Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 36

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 34

→

John Young Sangster.jpg

image:John Young Sangster.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello,
Please note that Buggy (automobile), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Where to start? Is it worth saving?! Warren (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's just a disambiguation page that somebody thought was an article stub. Ignore it but don't delete it. Stepho talk 04:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, ignore what I said. Somebody changed it from a simple disambiguation page to a minimal article. Stepho talk 05:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Care to review this submission? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This looks to me like either a parody or a hoax. What is this Ford Mk supposed to be? The entire article makes no sense, except as an example of almost everything an article should not be. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I second that. It wasn't sold in the UK from what i can see... ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely a hoax. Rather like having an article about the Ford Model covering the A, T, Y Etc or the Bugatti Type. 13:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I take it you meant this, not the modelling agency? :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article and declined it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know if this engine is petrol or diesel?

Spec here. I think it's petrol, but am unsure. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it's a petrol engine. Regards --Urbanoc (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Urbanoc ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Where do i find engine model codes?

Anyone know a good source? I'm using Helpfindmea.co.uk but it has some missing. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Being devil's advocate, how important are engine codes for general articles?! If they were notable they would be easy to find! Warren (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well there's a section for them in the standard engine table in the vehicle articles. Surely you've seen it? Plus the table for C3 Picasso has the non-specific engine names but got tagged with something along the lines of "missing engine codes". Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 18:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads-up

I just merged Opel Movano into Renault Master and turned the blank page into a redirect. It's the same vehicle and i could fit all the article content on a grain of rice, so I didn't consider it controversial enough for a discussion. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 11:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Very sensible, much like the Renault Trafic... Warren (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Good work. Today I have merged Citroën C35 with Fiat 242, and first generation Fiat Ducatos. The only bunch of European commercial vehicle articles that I can think of left to merge are Citroën Jumpy, Peugeot Expert, and Fiat Scudo. These are commercial version of the Eurovans sharing all major bodywork with the passenger vans. Hence, I propose we merge them in that article as other commercial vehicles with a passenger equivalent are merged (think Fiat Fiorino/Qubo, Mercedes Benz vans, etc). OSX (talk • contributions) 06:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, since no one objected I have merged these vans together with Citroën Jumpy being the primary page. Shifting content to Eurovans would not have worked because I forgot about the indigenous 2nd generation models. I made Citroën the page title as it was released first (1994), versus 1995 (Peugeot) and 1996 (Fiat). OSX (talk • contributions) 04:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion on Alternator

I've started a vote on the separation of the Automotive alternators section to a new article, and how it would be separated. There seem to be a number of things that require work with this article, but I have put just this to vote for now, with other issues to be addressed at a later date.

Please see Separation of automotive alternators to new article for the discussion and vote. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is the better image?

File:2012 Kia Sorento (8092691992).jpg

3 - Looks like an advert. The vehicle should be the focus, not the landscape

Can you guys give your opinions on the preferred infobox image for the Kia Sorento here? I prefer the left one for the given reasons but @Fetx2002: does not. I'd rather bring it here than allow it to escalate into an edit war. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd pick the first one out of the three, but would probably choose File:2012 Kia Sorento LX -- NHTSA 2.jpg if I was picking myself. The first image by IFCAR has a sports bodykit that is uncommon /unrepresentative of most Sorentos IMO. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

First is best. The second one would be OK if it wasn't cropped so close. You need a little space between the subject and the edge of the frame. But no so much space that you lose the subject entirely. The third one has no encyclopedic value at all. If you cropped out most of the background you'd still have the problem of the low angle that hides too much of the subject. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

OSX has introduced this to the discussion, which i prefer to image 1. So i'll use this if no one has any objections? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 17:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the pic found by OSX (which I've shown as #4) fits best. #2 makes me feel like a bully is about to shove my face into the paintwork. #3 could be cropped for a passable image but the low angle is wrong. #1 is fine except for the non-standard body kit. #4 seems to tick all the good boxes and none of the bad boxes. But in truth, any of these could be used if they were the only picture we had. Stepho talk 23:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think #4 is best, partly because of the more neutral background than #1. I also think that #1 is too closely cropped at the sides; when a vehicle is photographed at a relatively side-on angle, as in that photo, it needs a bit more space at front and rear than can be seen in that photo. On the other hand, #4, although similarly closely cropped at the sides, is ok, because the vehicle is at a more front-on angle. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I like #1 best. I'd crop the top a bit, & the bottom a fraction, but as is, I could live with it. I find the angle on #4 less ideal, & it's cropped a bit tight to the rear end. The #2 I could see as an "in use" add, somewhere on the page, absent something better. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

On #1 & #4 They're both ok. I think I prefer the angle of #1 tho I don't like the way the front wheels point. Light is better in #1 tho, Panel creases/shadows highlighted by where someone put the sun: I like that. Photographer stood slightly too close and slightly too high for my taste for #4. But it's all very subjective. That's (quite a lot of) the point (the subjectivity bit).

