Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Template:Toyota vehicle

I notice the recent creation of {{Toyota vehicle}}. I'm wondering whether a more general template (which could be used for any vehicle make) might be more appropriate, or whether a template is required at all. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Kerb Lamps

I notice we're missing or at least i can't find an article on the humble Kerb Lamp, the lamps built into the door mirrors of so many cars in the UK and Europe nowadays. A kerb lamp activates a light at the floor where the door opens to help you avoid walking in puddles or tripping on a gutter/kerb. Can someone make this article or a redirect to the appropriate article? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 13:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

...Not to be confused with the indicators that are often built into mirror casings nowadays...ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 13:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, those pointless lights. We have a mention of them at automotive lighting, and I think this is sufficient. I can vouch that these puddle lamps, along with the ones that illuminate from underneath the exterior door handles serve no purpose but to make the car look a little more "special" when approaching it at night. When you unlock the car, the interior lights come on anyway, providing an ample light source to stop the uncoordinated from falling over gutters, etc. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose an entire article about them would be difficult. I'm happy to just create a Kerb Lamp and Kerb Light redirect in that case. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hotchkiss Drive

It seems to me that this article omits an important part of the description of Hotchkiss drive. I'm referring to the transmission of drive forces from the wheels (acting against the road) back to the vehicle to push it forward (or backwards), in this case through its leaf springs. Its easy to see I'm no engineer, would anyone else like to have a go at a correction? Eddaido (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Race car and kit car manufacturers - are they part of the "automotive industry" or a seperate category

Trekphiler and I have been discussing my inclusion of race car manufacturers in Automotive industry in New Zealand. The reason behind them being in the article is because they are a part of the New Zealand's automotive industry (all be it a small part), they make multiple cars for sale to drivers and teams, and are not one team cars. As you will gather from the article NZ now only has a very tiny industry in terms of the global one.

Trekphiler has said he is happy to see the NZ race builders put back in, but debate would be a good idea, if only to settle whether this is "auto industry" or "sport" or something else. It's never been clear in his mind (or mine for that matter) just where the line between, say, Ferrari, Lotus, & Lola is compared to, IDK, Miller (the Indy car builder). He also has some doubts about including kit builders in "auto industry". I, on the other hand think they fit within the NZ context, but not necessarily all.

What are your thoughts NealeFamily (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I hate slow browsers....

It's fairly obvious to me the issue goes beyond the particular page. Let me say, to begin with, I've never been clear race builders who aren't also manufacturers are "auto industry". Thus, Ferrari & Lotus are, but Lola & Miller, maybe not, & American Dolphin & its like, or Holman & Moody, almost certainly not. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

CG

I would like to make a proper entry for the Chappe et Gessalin cars (1000, 1200, and 1300) but don't know what the best name for such an article would be. Normally the norm seems to be naming it for the first iteration of the car (CG 1000 in this case), but the CG 1000 were always very rare, no more than prototypes in reality (around 80 built in the end). 1200 was the most common one, but CG-Simca seems to be a popular way to describe the entire range. Any better suggestions? Mr.choppers | ✎ 07:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

New one for me. I see the French WP uses CG 1000, 1200 and 1300 though that perhaps it a little excessive... Certainly plenty of Google hits for CG Simca (without the hyphen) so obviously a popular retrospective name.Warren (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have a lot of clear and simple (and reliable) sources of your own, the easiest way to start would be to translate each of the entries from French wiki. In those circumstances you only introduce gratuitous complexity if you don't also follow the file names from French wiki. They might or might not not be perfect. But actually they do make sense to me. And as far as I remember from involvement (as a non-IT fluent-speaking party) in setting up database file structures, when dealing with computer file structures, "one to one" relationships (between files in different languages) are far easier for subsequent administration and directory maintenance than "one to two"s and "two to three"s and "three to one"s. Otherwise every editor has to understand what the last one was thinking when he/she did what she did, and some of us - myself included - aren't always bright enough to manage that. Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but that would mean three separate articles for a single car with not all that much to write about it. I am happy to see an article about the CG berlinetta, but to break it into three would be equivalent to having separate articles for the 3.8 and 4.2 E-types. Mr.choppers | ✎ 07:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you just have to judge these things on a case by case basis. There is no one size fits all answer. In this particular case, there are three separate french language articles - one for each of the three cars - and none of the three is either embarassingly short nor embarassingly bad. They're quite informative. They all follow a similar structure and probably were originally set up on the same basis by a single enthusiast, but there is relatively little - apart from the structure - that is shared between the three. Someone managed to find sufficient useful and interesting material for each of the three cars. Whether the three cars are as similar to one another as the 3.8 and 4.2 XK-Es are to each other is evidently a matter of perception. My perception, drawn from the francophone articles, is that the differences between the three C&Gs was greater than that, though I freely admit to not knowing much more about them than what I just read in the three articles aforementioned. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't have enough material for three articles - guess I'll just leave it be. Mr.choppers | ✎ 08:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesbn't matter what other language ones do... I would support the expansion of the three models into one good article. Still not sure what the best name for the article is they don't feature in my two UK published 1945-1970 A-Z guides... Warren (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Austin template

