edits a page about a concept car, check the page, and if that car is not there, add it to the list, and add a quick description as with the rest of the list. Bok269 20:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that * should be the one that strives for complete coverage. And, well, just about every automobile category is probably missing an article or two. --Interiot 20:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There actually is a page called Concept Car. For whatever reason it is not linking from this page properly. Maybe instead of that subsection, it should just link to that category. Bok269 02:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, currently the Concept car article is linked from the category page. I do however think that the "Some concept cars" list is somewhat unfit for an encyclopedia as there is a much more comprehensive list of concept vehicles in the category. Having a half-done list may just be worse than having no list and only a link to the category. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 03:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should take a vote as to whether to expand the list on the article, or to eliminate it and link to the category. I'm more than happy to take the cars from the list and put them on the Concept car page. Let me know. Bok269 15:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that we should take a vote. It's bad policy to keep long and aspiring-to-be-complete lists within articles in general. I don't know whether there are formal policies dealing with that, but you will often see this as a reason for failing articles for FA or GA status. It just looks bad. The category serves the same purpose and is a much more suitable and easy-to-operate way to do it. Meanwhile, the Concept car article could surely use some enhancement, like sources and exapnsion in general. Why don't you devote some of your time to this? Bravada, talk - 15:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well put. Also, VotingIsEvil, and forcing a mandate on the state of the article now isn't so good... it's not like either solution is particularly bad. But yes, if the article improves over time, it will likely eventually have to do away with the list. --Interiot 16:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Volvo Timeline

Could someone with chart skills overhaul the Volvo timeline? The date intervals are not to scale, and the current cars do not extend past 2006, as other manufacturer's cars do. None of these vehicles have been announced to cease production. Bok269 23:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have fixed the model spans, so that each current models runs until 2009, the end of the template, as in other manufacturer sites. The reason why the years look "uneven" is because some models have to fit their entire description within one year. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Thanks. Signature^brendel 14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

{{automobileindex}}

I wanted to get some input on creating something like {{automobileindex}} to use instead of {{disambig}} on pages that are solely devoted to choosing between separate automobile pages. WP:MOSDAB is somewhat strict in its formatting rules, and while I agree with them for general disambig articles, the style guidelines can be a little too strict for subject-specific articles. WikiProject Ships has created {{shipindex}} based on this discussion and others at WP:MOSDAB, and I think the same sort of thing applies to many auto disambigs. This is a list of automobiles currently marked with {{disambig}}, and the Mercedes articles stand out as ones that definitely would be a stretch to fit into WP:MOSDAB. Anyway, it would take a bit of work to undo, so I wanted to run it by other people first. --Interiot 20:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent linkspam attack

There seem to have been a bazillion links to the classic-cars-online.co.uk website added to car articles across Wikipedia. I checked out the IP address of the vandal and it belongs to the same ISP that hosts the classic-cars-online website - so it's pretty clear that this is linkspam of the worst kind. I emailed the 'contact' address at that website and told them in pretty strong terms that this isn't acceptable. Does someone have a 'bot that can clear them all out? SteveBaker 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like most of them have been removed by JeremyA. I'm having the same trouble with a user repeatedly spamming the Mitsubishi Eclipse article with a link to floridaeclipseclub.com (I've reverted four times in the past 24 hours). Still, it's reassuring to know admins like Jeremy are doing the same thing as myself - makes me feel more of a responsible editor and less of a link nazi.

Classic Car Club - 13 forum members. Florida Eclipse Club - 68 forum members. Sigh, everyone has something to pitch... -- DeLarge 16:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually got a reply from classic-cars-online - they are unapologetic - claiming that a link to their site was relevent because they only added it to classic car pages. (Untrue - "Ford Motor Company" was also hit). I'm trying to reply without using the word 'moron' more than twice in the same sentence...but it's hard! SteveBaker 17:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Following persistent linkspamming, I've followed your lead and sent an e-mail to the owner of the Eclipse site. A copy is now on my talk page, which is where further comments on this issue will be restricted to. -- DeLarge 10:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Engine displacement and specs MoS?

The main wikipedia MoS on numbers, dates, and units is pretty useless when it comes to all the nonstandard units we use (cc or cm³ instead of mL, ci or in³ instead of, I dunno, fl.oz?, rpm instead of Hz, etc). Do we have a standard or even a guideline for units anywhere? It can be pretty confusing.

I've noticed a few de facto conventions, such as displaying the US unit for torque as ft·lbf rather than as ft-lb or lb-ft or common but horribly incorrect variants like "ft/lb" or "tq".

• What is preferred for metric units for torque? N·m (common in Europe) or kgf·m (common in Japan)? I suppose the source unit is best, but what about if the source is in a US unit?
• Do commas belong in engine displacements over 999 cc? I never see commas used in English-language literature.

— AKADriver ☎ 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess this answers most of your questions -> Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions Bravada, talk - 16:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

actually ft.lbf is correct. see Foot-pound force. ren0^talk 19:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

New Good Article!

I am happy to inform you that Lancia Flaminia has just been promoted to Good Article status! This is in no small way thanks to Steve's generous contributions to improve the article and procure a free photo!

Thus, our still small collection of Good and Featured articles continues to grow, and I hope soon we will hear of more good news like that. In the meantime, I encourage you to nominate some better articles you know, and also improve other with references so that we could nominate them too! Perhaps we might also consider concentrating our efforts by means of something like a COTW. Bravada, talk - 16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

World Rally Championship problem

I created an article on ex-WRC driver Pentti Airikkala a while back, and in the course of creating Wikilinks I came across what I think is a bit of a problem.

All the individual events in the WRC calendar have their own articles (accessed by selecting on of the years listed on the WRC results page), but they include the names of the sponsors in the title. While this is accurate for recent years, it makes historical records erroneous. For example, Airikkala competed in the New Zealand Rally in 1979. The "live" page is Propecia Rally of New Zealand, but Propecia only came on board in 2001; in 1979 the sponsor was Motogard [5]. I don't think it's encyclopedic to include the sponsors names in the title, but I think about 10 of the race articles are currently affected in this way.

As far as possible, I've checked the official website of each event to see what they call themselves, and I've double-checked that against the list of events on the Rallybase.nl website [6]. I came up with what I reckon the articles should be called, and listed them on my userpage. However, I don't want to start renaming/redirecting manually without some discussion. Also, if anyone can automate the renaming process to cover the problem of creating numerous dead links all of a sudden, I'd be grateful for their assistance. --DeLarge 18:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think you should fix this. We shouldn't have to repeatedly rename articles every time someone changes sponsorship. Be Bold! SteveBaker 17:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Please go ahead and move the articles, unfortunately I don't have a bot or anything to help you get the job done faster ;-). Thanks for taking initiative. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the feedback - I've now created the articles, with appropriate redirects to hopefully avoid red linkage. All I have left to do now is to build or repair the pages covering the last 34 years' worth of WRC results and I'll be done. -- DeLarge 21:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Cars in Mexico

Hello! I'm Fluence from Mexico and I just joined the WikiProject last Friday. As my first contribution I made a list including all cars sold at the moment in Mexico. I think that if I live in Mexico I can contribute to the Project by adding info of cars in my country. Previously I created the Clio V6 Renault Sport article as I'm fan of Renault. Hope this help to the Renault main article. As you can see my nickname is in fact a Renault car (I'll do its article, Renault Fluence soon) Fluence 23:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the project, Fluence! Looking forward to your contributions. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If there are any indigenous auto manufacturers or indigenous cars, feel free to add them under Category:Automobile manufacturers by country or Category:Automobiles by country (which seem to overlap strangely IMHO). --Interiot 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to give the article's page. That is Cars in Mexico Fluence 01:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, I didn't know that the entire Lincoln line-up is sold in Mexico, I knew the Navigator was... and I'm a Lincoln fan ;-) Signature^brendel 07:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the team! There are a lot of cars out there - and the more people we have writing about them the better off we are. One comment about Cars in Mexico - I don't think the 'fair use' provisions for the photo of the last ever VW bug are met. You aren't discussing the TV show on which the image appeared - so it's not fair use. SteveBaker 17:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Great job putting the article together, Fluence, and also good job team, if I can say so, actually COLLABORATING on it! Seems like we have a rare example of the efforts of a few members focusing on one article here. I believe it's a great idea to try to improve this article to serve as a model for future articles like that, serving as introductions to the automotive culture of given countries - the history, the peculiarities, motorsports and autoshows overview and such. For me, it would be very interesting to know how it differs between countries and what do some peculiarities result from.