On #2, it's famously hard to get a top notch picture of a black car. Panel gaps and other lines disappear. Too many of the wrong reflections in the wrong places. This picture is an object lesson in some of the reasons why it's tough getting a decent picture of a black car. Tho sometimes, of course, black's all there is...

On #3. It is fine for atmosphere and artiness, but its not really an encyclopaedic portrait. Doesn't give a very clear answer to the rather important question "how does the car look?" Happy days. Charles01 (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverted image change back to OSX's. @Fetx2002: isn't getting it...ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Diesel exhaust

The scope of Diesel exhaust is under discussion, see talk:Diesel exhaust -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Timeline Table

Please add a timeline table for the engines. Like the ones they have for the cars.

Engine size down the left side and the years across the top and the engine name/code in the middle showing the years avalible.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.164.23 (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, would work well I think. P.S. I removed your attempt to create a timeline as is was rendered as a bunch of unintelligible engine codes and years. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What do i do with this?

This. I don't like the wording (in a table of all places) since it implies vehicles are "born", rather than produced, built, created, etc. Am i to leave this, revert, or do we have any prior consensus on this? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 16:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Get rid of the "born", if it means anything in this context, it's slang, but to me it looks like someone has inserted it unintentionally using one of those tools that encourage edits for style and layout without adding content. That said, I'm not sure the inclusion of (-2012) or (2012-) serves any useful purpose in this table anyway, what does it mean?Mighty Antar (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The availability of that variation of engine on the model. The column heading is "application". If an engine variation has -2012 then clearly one could not be bought new in 2013. Likewise a 2012- variant could not be owned in 2008. "Born" makes this look odd and confuses the matter more. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 18:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A charitable take on the insertion of "born" is that it was entered by someone for whom English is not the first language, and who was confused by the column heading "Application". I guess you mean "Year(s) when it applied" shortened to "Year(s) of application" shortened to .... I agree that "birth" and "death" take us down another tangent, and maybe beg more questions in this context (even) than "Application". Hmmmmm.

How about simply heading the column "Year"? Charles01 (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Historically it was always "Year", but i recently changed to "Application" to avoid confusion. I'll happily revert back to "Year" if my choice is between that and "birth/born". Thanks Charles ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 11:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Success. Charles01 (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Copying from French Wikipedia