In undertaking some minor editing with the late 1940s Austins, I was surprised to see that there is no Austin timeline template to cover the 1905 to 1952 period (Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Templates/Timelines). Anyone up to the task? Warren (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As you infer, it's a task likely to become quite complicated as you struggle with light tens and heavy tens and overweight tens and all the different cars that got called A40. Which is a good reason for noone to have attempted it. But I enthusiastically endorse your vote for someone - preferably someone else - who understands about the weird and wonderful world of Austins in the 1930s, 40s and 50s (after which it seems to have become a bit simpler) to do it! Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised how many gaps there are with the early Austin models. I've started Austin 25/30 and Austin 40 hp to get things rolling, though plenty more work here before a timeline can be done with any certainty. Warren (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The only other thought I had was that Culshaw and Horrobin ("The Complete Catalogue of British Cars 1895 - 1975") might make a good place to start even if, at a detailed level, one might end up with a few dates that need correcting. Proof reading tabulated information is a horrible and difficult job. Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Its huge job to do, we could use this as base List of Austin motor cars, but the cars would need to be categorized somehow, maybe use some other brand timeline as base and start building on that. It doesnt need to be complete at the beginning. -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made a start for pre-1939 Template:Austin Motor Company. What a pain the coding of tables in Wikipedia... The List of Austin motor cars and the list within Austin Motor Company could do with some consolidation/editing to avoid errors in overlap. Warren (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone with the requisite knowledge would make a cocktail napkin sketch of this table I'd be more than happy to help turning it into a proper table. Mr.choppers | ✎ 08:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you suggesting Mr Choppers? It is a proper table, just with some models still to be added! Warren (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was offering to help make a table before I realized you had already made one. Looks nice, cheers, Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

By all means get stuck into editing it! though I think I have got the 1905-1939 pretty much sorted now bar a few tweaks to dates. The 1939-1960s will be rather harder with the number of existing articles using a variety of naming protocols... might need to have a long hard think how best to do that without cheesing off all the Austin aficionados! Warren (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Automobile classifications

Hi just noticed one editor is adding european,american and british classfifications to automobile articles, how we should deal this one, remove or add to all articles.. see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ravanellidiciamo -->Typ932 ^T·C 09:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that last night. I would have thought that the content of C-Cegment could be merged with Compact Car, as with the other relevant clasifications that are the same. This happens for a number of body types (Saloon/Sedan springs to mind) so don't see why it can't be for the shared segment sizes. Also it appears a little pointless for the UK to be merged already with the US, but Europe is alone... Warren (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nuisance editor

Urbanowatcher (talk · contribs), an editor from the Russian wikipedia, is making a nuisance of him/herself by repeatedly inserting badly written and poorly sourced material into automotive articles. It would help if other members of this project could keep an eye on this editor's contributions. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted/edited a few more of this author's additions. He seems keen on adding tables of production figures, which is fine if they are sourced, but also adds a bizarre and badly formatted purple bar chart formed from table cells. Where the tables were properly sourced I kept the data and just removed the bars. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done that twice, too. FWIW, I also posted a suggestion to his talk he practise his English elsewhere, 'cause he's just borrowing trouble otherwise. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Automotive industry in New Zealand has had one of Urbanowatcher's random tables added. I have posted a query on their user page to try to figure out what it is meant to be. NealeFamily (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

He is at it again. I would appreciate others taking another look at his work. He simply doesn't listen to reason. Much more and I'm going to go for an ANI or RFC on him. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Production years and model years when start dates don't line up

We've come across an interesting case at Lexus IS. The IS was launched in Japan in 1998, Europe in 1999 and in the US in 2000 (for what they call a 2001 model year). The production dates in the infobox naturally say '1998–present' but I'm not sure what the model years should be. Possible solutions are:

Add world production dates as US model years (ie 'model years: 1999-present'). But this implies that it was sold in the US from 1998 onwards. It's almost guaranteed that an American will "correct" this to '2001–present'.
Add the model years as the car appeared in the US - ie 'model years: 2001-present'. But this implies to Americans that the car did not exist at all before 2000 (ie 2001 model year). It also looks inconsistent to have one infobox field say 1998 and the other field to say 2001, leading Americans to "fix" the production dates or non-Americans to "fix" the model years.
Add the model years as 'model years: 2001-present (American markets only)'. Looks clumsy. Perhaps with better wording. Could set a bad precedent for adding different years for each and every market in the production dates.
Drop the model years altogether. But sooner or later an American will change the production dates (which are in calendar years) to US style model years for 2001-present.

Each solution I can think of has a significant problem. Can anyone else think of a better solution? Stepho talk 04:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm voting for #4 (drop it entirely). The least confusing option, and the intro can contain the US-specific info. Mr.choppers | ✎ 05:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto on option 4, this is a world encyclopaedia. No problem having US models years in the body of the article if appropriate and properly sourced. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A possible way: tag it "1998 (Japan)" or "1998 (domestic market)".

If that doesn't suit, or risks confusion, add me to the "delete". Mention it in the text. Infoboxes are meant to be simple & clear, not comprehensive. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Number 4. The "model years" parameter is being abused in too many places, and this is one of them. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

TP: Tagging it 'Japan' sets the precedent of tagging it for each and every country. We only separate out the Americans because their naming system is different to calendar years but it is impossible to tell calendar years and model years apart (eg does 1995 mean calendar year or model year?)

'domestic market' changes depending on the reader. Eg the Camry is made in Japan, the US and Australia. It could be considered 'domestic' by all three. Stepho talk 09:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I just clarify that by "drop the model years altogether" we mean removing it from the template to prevent its abuse? That would be one way to stop the problem and also to tidy up existing articles in one fell swoop. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who supported the "model years" parameter in the first place. My intention was that it would be mainly be restricted to articles about North American cars which were using the "production" field to denote model years. The introduction of "model years" allowed both forms to be displayed unambiguously. I also feel the parameter has its use in foreign cars sold prominently in North America, such as Toyota's Camry and Avalon.