The article still could use some more copyediting, especially concerning quite POV phrases in some sections (especially descriptions of individual models). The article could also be expanded to gain a more historical perspective, describing the development of the market and industry from the beginning to where it is today (this also concerns subsection on individual automakers). I would also mention manufacturing more prominentaly, and especially the indigenous manufacturers like VAM. Perhaps some tables with sales figures could be created to show the development of the market and the position of various automakers/models/segments.

This is not to say that it is not a good article in itself, because it is, but to show the directions in can be further developed. Oh, and I would also try to add references while editing now, as I sense a potential future Featured Article candidate here! Bravada, talk - 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.I would like to find more info about the indigenous manufacturer Unidiseño, as very few in my own country know something about it (I found it in an old magazine from 1998 and never appeared again but I've seen just one out there) but I think it was sold in the States and in Germany. My father once owned a VAM but I'm 20 years too young to know something about the maker but I'll do my best.Oh yeah, I took the image of the VW from the article of the same car (Volkswagen Beetle) so I don't know if it appeared in a TV show. Fluence 22:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Passenger vehicles in the United States

Great idea, Bravada. That would actually be an intereting project to have articles that list the vehicles for a given market. Do we already have such an article for the US and Canada? Otherwise I'd like to create one and the names Cars in America or List of cars in America arn't used. I just got through creating the List of largest passenger vehicles in the United States,and am thinking about creating a Cars in America article, similar to the Cars in Mexico article. The article I am proposing would however be in a table format like the main table on the List of car manufacturers I recently created. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid we don't, and I believe this could be both very informative and a convenient place to gather all important facts that don't fit anywhere else. I also believe Cars in Japan could be very informative, given all the peculiarties of the market and industry there and how they influence Japanese (and other) automakers. I believe mentions of the American definitions and distinction between cars and trucks, CAFE, EPA, NHTSA and IIHS should go in there, perhaps also the UAW issue. Oh, btw, is this Cars in America or Cars in the USA? I'd say it would be more convenient to have it as the former, as Canada is different enough that discussing all the differences would merit a separate article. Bravada, talk - 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I was thinking, Passenger vehicles in the United States as we defenitely would have to include SUV and trucks as roughly 50% of vehicles sold in the US are light trucks. I'll start the list but it'll take a while. Please contribute! Regards, Signature^brendel 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Now that the article is up and running (Still under construction though), I would like to invite everyone to make suggestion and help build this article; Passenger vehicles in the United States. As always, thanks for contributing. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 03:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

New Renault articles!

As I see on the project page that Renault articles were needed I just made the article for the Mégane Renault Sport, one of my favourite cars. I'm working also on the Renault Fluence artcle:D Fluence 00:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's great and I am looking forward to more of them, but please use the Template:Infobox Automobile instead of those dreadful tables. Do also mention that the Fluence is a concept car - otherwise it is confusing! Bravada, talk - 00:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox and added the template for the Wikiproject and also mention it as a concept Fluence 00:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Great! As a grumpy person, I still have a few minor gripes:

1. The template you used, Template:Concept automobile, was probably intended for articles on very recent concept vehicles, to justify unfounded speculation on the future development and implications of the concept. As we have discussed here before, such speculations do not belong in the Wikipedia, and therefore both them and the template are redundant.
2. Still, there might be some bit of info from Renault that would indicate that the styling cues or other details previewed in the concept will in fact be used in the development of the next Laguna. If it is so, and you can provide an appropriate reference, than it's OK. Otherwise, I believe such statement should be removed.
3. In general, this article could be a 100x better if a simple easy thing was done - references were provided. Simply, state the sources you used when compiling this article, or try to find some that would support what you wrote there. Do remember that every piece of information (except for absolutely trivial, like the fact that the Fluence is a coupe) need to be mentioned in one of the references (this is nothing really problematic, I am saying that just to make sure the references will be comprehensive and not a single one or two referring to some info).
   For an example of a short automotive-related article see Lancia Flaminia (Pardon me for referring to my work again, but that's the only one I can think of) Do also see:

• Template:Cite web, Template:Cite book, Template:Cite journal - see the talk pages for usage examples
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Footnotes

Thanks in advance and keep on the good work! Bravada, talk - 00:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I found that info in a magazine so sadly I cannot cite references:( I will look up for some later:) 148.221.178.138 01:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A magazine is as good a reference as any other, or even better than some actually - useTemplate:Cite journal (see talk page for usage examples). And make sure you're logged in :p Bravada, talk - 01:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I decided to delete the line. Maybe doesn't makes sense, at least to me. I only left the Renault Laguna on the related section. Soon I'll look for the reference:)Fluence 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Auto shows

I think auto shows is a topic poor in information. There is information about some auto shows but the pages are full of red links. I think we need to put more attention to these, don't you think? For the moment, I created the article for the Mexico Autoshow:)Fluence 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz quality issues

Yesterday, a user added the section "Recent Quality Issues" to the Mercedes-Benz page. I'm just not sure what to make of it. The user alleged that Mercedes models from the first half of this decade are of poor quality, but he backed up his allegations with numerous links to automotive reviews.

I commend this user for backing up his arguments with statistics and links, but I still feel this section is very biased. Any of the reviews and ratings systems the user provided can be countered with reviews and ratings that argue the exact opposite. Reviews are not very objective.

Unless someone can actually cite figures that illustrate an increase in recalls and repairs for these model years, I feel the "quality issues" section should be removed. Any thoughts? Jagvar 19:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the section is kind of long. It's almost as long as the history section, and it's not as if what Mercedes has done over the last few years, no matter how bad, is more important than 100 years of history.

I think the sections hinges around citing reliable sources for the subjective opinions. And, personally, Consumer Reports is really pretty reliable, and if the bit about CR is true, I don't think the section should be removed entirely. It might be better to find similarly reliable sources that respond to the criticisms or otherwise try to put Mercedes in a better light. --Interiot 00:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles on many brands and models are full of worthless stuff trying to argue a point rather than inform (as Wikipedia should), but this section is especially terrible. Assumptions totally not grounded in anything, generalizations, weasel words. Car magazine reviews are far from being a "reliable sources" to substantiate opinions and turn them into facts. I won't even list everything what's totally wrong there. I would say this section qualifies for immediate deletion and later perhaps recreation within an appropriate place of brand history in appropriate form. Bravada, talk - 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if there are reviews stating something about poor quality, one needs to remember that car reviews are just the opinion of the tester in most cases. Wikipedia is an encyclopdia and simply stating someone's opinion on a car isn't very encyclopdic unless you're editing the Tara Weingarten article (one of the most reknown auto review writers in the US - published in Newsweek). While reviews may be helpful in certain cases where the car is either a cultural icon and it is important to mention how it is preceived or if the review contains hard factual data. Otherwise, however, there is no need to mention the opinion a certain critic may have had. Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the above commenter (>brendel) has even read the article (before and after) in question. I am a Mercedes Benz enthusiast and believe me when I say that my knowledge of the marquee is vast and accurate (not being big headed or anything :D). I wrote part of the article in question (the part with the links) and the section I wrote speaks only of how Mercedes Benz has improved build quality in their brand new models (like the new W221 S-Class and M-Class etc). However the part removed also includes correct additions by another user(s) and on their behalf let me try and clear up any misconceptions about ‘opinions’ in this matter: Mercedes Benz themselves have admitted to cost cutting in recent years (a well documented fact) and that this has had a significant effect on the quality of there automobiles (For those interested this cost cutting started after Daimler-Benz merged with Chrysler in 1998 forming ‘DaimlerChrysler’). Recently Mercedes Benz said that they were cutting there profits in favour of the build quality and attention to detail which was present in cars made pre-1998 (that’s the section I wrote).