Since this time, we have seen articles as diverse as Mercedes-Benz and BMWs, plus Japanese cars with only a small North American presence adopt this field. For the same reason that we don't have multiple production fields for other markets, I really don't believe we should be including a field simply so North American readers can see at a glance the availability of a certain model in their market. "Model years" in my opinion needs to be watered-down in its use substantially.

Unfortunately, doing so means that when the BMW 3 Series (E90) page states production: 2005–2012, North American editors will come along and "correct" this to 2006–2012 to reflect model year availability in one continent. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't support removing the information at all. If it was produced first in 1998 in Japan then list it as 1998. Just change the parameter name to "Produced first in" rather than "Produced in" (or whatever it's called) to avoid confusion. It would be a shame to lose this information on every car simply because some are complex. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember back a couple years before we had 'model years'. Say a particular car was sold from August 1998 to June 2002. The production date in the infobox would be shown as 1998-2002. But an American would call this same time period as 1999-2002 model years and many Americans kept "fixing" the production date to match their view of things. We spent a lot of time repairing their "fixes". The model years field was essentially like fly paper, the Americans would alter the model years field and leave the production dates field alone, keeping both sides happy as long as the real dates in American and non-American markets lined up close enough. If we remove the model years field then those bad old days will return. We can alleviate things a little by putting months in the production dates (Americans can tell that Aug 1998 and model year 1999 mean the same thing) but many vehicles don't have a month for us to show. As much as I loath model years, option 4 will cause a lot of recurring work for us.

Jenova: we still need a way to disambiguate calendar years as used by most of the world and model years as used by Americans. Stepho talk 09:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Something sorts out the spelling of kerb weight v curb weight. Would that help out? Eddaido (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

But production dates would be fine anyway if we list them as the first and last right? If it's "98-05" in Japan and "99-06" in America don't we just list it as "98-05" (Japan) and underneath "99-06" (North America)?

Or if it's "98-05" in Japan and "99-06" in America we can just list it as 98-06" since that would be the worldwide view? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm, except the production dates for the US (not in but for the US, all IS's are built in Iwate, Japan) are 00-05, and the US model year dates are 01-05. Meanwhile, model year dates for other markets are 99-05 and calendar dates are 98-05. Now do you see the problem? Mr.choppers | ✎ 07:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Recalling this sort of thing has arisen before, & acknowledging there's no simple answer, I reiterate: delete. This is trying to make the infobox do things it's not equipped to do. So, delete & let the text handle it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? I would think this is exactly what the infobox is for. We already use it and the "AKA" field for multiple names. A production date is easily notable, encyclopedic and useful and should certainly be included in the infobox. Let's not forget the issue here is apparently North American editors being overzealous and not the infobox field itself. Maybe renaming the field would make it clearer? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Model Years is a marketing construct, and is a pain in the neck for most non-Amercian editors as it does not necessarily relate to the rest-of-the-world's view. Some model year changes are limited to a change of colour or a minor equipment shuffle, but nothing particularly interesting until a facelift comes along... There is also a difference which is not fully resolved in some articles between years manufactured and years on sale (a product can remain on the price list for quite some time depending on stocks in a particular country). I think Jenova makes the point well that the name for production years could be clarified to avoid incorrect US edits? Warren (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How you can mix production years and model years, they are totally different, if one doesnt understand what is production (manufacturing) that has to be explained somehow. The only problem is that those model years can be different in other countries , so that should be also told that its for US -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason I am arguing for deletion (in this particular case) is that the Model Year notion has spread far beyond just the US. It is not of the same importance, but there is a reason that the "1988 Auto Katalog" was published in August 1987 - because it deals with cars of model year 1988. Many other countries besides also use model years, to more or less of an extent, meaning that if the Lexus IS "model year" field reflects only the US state of affairs (2001) it is essentially untrue. If we call the first model year 1999 then a bunch of Americentric editors will insist on reverting it to 2001. Leaving it out entirely seems like less work and also doesn't contain an inherent untruth. I am not arguing for the wholesale deletion of the Model Year field (as much as its existence irks me), but only in this one particular case where the various years are so very different. I would also recommend a hidden explanation of why there ought to be no model year field, hopefully avoiding thoughtless changes. Mr.choppers | ✎ 07:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

But then we're deleting information to keep editors from changing it rather than making it clearer with either more context or renaming the field. We don't use the same logic in naming disputes - we call the vehicle by the first name it had. Likewise we should use the same logic here and list the field under the first year it was manufactured and the first year it was sold, with a reference if one is available. Any idiot who then changes it when there's a reference following it can be freely sacrificed to imhotep for not bothering to read it.

Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Graphs of output by year of auto industry

(from [1]) Why do you insist on using the bars in your tables, as you did on Automotive industry in Mexico ([2]) and many other articles? It is not a helpful way to display data. If you want to produce a graph, then please do that offline and upload an image to Wikimedia Commons, or use some other method, but tables are not appropriate for this sort of data. For now I have reverted your addition, but obviously if you want to upload the table and sources, minus the graph, then please go ahead. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you (or others) will be correct to keep very important for Wiki figures like in US, Italian autoind article if you subjectively hate graphs even. Wiki is not pretty album but deal encyclopedia. I think it is visual vivid to observe the dynamics. And I was not the first "inventor of bicycle". As you see, UK (still), Italian autoind and many other stable articles in other themes had such graphs already. And it was great meaning to use exact tabled graphs. As against of pictured graphs, the tabled graphs more open for wikieditors and may be changed in Wiki directly when update, adding or corrections often need.Urbanowatcher (talk)

I reiterate, if you want to display graphs, then display graphs, not shaded in tables. There are a number of open-source packages (e.g.] Openoffice.org that can be used to create graphs from tables then export to image format. So create a graph, upload it to commons and display it as an image. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly not seeing the value of a graph. The production numbers are there. Surely its not too much to ask for people to actually read them? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A sortable table for a single set of figures gives people what they want. A graph in this instance is unnecessary fluff. A graph may be useful when showing multiple sets of figures. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not opposed to graphs, but better if made into a nice (stable) image rather than a table like these. Mr.choppers | ✎ 07:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

List of fastest production cars

Is it possible to get a consensus around what constitutes a production car in the List of fastest production cars. The article uses the same requirements as the List of automotive superlatives with the top speed verified by an independent road test.

The requirements are production road cars that:

1.are constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);

2.have had 20 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition (cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible); and;

3.are street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.

At the moment the article is subject to attack over this issue, so I presume it is controversial. NealeFamily (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the attack on this issue? I thought you were mumbling on about confusing the top speed of prepared cars vs production cars, not the definition of a production car. Guinness made two statements- they tested a prototype and got a speed, and said the XK120 was the fastest production car. Both statements may be true, individually, they are both verifiable, since we have an RS for them. I agree the one does not lead to the other. I don't mind the definition of a production car, I'd add that really it needs to be produced on an assembly line, not coachbuilt, since production car is short for mass production car, I suspect. Oh, and hi anoraks, I think this is the first time I've been to anorak HQ. Greglocock (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the criteria, except the "20", & with the proposition "assembly line" is necessary. The first could conceivably leave off any number of Ferraris built in small numbers; do they not qualify? The second would seem to exclude all Ferraris & Morgans (AFAIK), not to mention any number of other marques I know nothing about. Neither is a desirable outcome IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Who thar, morgans are pushed from station to station aren't they? or do they randomly throw parts at a point on the concrete floor? Greglocock (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

[[3]]l

they push them from station to station, just like Henry told them to. I don't know about Fazzas but Lotii are generally built on a production line process. Greglocock (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

To my mind, 'production car' means a car that was produced form the ground up, rather than a car that was modified from an existing car. It could be hand produced (eg Morgan) or mass produced (eg Ford). Technically it means any car that is a saleable product of a company, as opposed to a concept car, show car, test car, pre-production car or the local rev-head's modified car. Tuner shops that take your car and then modify don't count (the product is the extra parts, not the whole car). Tuner shops that take a car from the original manufacturer, modify it and sell with their own name as the legal manufacturer (eg Shelby Mustangs or Brock Commodores) do count. Stepho talk 04:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

♠Say "assembly line", I think of something able to produce 250,000 a year each of five models different only by grilles & badges. Moggies & the like are hand-crafted in batches so small, a Monte plant shift could finish them on their breaks.

♠I'd agree with Stepho: production is what rodders call "stone stock". I'd disagree on the Shelbys & their like, tho, because that's into tuner territory, & now you're blurring the lines. I've never thought of the Shelby 'stangs or AMG Benzes as strictly production cars, & certainly not stone stock. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned Shelby in particular because their vehicles are registered with the US government with 'Shelby' as the manufacturer. In the eyes of the US government and insurance companies, a Shelby GT350 Mustang is a stock production car (assuming it hasn't been further modified in private hands). Stepho talk 06:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The federal government also certifies mileage figures which are a fiction, so I'm not persuaded. Those 'stangs were built by Ford & finished by Shelby. Every description I've read of how they were built says as much. That they're badged Shelby doesn't change anything. They're not "production" any more than the Yenko Camaros were. Or the "stock" Daytonas. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, Germany's Alpina is considered a manufacturer in its own right by the TüV, but I wouldn't include it here. Anyhow, these never-ending lists of fastest/widest/etc cars are really of little encyclopaedic interest and might best be considered as a way to keep otherwise destructive editors busy with meaningless work, rather than messing up useful articles. Probably not the proper attitude, but whatevs. Mr.choppers | ✎ 08:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

From the discussion so far, I conclude that if Wiki is to have a list with any sort of superlative relating to vehicles then the type of vehicle needs to be defined. The problem, which seems to be reasonably substantial, then comes down to a whole list of items such as how many vehicles make a production number. Are accessories a modification, and what about firms who specialize in recreating cars as are discussed above? For instance Shelby make the SSC, their own vehicle from ground up and the Cobra Mustang which is modified Ford. Then there are the various categories of production vehicle used in racing, rallying, etc - do they count and what about manufacturers who make a limited number to reach a particular superlative - ie Bugatti?

Mr.choppers has suggested such lists are of little encyclopaedic interest (but a useful distraction for destructive editors) and Greglocock (Greg correct me if I am misreading you) thinks they are pointless.