Also regarding comment above Quote: "it's not as if what Mercedes has done over the last few years, no matter how bad, is more important than 100 years of history." Well when you consider that the Mercedes-Benz marquee has been synonymies with supreme build quality, unquestionable reliability and fastidious attention to detail for almost 80 years, and that these recent cost cutting problems could have lead to the end of that, perhaps it does deserve some notable space in the article!

I don't have much time at the moment to edit and reinstate the removed sections but towards the end of the month you can be assured that it will be back there, If you don't like it, then EDIT IT, don't just delete it, leaving the hard work to someone like me.

Here just one cite to show I haven’t made this all up, and if you like use a search engine and you can find plenty more sites supporting my point. [7]

PS. and just a bone to pick here... I quote user Jagvar above: "I commend this user for backing up his arguments with statistics and links" did you? Not to my knowledge, you just deleted it with a link to here... (but if you did and i missed it sorry...)--JCW 17:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Janesh, I believe you are taking this a bit too personally here. Please take a look at established featured articles to find out how Wikipedia deals with polarizing issues like that, especially concerning good references. There is no need to bring about counterevidence if there is a section bordering POV and not referenced well enough. It is not about "who is right here", it's about the quality of the article. I guess given over 100 years of the brand's history, having a section on recent quality problems almost as big as all else that's been said of the brand's history might raise some concern.

I think you could spend some time reading Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, Wikipedia:Article development and Wikipedia:Citing sources. I am not trying to sound condescending here, I actually benefitted from reading all the stuff there and in various other helpful guides available. It can make your life as Wikipedian far less frustrating and more rewarding! I believe with your passion for Mercedes you can make many valuable contributions and help raise the standard and coverage of the article in question and related ones.

In general, the Mercedes-Benz article is more of a collection of random, unreferenced facts (and possibly fiction) than an encyclopedic entry. I guess other section are actually not much better than what was deleted. I guess this whole discussion might be a good reason to draw attention to this rather important article on a venerable and well-known brand. Perhaps if we could make it a temporary Wikiproject "collaboration", we could develop it into an FA (in a bit longer run), to serve as an exemplar for other brand articles (I guess we don't have one at the moment). What do you guys think about it? Bravada, talk - 17:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bravada, The point I was trying to make above was that its not POV, its fact. I would be the last person to ‘criticize’ Mercedes-Benz in an article, but the fact is the recent quality issue must me mentioned, its hugely significant. However in retrospect I do agree that the section in question is too long, (once again let me stress most wasn't written by me! But by other users…) and should be shortened before re-adding it. Finally, Regarding making it 'feature article' standard, I have already made significant edits and additions to the whole article, to improve its standard, however its a large article which needs quite a bit more work (which I can't finish). So yeah I guess a "temporary Wikiproject "collaboration"," would be great.--JCW 08:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Talbot Tagora - peer review

I have recently expanded the Talbot Tagora article considerably and started wondering whether it might be a good candidate for GA or even FA. Before I put it through formal "general" peer review, I would like to ask for your opinions first. In particular, I would appreciate native speakers' opinions on (and corrections to) the language and style, as well as all other general remakrs regarding the suitability of this article. If you find errors concerning factual accuracy, please do provide a better reference if you can! Feel free to edit the article accordingly. Bravada, talk - 14:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: Please DO NOT change the "Powertrains and versions" section into a table, unless you have a really really really good idea for it, and not the usual grayish table!

I have decided to move the review and discussion to the article's Talk Page, as I think it is a more approporiate place. Please post your reviews there - thanks! Bravada, talk - 11:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: It's been over a week since I posted this, and only one user decided to review this article and present his comments (nevertheless, they it was a very thorough and insightful review, which helped a lot in improving the article - thank you very much, DeLarge!) So, now I moved to the next step and requested for this article to be peer reviewed within the formal WP:PR process. You can contribute too @ Wikipedia:Peer review/Talbot Tagora/archive1. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 17:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Holden template

Hello. As some people already know, I have created a Holden template, but I need some additional people to look at it before I make it official. Some people have already commented on it, but I need some others to look at it. Please bear with me, as this is my first attempt at a template, so I need all the opinions I can get! -Daniel Blanchette 01:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine so far, just alphabetize everything and it's good to go! --ApolloBoy 00:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pontiac GTO

There is an article for the GTO that covers all the generations. There is also one titled Pontiac GTO (2004) that has both the Monaro based and Zeta-based model. SHould we merge it back into the larger article. There are other cars that have individual articles for each generation. Should we merge those as well? Or, should we restrict that page to the Monaro generation and move the Zeta-based model to its own article? Bok269 01:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it makes sense to have a sperate article for the vintage GTO and the 2004 Monaro based GTO as they are indeed two very different vehicles. As for the Zeta platform, there is not enough information yet to justify an article soley in regards to the Zeta platform based GTO. Usually articles are merged when there isn't enough information and/or written text to properly sustain two articles. I hope this answers your question. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Pontiac GTO (2004) is the example of what the worst in automotive articles in Wikipedia - full of POV from tip to toe, zero references and an over-the-top "gossip and speculation" section, which only cites sources that CONTRADICT what is being said there. Additionally, nobody even botehred to check that the GTO was shelved because the Monaro's production ended.

I believe the 2004-2006 GTO is fine with other GTOs, just as the Buick Roadmasters are. User convenience and not somebody's view on the "worthiness" of a vehicle should take precedence, and people will just type "Pontiac GTO" and not wonder where the vehicle they are looking for might be. Still, the original GTO article needs a lot of work too, and the gossip column must go. Bravada, talk - 12:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, but do we need to have the Zeta in there as well? It seems to contradict the title. Maybe have Pontiac GTO (Zeta) redirect to a section in the Zeta article about the GTO (it would require expansion of the Zeta article)? Bok269 15:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there isn't enough text or info to justify a seperate article for the Zeta. As you said, "it would require expansion of the Zeta article." Signature^brendel 16:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant a Pontiac GTO section of the GM Zeta platform article. Bok269 00:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Having looked around at the various pages, I noticed a couple of things:

1. Pontiac_GTO#2004_to_2006 contains basically the same info as Pontiac GTO (2004), and neither are particularly well written;
2. Holden Monaro is a more complete page than either GTO article, and less POV.

Therefore, I'd suggest merging/deleting Pontiac GTO (2004), rewriting the 2004-2006 paragraphs in Pontiac GTO, and at the top of that section putting one of those "For main article see Holden Monaro" wikilinked blurbs to redirect people who want more background info.

Just my $0.01 (advice ain't worth what it used to be). Regards, -- DeLarge 08:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Making unit formats consistent

I am interested in making units consistent and have taken part in discussions here. I have created a simple tool that makes the task quicker. If you want to use it, feel free. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'units' tab to press in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I a new Take Me Higher?

We had a quite sunny day today, so I decided to go for a walk and grabbed a camera. I took some photos of my neighbourhood, including some cars unsuspecting owners left unguarded in the area I roamed. Two of them (car pics) are even actually OK. At first I was very proud of myself and the possibility of contributing to Wikipedia this way, but after I came home, edited and uploaded them to Commons, my enthusiasm faded - especially after I compared them to the pics illustrating the articles on the subjects at present. I would be grateful if you would spare a moment and look at my photos page and tell me what you think of them - preferably on teh appropriate talk page. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 00:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with them. If the article allows, you can certainly load both.--Bud 09:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Obvious image request

For what it's worth, body kit seems like an article that really obviously needs a picture. I did a pretty quick scan of the commons/yotophoto/flickr, but didn't find anything (though most probably don't explicitely say "body kit"). If all else fails, this image (of a 350z Veilside body kit) might work. --0x845FED 14:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nearly every article about parts of cars (versus entire cars) is in need of a photograph. I've been gradually adding them where I can - but there is an enormous amount still to be done. I recently added photos to Nerf bar, Intercooler, Supercharger...but there are hundreds of others that need help. If you are interested in adding photographs, car parts is in much greater need than actual articles about cars themselves. It's less glamorous work - your photo won't likely make it onto a featured article - but the actual need for photos that provide useful explanations is actually more important than just having a nice shot of a car at the top of each article about a particular model. SteveBaker 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I enthusiastically second that. I just think that articles on exterior features are more likely to be read by non-enthusiasts. And exterior features primarily added for aesthetic reasons really really should have an image (and those pictures should be easy to get if someone is heading off to a car show soon). --0x845FED 02:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ideas for articles on a Prototypes/mules/spy photos