Should we pursue the topic or let it die? NealeFamily (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Shelby Super Cars" does not make any Cobras or Mustangs. Those are made by "Carroll Shelby International". These are two unrelated companies. ;) 93.183.236.121 (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My bad, thanks for correcting me. But you get my drift NealeFamily (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A list of the fastest cars is of interest, but this particular one is bogged down by the undefinable. "What is a production car?" will be a subjective debate for a long time to come and life is too short... Perhaps a run of two could be considered production? What makes 20 the magic number? Warren (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Found a Wiki page called Production vehicle which I have just edited and tried make encyclopedic enough for the topic. There is no magic number unless you are racing production cars in a particular FIA class - beyond that it could be taken as more than one, but that could depend on where you live. Guiness recognised a car with only six made as okay. They don't state aminimum. NealeFamily (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's easy to remove this production car ambiguity by changing the article name from current "List of fastest production cars" to something like: "List of the fastest unmodified street legal cars produced in numbers more than 20". 93.183.236.121 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Snappy proposal... However, NealeFamily's noting of the production vehicle article makes a reasonable reference point. Warren (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

After some more searching I have tracked the origin of the 20 car number to a discussion at the bottom of Talk:List of automotive superlatives/Archive 2#Ultima GTR item - it was an arbitrary number that was agreed by the articles editors in 2004. I have referenced the introduction to the List of fastest production cars back to the List of automotive superlatives as the source of the lists requirements and best place to discuss or raise objections to them. NealeFamily (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of New Saab 92

The article New Saab 92 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

bankruptcy

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. >Typ932 ^T·C 04:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest merging this content and sources into Saab. No need for a standalone, unless my dreams end up coming true. Mr.choppers | ✎ 05:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No need for such an article. Lots of wishful thinking for this "rebirth" ... just like having the Hummer and Oldsmobile return! CZmarlin (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Support deletion. Warren (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the prod. "Bankruptcy" is not a valid reason for deletion at WP. After all, we regularly cover failures and abandoned projects.

If this car's early designs have achieved notability, then such is WP:Notable and remains so. If there is controversy or discussion over its cancellation, than that too could indicate WP:Notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've re-submitted with a not notable tag as suggested by Andy Dingley, as the car was never formally announced, no designs seen, only "reported" in blogs and automobile chatter. Never included in a press release either. Warren (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm.... Andy, I think you need to enter the debate rather than just delete the prod tag. See a new tag as per your suggestion. Warren (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:PROD "An article may not be proposed for deletion ("PRODed") if it has been PRODed before" before you add a fourth prod tag to this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But you deleted it without debate, and suggested that it was the wrong reason so in effect it hasn't been "proded" properly at all. Why not properly debate it rather than hiding behind protocols and undebated deletions? Warren (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC) See WP:DEPROD if you want to get all technical. Warren (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of New Saab 92

The article New Saab 92 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable, tagged for 7 months, a design was never shown, the few blogs that reported a verbal statement really just PR spin and Crystal Ball.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Warren (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Support for deletion, this was just speculation of new car that will not happen ever, because Saab does not exist anymore -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh and the next step is to take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Support deletion (and merger of whatever is useful into Saab) as per nominator. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As Andy was getting a bit concerned about protocol, I have undertaken a little further research, and have merged the Saab 9-1X and New Saab 92 into Saab 9-2. I still think the resulting article is of limited information as a design was never published, but I'm happy to leave for now for others to consider (maybe merging the relevant bits into Saab proper as a postscript to the company...). Warren (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yobot

This bot has been discarding captions as it goes through {{Infobox automobile}}. Its creator said that WP:WikiProject Automobiles requested this task and there was consensus that the old captions weren't needed; however, I can't find any discussion about the change, and WP:WikiProject Buses—which also uses the template—doesn't seem to have been notified of the change. Useddenim (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the robot is doing what we asked for. Just search for 'caption' on this page. Cheers. Stepho talk 04:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern. However, the coding changes affect every car article and to do it automatically with the robot, we have to remove the caption. It is easier to restore the captions to the few necessary articles than manually decide whether a caption is necessary in each case—most of the time it's not as the subject matter is implied by the infobox itself.

Also, the infobox is called "Infobox automobile". While no one cares that the bus WikiProject is using it too, its primary function is to serve automobile articles. I doubt many of us here even knew the bus WikiProject was even using it (I didn't), so it is not reasonable for us to be expected the notify Wikipedia's bus enclave.

I think a rename of "Infobox automobile" to something more general and the addition of parameters to allow similar infoboxes to be combined is something we should look at though. We have the EV infobox and bus and truck versions that could possibly be combined to make things more uniform. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Infobox Bus}} exists; merging to {{infobox road vehicle}} might be sensible, leaving the old names as redirects ({{Infobox Truck}} already redirects). Note also that projects can put their banner on infobox talk pages, thereby informing the community that they wish to be (but not requiring that they are) notified of any relevant discussion. The onus is on project members to watch the templates they use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposed at today's TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Template use is independent from WikiProjects. I can help in adding back caption where needed. I also would be happy to see an infobox that covers more cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

For instance we could separate pages to those under WP Automobiles and those under WP Buses. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In the future is better if consensus is reached in infobox's talk page instead in a WikiProject to minimise lack of information about upcoming changes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

French car categories

We seem to have two conflicting categories. Anyone knw the reason, or could they need to be merged? Warren (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers of France
Category:Car manufacturers of France

I suspect that Motor is the top level and the Car is the lower tier, but many editors haven't used them in that way. To complicate matters there is also: Category:Automotive companies of France

SUV classifications

The SUV/4x4 classifications have gotten into a bit of a mess, particularly in the way they are being applied to infoboxes. Any ideas how this can be sorted out? There are so many names being invented by marketing folk, but in reality mean pretty much the same thing... And so many articles are using the terms in an indiscriminate way with random prefixes such as "luxury" or "mid-size", and the categories are getting seriously messed up. I suspect there is an opportunity to update the key article SUV, which is in need of a significant edit, and then that might lead to a rationalisation, or at least some clarity on the different terms. Warren (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sport utility vehicle/SUV - appears to mean full size off-roaders
Compact SUV - smaller off roaders - seems to make sense
Mini SUV - definition between Compact and Mini SUV seems rather arbitrary
Crossover (automobile) - a clear definition between SUV and Crossover needed. Is it as simple as the platform?
Leisure activity vehicle - surely an MPV?
Off-road vehicle - for "real 4x4" vehicles?

And the following categories (probably not all of them):

Category:Crossover SUVs
Category:Compact SUVs
Category:Mid-size SUVs
Category:Full-size SUVs
Category:SUVs
Category:Expanded length SUVs
Category:Hybrid SUVs
Category:Off-road vehicles

Fully agree, it's a mess. So what do we need to do?

It's the usual problem of arbitrary trade slang and hype being used to generate precisely defined pages, generally these will be entirely based on a couple of editors guesstimates and without any references to support their attempts at precision. I would stick them all as redirects under SUV and provide any further "definition" on that page if it's actually needed. Mighty Antar (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Would this be a starter for 10 (nice and simple but probably too simplistic for some - forgetting categories at the moment):

SUV - "proper off-roaders" (irrespective of chassis type as this is generally a particular US only definition)
Crossover SUV - to combine Compact SUV, Mini SUV and Crossover (automobile) into one coherent article as the more current term for soft-roaders or car based "SUVs", though Google do show a slightly higher number of returns for Compact SUV - presumably as the term has been around for a little while longer. See below for some press examples.
Off-road vehicle Retain, as it deals with the concept, and just update.

Crossover SUV = About 2,000,000 results, Compact SUV = About 2,190,000 results results, Mini SUV = About 726,000 results.

Motor Trend recently used the phrase Compact Crossover SUV as have the Washington Times and Scotland on Sunday. Interestingly, Popular Mechanics used the Crossover SUV phrase back in 2002. A quick review of a random selection of websites sees Buick, Vauxhall, Volvo, Mazda and more using the phrase Crossover SUV, so it would appear to have a wide usage both in marketing and in the press. Warren (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me for chiming in. I know I am not the most experienced editor, but I happen to really like your idea because the terms "SUV" and "CUV" are just thrown around way too much in these articles. Bookster451 (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've merged Leisure activity vehicle into Mini MPV, which itself is a pretty poor article, but at least small MPV type vehicles are now on one page.

Still looking for comments on the SUV and crossover debate. With reflection I wonder if SUV and Crossover should be the same page, as the concepts would be better reviewed in the one article, and that the sub-catagories relating to size can then be agreed (if indeed needed)? Warren (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense...

Can someone explain these sales figures i have here. The Picasso is outselling production every year apparently and yet Citroen is cutting production because they claim they're overproducing the model?? That don't make sense to me. Can someone take a look? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 13:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly in the UK market, Citroen have had to significantly discount to shift metal of certain models, and so is not unusual to turn the production tap down to help raise prices, or at least reduce the need to discount (but with so many component suppliers in contract for a set number of widgets, this is like turning a tanker for a mass-produced car). I've tweaked the note to correctly summarise the reference.Warren (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

...I don't think you did...I think you just removed the colour stuck on the TBA note. Can you double check we're seeing the same thing Warren? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 13:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Our edits clashed, so I left yours as you already had it in hand. The tables are rather colourful and distracting don't you think? Warren (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I coloured the headers because they didnt look right. The green is only on the engine size table and only because it improves the readability (same for the red). I found that the bottom taable didn't need colour so much because readability isn't an issue and so didn't use much.

Suggestions welcome ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I took the colour off "TBA". Does that look better? TBA is temporary anyway. The more spare time i have the faster those TBAs will disappear.

I also struggled to find a decent colour for the table headers and the most appropriate and lightest i could find is the current "champagne" shade. Thanks again ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I read those numbers & I see overproduction both years before the plant was idled. IDK how current Peugeot's sales data are (I imagine it's at least month-month), but it seems to me, if they saw the numbers not keeping up, they'd stop the line. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how. Simple maths with those figures shows they sold more than 10,000 more than they produced. The only year they produced more than they sold was in 2008 and by only 1000. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The question i was trying to ask was - are these actually sales or orders from customers and dealerships? Or do we have 10,000 C3 Picassos which magically appeared? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Simple maths with those figures shows they sold more than 10,000 more than they produced." No, it doesn't: 2009, production 91,700, sales 86,500, so production exceeds sales by 5200. 2010, production 77,100, sales 83,700, which means only 1400 cars more than demand had to be built to absorb inventory. Since we don't know what 2011 production was yet, it's difficult to say if it should have been idled, but it appears demand isn't as strong, & capacity is more than capable of meeting it even at less than full output. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:12 & 14:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, i see what i did. Contrast my last post with my first and you can see my argument is the opposite now. Sales are indeed higher than production and i've gotten confused somewhere along the lines.