I have noticed (correct me if I am wrong) that we do not have many articles on the development of cars, such as prototypes and mules. Also, we don't have one on Spy Photos? Should I start them? Bok269 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to start them you have enough info to do so, but be sure to check the copyright in case you want to bring spyphotos into the spyphoto article. Signature^brendel 01:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd add that we don't want to go out too far on a limb. A couple examples spring to mind. We had an article running around called Ferrari 600 Imola or something like that; the car that came out was the Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, and some of the assertions made by that article didn't turn out to be correct, either. The car timeline table for BMWs also includes Z10 under supercars. BMW has not said it would build such a vehicle, and to my knowledge, most of the industry sources say that it won't happen, that a cheaper car (Z6 or Z8) is in the pipeline instead. It seems to me that we should stick to cars that are in production or have been shown at auto shows as concepts or prototypes. For example, the article about the Lincoln MKS is probably okay, since Lincoln confirmed they will build such a thing, and it will be very close to the concept version. But building an article just from rumours from one or two of the car mags is probably a bad idea overall. Otherwise we risk becoming too much of a gossip journal, eh? And most importantly, don't go copying images from Brenda Piddy or AutoBild or Motor Trend's guy, whose name escapes me, publish them, and say "this is the Cadillac so-and-so". No it isn't, it's a grown-up-schoolboy's fantasy of what it might be. Very UE, to me. Sacxpert 08:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. But, something to keep in mind is that many of the future speculation is based off of insider information from the manufacturers. The future automobile template mentions that most of the info is speculatory. As for the Ferrari, many believed it was the 600 Imola. I would guess that that was based off of insider info and that the name change was a recent decision. Bok269 14:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope everyone will please be really careful with "insider information" - see Wikipedia: No Original Research and Verifiability. I don't want to be a "spoil-sport", but it's a shame when articles become so untrue that the media picks up on it and does one of those "Wikipedia promoting rubbish and lies" stories. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'll take that into consideration when I write the articles. Bok269 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Adopt a standard for doors

I proposed this on a user's page, and someone thought I should put it here, too. If we're going to be consistent on Wikipedia when it comes to cars, we have to come up with some standard for doors. We've got a lot of articles that say 2-door coupe, but 3-door or 5-door hatchback, and then back to 2-door wagon and 4-door SUV. This is not consistent at all, because the "extra" door is no less integral to the hatchback design than it is to the wagon or SUV, and in all cases that door accesses the rear of the cabin.
So, I think we have two options. First, we keep the hatchback labels the same, but say 3-door wagon and 5-door wagon and 5-door SUV. This is the approach Car & Driver and GlobalAutoIndex take.
The other option is to use 4-door sedan, 4-door hatchback, and 4-door wagon (Motor Trend, Automobile Magazine, Edmunds.com, ConsumerGuide, Consumer Reports, and my own Carsinamerica.net all use this format). This is preferable, since it distinguishes that doors are for people, liftgates and hatches are for luggage. (And to anticipate, wagons with a rear-facing 3rd-row seat have such seating as more or less a jump seat; it can usually be removed and the general use of the area is for cargo).Therefore, the only time "odd" numbers of doors would be used would be on old extended-cab pickup trucks and mini/maxivans. And as one other reminder, only use +2 doors if the rear door cannot be independently opened, such that the Mazda RX-8 is a 2+2-door, but the Rolls-Royce Phantom is a 4-door.
The second option is more concrete than the first, but either one is better than 5-door hatchback but 4-door wagon, which is both inconsistent and illogical. Sacxpert 09:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Small problem - Wikipedians outside America might dispute this: 2-door=coupé, 3-door=hatchback, 4-door=saloon/sedan & estate/wagon, 5-door=hatchback. For me it's perfectly logical, and I imagine you'd have some pretty disgruntled editors round here if a US contributor started changing all the 5-door hatchback articles to say "4-door", especially if it refers to one of the many hatchbacks not sold across the pond. Part of the trouble is that we don't define hatchback, coupé or wagon just by the number of doors, there's a wee bit more to it than that (which is why I raised an eyebrow at an edit to my ...oops, the Mitsubishi Cordia article...)

I suspect that as long as you get British-English and American-English editors working together (with both being allowed to dictate the language of individual articles as per Wp:mos#National varieties of English), you're not going to have a truly uniform encyclopedic style. -- DeLarge 11:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree a standard would be nice, but I think it would be nicer in the real world first. Wikipedia tends to favour reflecting common usage.

On the specific point about doors, I have a Land Rover Discovery which is definitely a 5-door because it has 2 seats in the rear compartment. However, it's classed as an estate car (station wagon) so claims to have 4 doors. Madness. However, here's what I said on the user page Sacxpert mentions (bearing in mind the above point about "common usage"):

I've always been bugged by this, but all the press I've seen (in Britain) have always gone with 2 & 4 doors for saloons/sedans and estates/wagons, and 3 & 5 doors for hatchbacks. It was a marketing ploy by the early hatchback makers, I seem to remember, to make us think we were getting something extra that "old-fashioned" bodystyles didn't have.

I have a feeling it might have been Renault who did it first, but it might have been a journalist. I could dig out some old brochures to try to establish it, but that wouldn't be a definitive "first use" by a long way. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A varient of this problem came about when editing Mini because the Mini Traveller has TWO rear cargo doors and two front passenger doors. Think about a Ford Explorer - same deal - four passenger doors plus two rear cargo doors. Do we call an Explorer a "6-door"? I don't think so. If you call a Mini Traveller a two-door then you certainly can't justify calling a hatchback a 3-door. If you call the traveller a 4-door, people will (incorrectly) assume it has four passenger doors and we'd have to call the Explorer a "6-door". The problem is that the original use of "3-door" or "5-door" to talk about a hatchback was a stupid thing for manufacturers to do - but it is pretty firmly engrained in the culture in some countries. We need a standard - so how about saying explicitly "2 doors + hatch" or "4 doors + hatch" or even (for the sake of the Mini Traveller, the Ford Explorer and others) "2 doors + 2 cargo doors". Saying "2-doors + hatch" should be clear both to people who'd call a hatchback a "2-door" and to people who'd call it a "3-door". SteveBaker 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I like Steve's idea a lot, because it's just such a straightforward, accurate solution. But I don't think we could ever make it stick.

Incidentally, yet another point: do we want to make the English Wikipedia edition accessible to non-native speakers, considering that foreign language editions also exist? I would say, broadly, yes because accessibility is nice. So, that's a reason for using terms which most people already recognise. Recently, in the Citroën CX article we had a glitch when a non-native English speaker used the word "hatch" then later (nicely and apologetically) explained that they'd meant boot-lid (or trunk-lid) as opposed to hatchback. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to Delarge's point, i wasn't saying just put in 2-door or 4-door, there is clearly more to a bodystyle than just number of doors. But, I think it would be fair to say that "2-door coupe", "2-door sedan", "2-door hatchback", and "2-door liftback" are all fairly unambiguous and distinct. Because that raises yet another hornet's nest: the VW Golf GTI and the Chevrolet Camaro are both 2-doors, and both have hatchbacks. Yet I don't think anyone would call a Camaro a 3-door. I can see Steve's point too, but that could get kind of bulky. For the Ford Explorer, you'd have to write "2 doors + 2 cargo doors SUV". We put wikilinks to the bodystyles in the infoboxes anyway. If we make it a hard & fast rule (and I'll happily hunt them all down -- God knows it would help me focus on my car website research anyway) that doors are passenger doors, than we'd have, for example (91-96 U.S. Ford Escort): 2-door hatchback, 4-door sedan, 4-door hatchback, 4-door wagon. Or for the Nissan 240SX (89-90whatever): 2-door coupe, 2-door hatchback, 2-door convertible. I think that stays brief, consistent, and unambigious. You could even do it like so: 2-door notchback coupe, 2-door liftback/hatchback coupe, 2-door convertible. Either way, it avoids most of the confusion. If it says 2-door hatchback, obviously it should have 2 doors + 1 hatch. Thoughts? Sacxpert 16:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is one of my pet peeves here, and a source of some bickering between me and some other user :D The "2-door hatch"/"4-door wagon" approach is very American, or perhaps Anglosaxon given that some British guys seem to support it too. I was suprised to find out one could refer to such bodyu styles that way, in most of the continental Europe, wagons, hatchbacks and similar body styles that contain a tailgate that includes the rear windscreen and presumably extends through most of the vehicle body's height has the "extra door" added. This helps distinguish between different body styles, especially if you have e.g. a sedan and liftback version (like in the case of many Euro midsizers). They are then usually referred to as e.g. "4-door Mondeo" and "5-door Mondeo". The use of "extra door" in wagons is also only logical to me, technically the wagon tailgate is very similar to hatchback tailgate, no reason to treat them differently. Global Autoindex uses this standard for a reason, because it is widely accepted (but not necessairly in the US or UK).

As concerns split tailgates and similar solutions, they are usually referred to as a single "door" if they are used in lieu of a standard, one-piece tailgate. So, most LCVs would be 4- or 5-doors regardless of whether we are speaking of versions with split or one-piece tailgates, but depending on whether they have one or two rear side doors. Bravada, talk - 17:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I never really though of this difference between continental Europe and the US, but its true, in Germany, the expression 4-door wagon or 2-door liftback aren't used as the tailgate accounts for one door. Perhaps we need to reach the same consensus here as over whether to use American or British English. By this I mean, use the American door count on American vehicles and the European door count on European vehicles. So the Ford Mondeo liftback would be a 5-door, the 91-96 US Ford Escort would be a four-door wagon where as the European counterpart would be described as being a five door. Fortunately many models were sold under different names in Europe, but nontheless I realize that this solution might cause problems in cases such as the BMW 3-Series wagon, which are sold in the US and Europe. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(Urgh - too much indentation!) The problem with using Sacxpert's idea of saying: '2-door sedan' and '2-door coupe' is that those terms don't translate very well between US and British dialects - and even in the US their definitions are horribly vague. I'm a Brit who lives in the US - so I'm something of an expert on these kinds of linguistic confusion. British people don't use the word 'sedan' - and if they did, the image that comes to mind is of some kind of big, ugly American car that drives like a boat...when in fact the term would apply to a Mini here in the USA. Coupe is even worse because even Americans can't agree on the definition and a good fraction of Brits would probably associate it with the French word 'coup' meaning 'cut' and would guess that you were talking about a car with the roof cut off...a convertible. There was a huge argument about this kind of confusion on the Mini page when I strictly interpreted the definition of a coupe rather than calling the car a sedan as Americans would classify it. So it would be much better to come up with some more transatlantic-neutral way of expressing the number of doors. That's why I'd prefer to not rely on those terms. Why not simply list the doors the vehicle has - along with their function? It works much more clearly - and has the same meaning no matter what English dialect you speak. Things get worse when you get into weird machines like the 3-door 4 seat BMW Isetta (that's 3 passenger doors - one at the front). What about the SmartCar - or worse still the new retro Citroen-2CV (is it a convertible? A T-top? A sedan? A coupe?) - or the Mini Moke or the Ariel Atom (no doors at all!) These terms fall apart and have confusing cultural connotations. It's not so bad that the terms are vague and confusing when they are merely descriptive of an overall style - but when you are trying to say that this car does or doesn't have a cargo door, that confusion becomes much more serious. SteveBaker 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(Disclaimer - if the following reads like an angry rant, it's not. I'm quite sanguine about the whole issue, but in proofreading it, I'm not certain that the tone of the text conveys that).

I think we're wandering too far off the original topic - its not about American/British ideas about what constitutes a sedan, or a convertible, or a crossover SUV coupé with a T-top. The original question is: "We've got a lot of articles that say 2-door coupe, but 3-door or 5-door hatchback, and then back to 2-door wagon and 4-door SUV.", in other words, hatchbacks use "3-door" and "5-door", and every other body-style uses "2-door" and "4-door". Well... that's just the way things are. Everyone here calls 'em 3-door and 5-door, and it's been that way literally for decades.

It's kind of shorthand. You tell someone you have a Golf hatchback, they don't know if it's a 3-door or 5-door. You take the transatlantic approach and tell someone you have a Golf 4-door, you could mean a hatchback, a sedan/saloon, or an estate/wagon. But you say "I have a Golf 5-door", you've immediately described it very accurately.

Having said all that, I'd be happy to dissociate any reference to the door count in the body style section of the infobox, if it's causing so much bother. But realistically, there's no way you could possibly get away with telling someone they were wrong to refer to a hatchback as a 5-door. It's like trying to argue that we should have a single spelling for carburetor or aluminum ~ Just treat it as an (annoying) Anglicism.

Regards, -- DeLarge 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My explanation of the problems with terms like 'sedan' and 'coupe' were not off-topic. A previous post had suggested that we could stick with the term '4 door' - even for vehicles with hatchbacks so long as we made clear by saying '4 door hatchback' or a '4 door sedan'. I was pointing out that terms like 'sedan' don't translate well into UK English. I agree that we have to tolerate a degree of linguistic mismatch if we want to keep US-english Wikipedia and UK-english Wikipedia (and Canada/Australia/etc) lumped together. However, we were not discussing the confusion with words like 'hood' (the roof of a convertible or the engine cover?) or the spelling of tyre/tire - we were talking about a STANDARD for infoboxes. I believe that the data in infoboxes should be precise and unambiguous. Such a standard should be as dialect-independent as possible - and it should work just as well for an obscure no-door Mini Moke or for a 3 (passenger) door Isetta as for a common '3-door' hatchback - without confusion. Saying "2 doors + 1 cargo door" is unambiguous and couldn't possibly be confusing. Suffixing the number of doors with vague qualifiers like 'sedan' and 'coupe' is confusing for a large fraction of our readers and saying "3 door" without qualifiers is also confusing (if you are reading about the 3-door Isetta or a so-called 3-door MINI). SteveBaker 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just on the point of "cases such as the BMW 3-Series wagon, which are sold in the US and Europe." — I've been discussing a similar point on another talk page and we've kinda agreed that in such cases it makes sense to go with where the car is built. Easy for Britain and the United States, harder for countries where there is no standard version of English. But since British English is the one which is an official language (in government terms) in the political entity of Europe, I believe it makes sense to opt for that one with European models, including the example of BMWs. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki policy is to continue the article in the dialect of the original author. This prevents dialect wars. So if the BMW 3-series wagon article was originally written by an American - it's OK to stick with US-english - but if the original article was in British-english you should stick with that. It's not a great rule - but it's a rule. 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right — but if any rules make me want to obey the "ignore all rules" rule, then that's the one! ;-) It seems to me like a charter for people to dash off and start stub articles just so they can "get in there first". If there's any argument for localisation which takes its merit from the topic, I'd say that surely that outweighs the editor. This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. Nevertheless, it's a good justification for saying "nail this edit war on the head right now" which is sadly sometimes needed. I note with sadness that one of our number (of car article editors), ApolloBoy, has today added a "WikiBreak" tag to his user page because he's had enough of the battles he's recently been involved with. It's a sad loss when that happens. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you guys are missing the bigger picture here. English Wikipedia is not only US and Commonwealth ;) Wikipedias lumped together. There are much more English users accross the world and here within WP than only native speakers. Not only do many non-native speakers edit English WP, but also a lot more use Wikipedia as a reference on a daily basis. English is the lingua franca of today, and therefore English Wikipedia is far more than US/UK/Canada/Australia/etc. Wikipedia.

I don't think it is possible to determine a "dialect" of a non-native English-speaking WP user, we all use more or less "broken English" ;) Besides, if somebody wrote two sentences and placed a stub template, and then the article was vastly expanded by some other user, which is the one that should be taken into consideration, especially if the first user did not specify his/her attitude towards doors ;) ?