Thanks for correcting me. I guess we need the 2011 figures to make sense of Citroen's decision. Thanks again ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 17:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries. :) I'm just glad I'm not the only one who's ever done that. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Porsche Automobile Holding SE

I'd be interested in editors' views on the bold renaming of the Porsche article to Porsche Automobile Holding SE - we have a number of company pages that are to be found by their main name, not their full registered company name, and wonder if this change is helpful? Warren (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

BS move IMHO, so I reverted it per WP:BRD. Happy to participate in a talk page discussion (which I just started at Talk:Porsche --Biker Biker (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

active roller protection system

How does a "active roller protection system" work? Could anyone here explain the rational of this system including which other systems related? Also, which components additional are needed for this function? Thanks. Babycry2012 (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)babycry2012

Do you mean Active rollover protection? Warren (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this question of the article, or just general question of the system, if so this is not talk forum for those. Its meant for project discussion -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone have Car & Driver magazines from 1973 July 1974?

I'm editing the Racetrack (game) article - this is a really fun pencil & paper car-racing game that dates back to the 1960's but who's origins are lost in the mists of time. I recently heard that the game was published in ~~a 1973 (or possibly, 1972)~~ the July 1974 issue of "Car and Driver" magazine - and I wondered if any of you car nuts have a copy of that article sitting around? Sadly, the magazine's publishers only offer back-editions going back two years and there doesn't seem to be an online archive anyplace.

This magazine would make a great reference for an article that really needs good references - and I'm hoping that it might tell us who originally invented it.

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A bot of googling and I came up with Car & Driver, July 1974, p65. [4] but Google won't display anything more due to copyright issues. Perhaps a visit to your state library... Stepho talk 13:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Struck out at my local library; they don't go back far enough... :( A bigger city, like Detroit or Calgary, might. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! The July'74 Page 65 reference is clearly the right one - the couple of paragraphs that Google will let you see makes that very clear. Many thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, a typo. Should have said 1973, as shown in the google link on the publisher line. Stepho talk 22:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convertible Crossover

Coolboygcp's latest article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convertible Crossover --Biker Biker (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopeless article - OR and crystal ball. Suggest a merge with the main crossover article. Warren (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've merged relevant content into Crossover (automobile) following recent decision on deletion nomination. Warren (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks. That is an editor we need to watch as (s)he is prone to adding original research. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Car images up for deletion

see Category:All Wikipedia files with unknown source, where many car images have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are all (every single car photo) images uploaded by Barnstarbob, who's been blocked for making legal threats and so on. Maybe he could be temporarily reinstated to save his photos, but I honestly don't think he knows where they came from anymore. Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like they're from brochures which were published long enough ago that their copyright is no longer applicable. It would be a real shame to lose these images. --Daniel 23:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

BS Bob uploaded a shed-load of images under the pre-1978 licence - essentially stating that because they were published before that date without an assertion of copyright that they were copyright free. Unfortunately, as has been shown by another editor, he didn't actually scan the images from the brochure but took them from GM's website where copyright is claimed. Given the doubt that exists, the source given by BS Bob cannot be assumed to be correct and therefore the only safe course of action is to remove his uploaded images. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not precious and if others think I'm talking out of my backside then please go ahead and remove the deletion tags from the images. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Conversion question

Hi, can someone good with converting figures work out from this the combined/average mpg for me:

Top speed: 178 km/h

Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 13,9 s

Urban consumption: 9,1 l/100km

Urban consumption kms: (1 op 11,0)

Extra-urban consumption: 5,5 l/100km

Extra-urban consumption kms: (1 op 18,2)

Average consumption: 6,8 l/100km

Average consumption kms: (1 op 14,7)

CO2 Emission: 155 g/km

Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the average consumption is just another way (inverted) of stating 6.8/100, so don't worry about that. There is also handy conversion templates like this one: {{convert|6.8|L/100 km|mpgus mpgimp|abbr=on}}, which gives this result: 6.8 L/100 km (35 mpg_‑US; 42 mpg_‑imp). Cheers, Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thx for the template. I can add it to my collection. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Very nice Mr Choppers! Thanks and have a nice day ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that you don't need the second parameters, just use the first e.g. {{convert|6.8|L/100 km|abbr=on}}, which gives 6.8 L/100 km (42 mpg_‑imp; 35 mpg_‑US). The same is also true of the original volumes e.g. {{convert|55|L}} gives 55 litres (12 imp gal; 15 US gal) --Biker Biker (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Biker ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

How to separate the bot edits from the "normal" edits

Right now, bots are in the processing of updating pretty much every car article we have here at en.wiki. This is to update the infobox "image" parameter to the new format as discussed above. To separate these bot edits from the "normal" edits:

Go to "My preferences" ---> "Watchlist" tab
Select "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent"
Select "Hide bot edits from the watchlist"
Press "save"

Normally, if one was to just select "hide bot edits", other edits made prior to the bot edits are hidden as well. The above workaround ensures we can still check these edits without having to check the history of every page on our watchlist. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, my watchpage looks... interesting at the moment. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How is the update process going on? now the replaced image fields, makes thumb images smaller than they used to be? -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pages that need update are located in Category:Infobox automobile image param needs updating. I removed deprecated parameters, bypassed redirects to original infobox, normalised File namespace but the last part needs human attention since we also want to keep captions I presume. Captions were added with 3 ways in the old format: In the File, next to the File, in the caption parameter. We need to move all three to a caption parameter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The hidden captions (the one's you need to hover the mouse over with to display) can go I think—most articles don't need them. We can add them back manually if they are required.