On the other hand, in most cases it is possible to determine the "original market" of the vehicle - this is how we determine the article's name, don't we? AFAIK, continental Europe in general uses the "uneven door number standard" for all vehicles with a tailgate, the UK seems to apply it to hatchbacks and perhaps liftbacks (though they couriously seem not to recognize the latter as a separate body style), and the US (and perhaps Canada) are sticking with the "even door number standard". We would need some users from Asia, Latin America and other regions of the world to help with their standards, but in general I think it could be much more feasible just to stick with what is generally used in the "original market". So, BMW 3 Compact and Touring would be a 3-door and a 5-door respectively, while the Malibu Maxx would be a 4-door. How about that? Bravada, talk - 16:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument about English dialects has raged back and forth on Wikipedia since time immemorial - the policy has been talked to death and we aren't going to change it here. There has to be a way to end these kinds of disputes - and the way is to apply the rule. Obviously in cases where there is no disagreement then by all means break the rules - but where there is dispute, the dispute has to end - and in the interests of productivity and harmony, it has to end quickly - so apply the rule - there are more important things you can do for Wikipedia than to argue against such a well established policy. I've been talking about US and UK dialects because thats where the problems seem to come up the most - but obviously we have to use the same degree of tolerance for the other major English dialects too. Whilst it can be hard for a UK English speaker to write Australian English with confidence. I think most educated Americans can remember to write 'colour' and most Brits can fake 'Hood' and 'Trunk' instead of 'Bonnet' and 'Boot' - but we're all here for each other - when we slip up - let's quietly correct problems and do it with good grace. SteveBaker 03:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea in how to deal w/ the word sedan. We use the European termonology for pages already written in "Euro-english" (Of course this is a slight simplification, but you get the idea). I think this ideology can also be applied to the dispute of whether or not to use the "European" or "American" way of counting doors. In articles written in British English the door count used in the UK should be applied. In other Euro-english written articles the continental door count should be applied in American english articles the US door count would be applied. I hope this helps. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, how are we to determine which English "dialect" is a stub consisting of one or two sentences like "Doninvest Kondor was a car manufactured by Doninvest." written in? Besides, most European non-native English speakers I know would use the European door count, but would say "sedan" and "wagon" rather than "saloon" and "estate". I believe that the dialect rule might be ok to determine the "saloon"/"sedan" or "hood"/"bonnet" issues, but won't work that well with regard to doors. What would be wrong with "country of origin"? Bravada, talk - 08:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Take that question to the Wikipedia policy guys - we don't need to argue about it here because there will never be separate dialect rules for articles about cars. WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English has the answers. SteveBaker 13:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

X passenger doors + x cargo doors proposal

So the problem with using the "what dialect came first rule" in this case is that we are trying to come up with a standard for infoboxes - and we'd like those to be uniform-looking across all articles - and we certainly need them to be concise and unambiguous. At the outset of this thread, the intent was to find a form of words that avoids the whole mess of dialect-specific language for the number of doors a car has. The standard should not be to use the word sedan because that flat out doesn't work in a British English article - trust me, I'm British. Clearly, in the case of a word like 'colour/color' or the usage of a term like 'trunk/boot' there is no good way to avoid having to pick one dialect over the other - but in this case there is a clear, simple way to get around the problem of dialect and to have a single standard for expressing the number of doors a car has unambiguously within the infobox as "X passenger doors + Y cargo doors". I'm not saying "don't use 'sedan' in the article body". It's not hard to do - it's a heck of a lot clearer than "3 doors" (Isetta with 3 passenger doors or Civic with 2 passenger doors and 1 cargo door?) - it's not using dialect-specific words like "sedan" or culturally-specific conventions like 'an odd number of doors implies that this is a hatchback'. I don't see the problem here. SteveBaker 13:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Bravada is right it can be quite difficult to determine the type of English used in an article, so Steve's rule sounds plausable. While it is a bit strange to write it all out, 2 passenger and 1 cargo door, there is no chance anyone would misread such a discription and it would solve the problem for the odd door number cars. Regards, Signature^brendel 16:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Support (See below for reasons) We're helped by the fact that an infobox doesn't need to "scan" or read so nicely as the body text. I'm up for supporting this "proposal" of "x passenger doors + y cargo doors". Still don't know what the term for the back door on my Discovery is though ;-) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Support Yes, I am as well, in case that wasn't clear in my statement above. Signature^brendel 17:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

'Oppose, for three reasons.

1. No-one else talks about "passenger doors + cargo doors". I don't think it's our job to invent a standard unique to Wikipedia, since that immediately makes it less accessible to the casual reader. And for those who think it's less ambiguous, I think the use of the word "cargo" brings with it implications of commercial use which might introduce new ambiguity. What if the reader suddenly thinks he's reading an article about vans and trucks?
2. It'll look awful. In many browsers, it won't fit all in one line, so if you want to describe a Civic, which can have "two passenger doors + 1 cargo door", "four passenger doors", or "four passenger doors + 1 cargo door", that's going to look just plain silly. Someone ought to throw up a dummy infobox somewhere before everyone throws their weight behind this.
3. Right now there's a body_style entry in the infobox. Regardless of the regional language issues, "body style" is a description of the shape of the car, not the number of doors. We can't remove "sedan", "wagon", etc, so we're going to have to add a new field to the infobox. But with a new field, I think the info from both will be more than descriptive enough, regardless of the language (especially with wikilinking).

Regards -- DeLarge 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

VERY strong objection - this is a very good proposal in terms of not favoring any existing standard, but IMHO it is very wrong to create a brand new "WikiPedia door counting standard". It would be absolutely awkward and confusing, especially given the ambigious nature of "cargo doors". In all other places "5-door sedan", "4-door estate" etc. are used - why should WikiPedia be any different? The only problem is that in some specific cases doors are counted differently in America, UK and continental Europe, so we need to establish when to use which standard.

As concerns WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English, it says nothing about standards like that. It can be perfectly applied to the body of the article and perhaps infobox concerning the "saloon"/"sedan" thing and similar, but it does not tell you to give measurements in the imperial system when writing in American English or convert all values to GBP when writing in British. I believe this is regulated by spearate standards, and it seems there is no rule on that yet, and that this very project is the right place to establish that (just as other WikiProjects established standards concerning particularities within their respective areas).

Within this WikiProject, we established the "article naming rule" concerning cars sold under different names in different markets. It was not against any exisiting general WP rule, it was a rule devised for a specific group of articles requring special clarification. We use the "country of origin" standard. Then why not use it to establish the number of doors used too? If we believe more clarification is needed, why not add specific information on the discrepancies concerning "door count" to the articles on specific body styles (to which the infobox entries concerned should, in general, link)? Bravada, talk - 18:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, both concerns expressed by Delarge and Bravada make a strong point. If we were to implement this policy, we would create new standard a wiki standard which goes against the NO OR ideology/ But what is the alternative, we already have links in the infoboxes to the body style articles. So what should be mention in the infobox, 5-door wagon or 4-door wagon. Maybe we ought to not mention the number of door but just the body style. Signature^brendel 18:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there was already a standard, thanks to the article-naming debate, to use "country of origin". That criteria has been my preferred one throughout the saloon/sedan discussion, so now that I know about it, I'm persuaded by what Bravada is saying, and would be happy if it were the de facto standard for number-of-doors. :) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just using the body style name instead of listing the doors might cause confusion, though. What if a hatchback version of a car came with 3 or 5 doors, or if a station wagon had 2 or 4? Where and how would we note that in this case? --ApolloBoy 01:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Category question

I noticed today a few pages getting tagged with [[Category:Auto parts]] - which seems like a good thing - so I tagged a few more parts that had gotten missed. Then I noticed some articles with {{auto parts stub}} - and other articles with BOTH tags. Shouldn't all articles about car parts (whether stubs or not) be given [[Category:Auto parts]]? In many cases there just isn't much to say about a particular car part. My recent article Nerf bar is pretty much just a stub - but there really isn't all that much to say about a tube you bolt onto a truck to make a step! If we don't add the [[Category:Auto parts]] tag to stub articles then people won't be able to find them when they look at the auto parts catagory page. So I think stubs do need the [[Category:Auto parts]] tag - no matter how short they are. SteveBaker 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, these stubs should be categorized, otherwise they'll be almost lost. All articles and stubs here on wiki should be categorized instead of letting them float around in cyberspace. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're talking about this - pardon my WikiIgnorance - but what's the difference between {{auto parts stub}} and [[Category:auto parts stub]]? Are they in fact synonymous - in which case, is one form preferred over the other? SteveBaker 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually they are the same, a stub should feature the {{auto parts stub}}<nowiki> and articles with the <nowiki>[[Category:Auto parts]]. Perhaps, I misunderstood your question, nonetheless, an article or stub should feature one of the two as adding the stub template should automtically categorize the stub. Having both the stub template and category in an article or stub is overkill. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK! Well, I've been doing a LOT of tagging - there are a heck of a lot of articles about car parts! SteveBaker 13:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so! Especially as there are so many part stubs and articles is it so important to classify them. Thanks. Signature^brendel 17:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

True. If all stubs and articles are classified, navigating through Wikipedia would be much easier. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

AMC Matador progeny?

There is this one user who keeps insisting that the AMC Matador is actually the distant predecessor of the Chrysler LH-cars and the current LX-cars. He keeps adding the Eagle Premier, Eagle Vision and Chrysler 300M as "successors" to the Matador, even though the Matador was never really replaced in AMC's lineup. I keep removing this because most of his information is somewhat false and it does smell of of original research. He recently confronted me about it, and told me to "knock it off" and accused me of vandalism, when I had no such intentions. What should I do? --ApolloBoy 00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've not looked into this example. But generally I'd say: ask him to cite references, and check them. If he can't, and doesn't offer any reason, but just forms arguments against you (vandalism) or against citing references, then you're pretty justified in feeling cross. However, try to assume good faith, like maybe this is just his favourite topic in the whole world... and crucially, keep showing good faith yourself. The next thing I'd suggest doing is putting a {{fact}} tag after his comments, which indicates to all readers that the facts are in question, and they should trust them with caution, or do their own research. If you're lucky, somebody else may provide a reference. Or, somebody else may revert his edits. I'd recommend that you don't revert them again yourself for a while, because it can just become an edit war. If nobody else does it, then revisit it in a little while, maybe a couple of weeks so that there's been time to cool off, and if there are still no references, consider reverting then. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also don't become to irritated by comments to "knock it off" on your talk page just ignore any heated posts this user might have left on your talk page. Otherwise I think its best to just wait a while and file a RfC or request an admin investigation of the demeanor worsnens. Of course, keeping the benefit of our readers in mind you should delete any information you know is false. We should not be billboard for info that is plainly false. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, now he's gotten around to calling me a nuisance, and tried to explain to him on the article's talk page. He seems quite insistent now, so what should I do now? --ApolloBoy 06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you know for sure that the info he's adding is false reverse it. If then continues with such comments request an investigation by the admins. Signature^brendel 06:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Should I lock the page from editing at this point? I don't know how he'll react, so I'm not quite sure whether to do so or not. What do you think? --ApolloBoy 06:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If his edits are false, yes. We shouldn't act on the basis of intimidation. There are always ways to deal with inappropriate behavior. In other words we shoul do whatever is neccesary to provide our readers to best info possible and maintain our repuatation and integrity. Let me know if there are any more problems. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiarthurhu has mentioned "a book of US cars to 1990 which establishes that the next AMC midsize was the Premier."
If no-one objects, I'm going to leave a message on his talk page requesting an ISBN reference which can be cited in the article. If he can't provide that, I'd be happy to see it removed, since the article as it stands makes only a very tenuous link between the vehicles (i.e. A --> ten year gap --> B --> C does not really equal A --> C).
-- DeLarge 10:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE:

ISBN numbers were included for two of the four books, and using the given titles I was able to properly tag the other two. If anyone wants to take a trip to the library to check them out they can, but I'm not that interested; the claim about the connection between the cars is no longer unreferenced, which keeps me happy.

I also reverted the opening paragraph. Wiarthurhu's latest version reads as follows:

"The AMC Matador was a moderately successful intermediate size car built and sold by the American Motors Corporation (AMC) from 1971 to 1978. It is notable for being a fairly anonymous sedan, and also a remarkably styled coupe which appeared in American culture in NASCAR, police departments, toys and movies."

Seemed a bit heavy on the POV hyperbole, so I restored the previous version:

"The AMC Matador was an intermediate size sedan and coupé built and sold by the American Motors Corporation (AMC) from 1971 to 1978. The Matador succeeded the Rebel nameplate which had been in use since 1967. Its absence would not be filled until the Eagle Premier which would set the pattern for future Chrysler sedans."

However, looking through the comments on the article's history page, [8] where the user has edited as both himself and two IPs (71.112.5.20 & 131.107.0.73), it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he'll revert it - he treads fairly close to the edge of civility (in my opinion) in his edit comments, regardless of how constructive or neutral the original editor was.

On a barely related issue, the introduction to the article is now four paragraphs long and could probably do with pruning - WP:LS recommends 2-3 paragraphs for an articles of this size, and this one does seem to be getting a bit porky.

-- DeLarge 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This way the sources are okay and unless somebody whose an expert on the issue knows that the edits are flase, the edits by the anon user can remain. If he continues to to exhibit offensive behavior he should be warned. The version you put in is quite a bit better that the strikingly POV version put in by the anon user. Thanks for contributing. Signature^brendel 00:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes which AMC midsize came after the Matador. The problem is that the next one came TEN YEARS after the Matador ceased production and shared essentially zero parts with it, was styled totally differently and had a totally different name - so the claim that one was the successor to the other is pretty tough to justify. I have one of those four references (The Great Book of American Automobiles) and I don't think it says anything like Wiarthurhu thinks it does - of course, one of the other three might contradict that. SteveBaker 13:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounded a bit suspect to me, to be honest. However, my initial proposal was to get some stability in the article and to put an end to the revert warring. User:ApolloBoy's apparent departure accelerated that.

I think perhaps the confusion is the meaning of "successor" in the infobox,and I agree with your interpretation that it doesn't apply to mechanically unrelated cars 10 years apart. To use a parallel example, I don't think the 1995 Fiat Barchetta has a "predecessor", even though Fiat has a huge history of producing pretty little spyders in the '60s.

I guess we're on to step two - use the power of community consensus to settle this. I won't be a lot of use here - I know little and care less about the car - but I noticed that User:Litefantastic made an edit today. He was involved in the article a few months back, and may provide an independent expert voice?

Also, I noticed more reverts by User:Wiarthurhu, and I think he's exhibiting signs of "ownership" with regards to this article. Sigh... I've a feeling this one could turn nasty. -- DeLarge 18:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OMG, the state the Matador article is in now is disturbing at least. I guess we need to wait some time until emotions cool off and try to fix it. In the meantime, this might be a good idea to set a standard for the "successor" field in the infobox. I would say that it should be either:

The vehicle explicitly referred to as successor by the manufacturer/marketer.

OR

A vehicle that was launched within 5 years from the last model year of the vehicle concerned and was/is sold under the same brand and belongs to the same class.