Updating the "image" parameter manually is best to be avoided. If the "caption" parameter is there already, then it should remain. Is this possible to be done by bot?

For {{Infobox automobile}}, can you please implement the coding to make the image size 1.25 times greater than the users' default thumbnail size? Please see {{Infobox automobile test}} for an example. I have no idea how to implement this (and I broke things in the process of trying). Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am updating the "image" parameter by replacing the old format with the new format semi-automatically with the use of WP:AWB and a script I wrote for it. It can be found in User:Yobot/Automobile. The reason is that I am trying to keep the visible caption that was added with the old way. Moreover, in some pages there is more than one infobox. Example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an example of caption added with a wrong way and how I fixed it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In order not to disturb watchlists I can use my bot account to perform semimanual changes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Aha now I get it. For some reason the text was invisible before. We only need to get the filename. No problem then. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand WP:ACCESSIBILITY says that we should have one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for all the help. Up until a day or two ago, we used "caption" when we wanted this information to be displayed permanently. However, the vast majority of pages used a caption format such as [[File:Example.jpg|250px|Example caption]]. Only when the mouse paused over the image did "Example caption" show up—and then only in a floating/overlaying box. In many cases a caption is not necessary as it the infobox implies what the image represents. Also, the image description page will have a description anyway.

By doing away with the captions, does this mean the process can now be automated? OSX (talk • contributions) 11:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So we need to edit those listed as manually to have caption line if needed and remove all extra data after file:xxxxxx.jpg|250px]] , what about those infoboxes which have two images? do we need to remove the other image ? IF so we need some time and volunteers to go all pages thru -->Typ932 ^T·C 11:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes should not have two images. Some things may need to be done manually, that's inevitable unfortunately. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes but we need to know what to do before the bot/awb run. What about the image size, which is now smaller than it used to be? -->Typ932 ^T·C 12:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's smaller because your preferences are set to a certain thumbnail size (200 or 220 px). We need Stepho or someone technical to help implement the 1.25 scaling option that was agreed on. I tried to do this today, but kept breaking the code as it is really confusing.

Not many articles use two images per infobox, can we just deal with this issue later? Inevitably some things wont work. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually thought the appearance was better in the Citroën C3 Picasso article with 2 images in the infobox. Now the image of the back-end is much further down...Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what it previously looked like. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We can leave the ones with two images for later. The first question I would like an answer is the following:

What is to be done with the previously almost-invisible caption and the (very rare occasions) of visible text next to the image?
- If we don't want them anymore. I can run the bot totally automatically and finish in 24 hours.
- If we need the latter only, I think I can make my bot run again automatically. I'll just ask for some help from someone to recode the bot.
- If need both texts and someone to decide the exact caption then we need to perform semi-automated edits. Since the bot's code is online and we have 4000 pages to check. We need 5 active editors to do 100 edits per day to finish in a week. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we need only those which are now

caption=xxx
[[file:example.jpg]]<br>''caption here'' or [[file:example.jpg]]''caption here'' this one Im not so sure how much we have these?
[[file:example.jpg|250px|ALT text]] this is not needed IMO-->Typ932 ^T·C 16:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

One more example. Maybe I could fix these first. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Typ932. If the "caption" field is currently in use—then keep it. If it's either [[File:example.jpg]]<br>''caption here'' or [[File:example.jpg|250px|ALT text]] then trash it so we can get this done by the robot. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been occupied with other, more pressing issues in the outside world but I'll jump back in sometime in the next few days. Thank you to Magioladitis for modifying the template to accept both forms of images (simple filenames and fully optioned). Stepho talk 23:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Found some time during lunch to merge Magioladitis's and my code together in {{Infobox automobile test}}. I've used 1.25 as the multiplier - which gives 275px by default. If this works correctly then it be cut and paste into {{Infobox automobile}}. Stepho talk 06:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ask User:WOSlinker to check the code. He works with infoboxes a while now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have implemented the code as it seems okay to me. Thank you Stepho. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Ignoring captions inside or outside leaves us with a single problem: Pages with 2 images in the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we just skip those articles and fix manually? There should not be too many. Can the automated function handle the skipping of these pages?

Yes, I am already skipping them. I'll start automated process today. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great. Again, on behalf of this project, thanks again for all the effort you have put into helping us with this burdensome task! OSX (talk • contributions) 09:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I had to stop for today due to minor problems to my regex logic. I did 1,500 edits and double checked 1,000 of them for mistakes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have checked every article edited by the bot and I think I've fixed up the lot. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we add the 1.25 x also to Infobox automobile engine and Infobox automobile platform? -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I finished everything starting form A-L. The ones remaining need human attention. We have some in userspace too. Check Category:Infobox automobile image param needs updating. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I updated the code and I am running for the remaining 1,500 pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The bot broke Lexus GS (diff). Every other instance I've seen worked good. Stepho talk

This was done with the previous code. I checked and new code fixes it fine. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Stepho talk 10:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Bot run finished. Now editors should check the remaining cases in Category:Infobox automobile image param needs updating. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

there is still lots of job to fix all these... -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Less than 70 pages in the category. -- Yobot (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Less than 30 pages in the category. -- -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

all done, except couple of boxes in user pages -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Completely done, so should we now remove support for the old input style to ensure users only use the new format? OSX (talk • contributions) 22:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll do it later tonight or tomorrow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Magioladitis (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)