How about that? Bravada, talk - 19:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. BTW, one of Wiarthurhu's IPs (mainly 71.112.5.20) responded to one of my messages on his talk page, and stated that I'm "brash" and that I need to learn "that the world doesn't revolve around [me]". Sigh... --ApolloBoy 19:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading the Wiktionary definition of the word "Successor" is useful in this context. SteveBaker 21:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nowww they tell me the party is here. If the Impala nameplate is discarded and revived 20 years later, it would be a succesor. If the rebel turns into a nearly identical Matador, it's a sucessor. If AMC eventually fields another large car after abandoning the Matador, it is logically the last of a long line of large cars starting with the 1930s Nash Ambassador, both are linked by market position and company. Such an assertion shouldn't be labeled as "vandalism" or "nonsense" as was initially stated by Apolloboy. There is certainly no debate that the Premier->LH->LX sequence, or the Ambassador->Rebel->Matador sequence. Is there a law that says that the link between the two lines must be cut, and if so, why does Apolloboy have the right to declare it "nonsense"? I happen to have once been a youth that thought a Matador would be a cool car to have today, and find that the closest identifiable legacy is the 300C and Charger. If ford waits 20 years for the next Thunderbird, is that then no longer a succesor? If Ford doesn't replace the contour until the fusion, is the successor the Taurus and Focus, or the Fusion? If somebody writes that the Ford Cortina was a predecessor to the Pinto, can it be ripped up the the comment "removed vandalism"? Is that the way things work around here? --Wiarthurhu 00:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, just give this one up graciously. You've lost already. Continuing to push this against all objections is losing what remaining credibility you have - and none of us want that. Two cars separated by 10 years, sharing no mechanical parts with different names and (it now emerges thanks to ApolloBoy's research) not even classed in the same group simply CANNOT be classified as successors. IMHO, the Matador article is in need of serious rework anyway - it's very light on facts and full of 'filler' stuff like that people made toys of it (name one car that doesn't have toys made like it!). I've cleaned it up some to get rid of redundancy and generally make it look more like a Wikipedia article. But I know nothing about that vehicle - and I have no real desire to research it properly (big, ugly American boat-mobiles that corner like a jello skateboard....URGH!). It really needs someone with some decent reference books to get in there and tell us stuff like how fast it went, how much gas it used, what engines there were, what changed from one model year to the next, who designed it, what market need was it intended to meet - why did it die? We need more photos of real cars and less 'fair use' junk - and definitely no photos of some crummy wooden model. We need ALL of the fields of the infobox filled out. In short - the article really needs a complete do-over. Compared to this - the question of successor or not is UTTERLY irrelevent. SteveBaker 03:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion, Wiarthurhu! If you'd take a look at your very own talk page, you'd see you have been invited here the day the discussion started. What I want to say is that we really appreciate your passion for the AMC Matador, and presumably other AMC vehicles, and believe you may add many valuable contributions to articles on them, as well as other car-related articles on Wikipedia, which is the aim of this project.

Still, you seem to be quite fixated on an issue we believe is not within the standards this Wikiproject adopted. The "successor" field in the infobox is used to name the immediate successor of a given car, within the same brand. We are not using it to point towards ANY vehicle that might be seen as "continuing the lineage". I think you might agree that, compared to immediate successors like Chevrolet Aveo to Chevrolet Metro or Mazda6 to Mazda 626, the Premier-Matador claim seems to be quite weak. Not only has there been a 10 year gap between the two, but also the Premier was never intended to even be sold under the AMC brand, and was a quite different vehicle (to some extent, due to the changes in the market). It was even hardly launched and manufactured by AMC, as the whole company got absorbed by Chrysler Group then. What is the most important, I have never heard of AMC referring to the model as "successor to the Matador", and this is what matters most.

What I am trying to say is that the Wikipedia users can be confused when they see the Eagle Premier stated as successor, as this would make it equivalent to, say, Mondeo with regard to Sierra, when it clearly is not the case. We are trying to adopt some uniform rules here that would help the articles to be more comprehensible for the average user, even if this means some compromises on delicate issues. I hope you will understand that and join our efforts within the project. Happy editing! Bravada, talk - 08:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I should perhaps explain that I was called to task for saying that the BMW 'New' MINI was the successor of the classic Mini!! Production of the former started mere months after the latter ended - the cars have the same name and fit into the exact same market niche. They have similar styling and configuration. People were upset that I'd named it successor because the two cars shared no parts, were six months apart and the company ownership had changed in the meantime. We eventually agreed to keep that successor/predecessor relationship - mainly (I believe) because BMW themselves strongly identify the new car as the successor to the old and there is documented evidence of the company setting out quite deliberately to design a direct successor. But if that relationship was questioned and had to be vigerously debated - you can see why the evidence for the Matador/Eagle relationship is considered so incredibly flimsy. SteveBaker 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fiat Panda (old and new)

I stumbled across this when an editor made a change on the List of automotive superlatives page. The smallest four cylinder diesel belongs to the Fiat Panda, and the link was changed from [[Fiat Panda]] to [[New Fiat Panda]]. My initial reaction was: "well, that'll be a red link to fix", but no, apparently there's an Old Fiat Panda page and a New Fiat Panda page. I didn't think the titles were very encyclopedic, and neither of them have a huge amount of content either, so I couldn't quite see why they'd be separate. Turns out the editors apparently want to keep them apart.[9][10] I think it might be something to do with Template:Modern European Fiat vehicles. Before I attach a {{merge}} tag to it, I thought I'd invite discussion. -- DeLarge 19:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime the newer car should reciprocate the disambiguation-style top-of-page link to the other car. I'm going to "be bold" and do that just now, pending any other changes. (Written at 19:06 but beset by edit conflicts!) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge As both articles are quite small and the new Panda is obviously the successor to the old Panda both articles should definitely be merged. We also have only one article for the Chevrolet Impala, and Lincoln Zephyr. This case is very similar so the merge tag should be added and both articles merged. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Can I say anything more? Merge! Bravada, talk - 19:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the articles aren't all that small - and the two cars they refer to are pretty different. I'd vote to keep them separate. There is scope for growth of both articles - and it's painful to separate them again later because links end up pointing to the composite article. When I split Mini into Mini and MINI (BMW) I had to edit 600 articles to sort out which ones were talking about the old Mini versus the new MINI!! In an ideal world I'd say 'merge but keep redirects from the two separate places' - that way, other authors could link to whichever redirect had the name of one they really meant and a subsequent split would be easier - but there is a fanaticism amongst some robot authors about removing links to redirects - so that doesn't work. I do hate the names of the articles though. What happens when there is a "Panda III" ? The 'New Panda' page would then be 'old'! It doesn't make sense to build in trouble for the future. SteveBaker 22:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

At present, there are less than 50 links to either page, including redirects, references in discussion pages, and most of them are references from the Fiat templates, so sorting that out wouldn't be too much of a fuss (I can do that myself if that's a problem). Secondly, the "Old" Panda article is not that big at all, while the "New" article seems big because it contains some garagntuan tables listing trim levels and some other quite irrelevant info, gossip, POV statements and other stuff. Merging them would be a good occassion to clean it all up. Together, they would probably be not longer than 2/3ds of the Chevy Impala article (which deals with more models made over a longer span of time). And, of course, the names are awful and should be done away with ASAP, as they create a terrible precedent.

I agree that linking to redirects is not too good, as this might lead to linking to redirect to redirect to redirect, which causes some annoyances for the reader. I'd say links should lead directly to the approporiate section of the given article. What annoys me though is the removal of categories from redirects. For example, Chevrolet Aveo, which is a redirect now, had the category Chevrolet vehicles removed - so, what are we supposed to do now, add Daewoo Kalos to Chevrolet vehicles??? Is this a fixed WP policy, or are some people just overtly fussy? Bravada, talk - 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How about making a sub-category? Something like Category:Formerly-Daewoo Chevrolet models (although that top-of-my-head suggestion is horrendously unweildy). The thing which makes this acceptable is a well written destination article, which would explain early on about the multiple brands. Hopefully, anybody with an interest is going to read the article, not just the category. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, not really, as this is a CURRENTLY-Daewoo-Chevrolet-Pontiac-Suzuki-Holden model, and, as such, should be listed under all categories, and categorizing relevant redirects seems the best way to do so. I found nothing forbidding categorizing of redirects at either WP:CAT or WP:R, so either I am too tired to see it, or there is nor reason to decategorize redirects. Oh, and merge the Pandas! :D Bravada, talk - 23:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bravada is right, there is no policy againt adding multiple categories, it only makes sense in some cases. I think we got a resultion here! Signature^brendel 01:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Oh gulp, I see the point now. I'd been assuming it was a global rebranding. Ah well. In which case, how about sticking a comment in the talk page of the redirect, asking that the category be left alone? Not every meddler (*grin*) or robot will consult the talk page, but it may stop some removals of the category from the redirect. Oh, and yeah, I'll join the campaign... merge the Pandas!– Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, looks like we have reached consensus here, so I followed my favorite Wiki rule: Be Bold and merged the two. Also, English was the only language in which there was no one Fiat Panda article. Signature^brendel 02:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)