Has anyone thought of adapting our automobile infoboxes to have sections/dividers, much like the Frenchpedia has? They are more pleasing to the eye with how everything is divided into sections: performance, engines, dimensions, etc. What we have is just a block of text with section placement differing from article to article. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's in some respects a bigger question than simply one for "Project automobiles", because you are actually looking at practice across the whole palette of French wikipedia and comparing it across the whole panorama of English wikipedia. The way the French info boxes are, for lots of entry types, divided up is often, easier on the eye and easier to navigate for readers, but also can be harder to use (and therefore more likely to trigger mistakes) when editing. I see that in English language wiki the scientific articles - to take an example I just checked at random, try Hydrochloric acid - do make much greater use of dividers in info boxes, so there's nothing inherently "anglophone" about the way we design info boxes in the English language automobile entries. I guess we'd have trouble obtaining a consensus for doing anything involving dividers for project auto info boxes, and any move in that direction would probably need to be "little by little" (incremental). But if anyone came up with a specific proposal taking us in that direction I would probably - cautiously - vote in favo(u)r. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I've long been an admirer of the French equivalent of Infobox automobile. It is so much better than ours. About 18 months ago, an editor suggested here that our infobox be upgraded to look more like the French one. Although the suggestion received some support, it petered out, presumably because the task of upgrading our infobox was felt to be too daunting. There are already some en.wiki infoboxes that have subtemplates and/or headings like the French infoboxes, such as Infobox tram network and Infobox ship begin, so there's no particular reason why Infobox automobile can't be modified to operate in the same way. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Since adding the above, I've been looking a bit more closely at the coding of Infobox automobile. It would actually be quite easy to add hearings (and rearrange the parameters a bit to match the headings) as per the French infobox. I'm happy to do it if there's a consensus in favour of it. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As none of the editors who have commented on the issue of adding headings to the infobox has expressed any opposition to the idea, I have now been bold and added them in. I have chosen the same background colour for the headings as the one used in Infobox tram network and Infobox tram route, but that colour can be changed if desired. (We could even use the same colours for the background and text as fr:Modèle:Infobox Automobile if that is believed to be a better combination.) I have also moved the parameters around a little; the "designer" parameter now displays in the "overview" section, and the "chronology" parameters have been moved to the end of the infobox, as per fr:Modèle:Infobox Automobile. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks better. And more "navigable" for readers. Thank you. Charles01 (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Love it. Can you put a grey box around the title as well? OSX (talk • contributions) 15:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. What I did is copy the "abovestyle" parameter from Infobox tram route, which also produces a title with larger text. I think the larger text looks better, but it may not always work properly with the longer names. If I were to make some further amendments, it would also be possible to customise the colours of the title (eg red for Ferrari; blue for Ford). I'll make those amendments in the near future, and then add some info to the doc page to explain how to do the customising. In the meantime, for examples of how it might look, see Brussels tram route 82 (teal with black text) or Melbourne tram route 96 (green with white text). Bahnfrend (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed this and it looks great. More legible, more inviting, better in every way. Thanks! Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, looks even better now. I have reduced the font size of the header just a tad (its still bigger than before). I'm not sure if colours are appropriate, isn't it generally expected to avoid colours unless it aids usability? I can imagine the fights for the exact shade of blue to be used, etc. OSX (talk • contributions) 17:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hurrah! The system works! My faith in humanity is restored! Thanks guys ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 19:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You like the grey? I much prefer this. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is Wiki convention to not use colour unless doing so aids usability. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favour of colours myself, or at least a slightly darker shade of grey. In at least some cases (eg British Racing Green for Bentley, Jaguar and MG, yellow for Renault), they're unlikely to be controversial. But I'll have a look at the conventions before making any further changes. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The changes are nice in general. The light grey should be much darker (like on French WP) because to my tired old eyes the light grey looks so close to the background white that my eyes think something is wrong and keep trying to refocus to bring the two colours together - which gives me a headache. As for custom colours for each article - no! I prefer consistency across article and no colour changes just because some new editor thinks he'd like some colours. Too much scope for choosing colours that colour blind people can't see and too much scope for edit wars over the correct colours to use. But other than those picky points, well done! Stepho talk 01:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that I've done a bit more research, I agree that the grey should be darker and that there should be no custom colours. I will darken the shade of grey, and explain my custom colour conclusion, in the near future. (If the grey is darker, it may be necessary also to make the text white, as per French WP.) Bahnfrend (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've now darkened the grey, but left the text in black, at least for the time being. The new grey is not quite as dark as French WP, but it's one of the shades used in the timelines that appear at the foot of many of the articles about car models, so I think it's a better choice than the French WP shade. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The darker grey looks good. And I am with Stepho with the colours—a definite no from me for the same reasons. It would be good if the dark grey box widths could align with the image widths. If you look at Template:Infobox automobile#Infobox parameters, the boxes are a couple in pixels wider than the image. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. As you probably spotted, the German wiki uses both blue and green background colours. I guess they have more than one info box template according to who's counting. Green is a lucky colour in some versions of Germany. "Gruen bedeutet Hoffnung" or something, I think someone once told me. Examples at Vauxhall Viva and Opel Kadett A But for these purposes green is too intrusive according to my taste. One might experiment with the blues but I think I'd probably still come back preferring the (stronger) grey as you now have it. Success Charles01 (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I continue to think the grey is dull. If you insist on colors (& I think that's a good idea), why not a pale blue or green? IMO, red or yellow is a bit "loud", & a purple a bit showy. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, here's my view on colours. Some automobile marques are closely associated with a particular colour, eg Ferrari with red, Bentley with green. At least in theory, we could therefore set up Infobox automobile to facilitate customised colours for infoboxes, to match marques with appropriate colours. However, the stronger the assocation of a marque with a particular colour, the more likely it is that the image in the infobox will be of a car in that colour. So, for example, the Ferrari Mondial article has five infoboxes, four of which are illustrated with a red Ferrari, and Bentley Speed Six has a total of 10 images, all of which are of a green Bentley. It follows that if you choose red as the colour for Ferrari infoboxes, and green as the colour for Bentley infoboxes, then you'll likely just end up with overkill. And once you've concluded that red is inappropriate for Ferrari infoboxes, and green inappropriate for Bentley infoboxes, it's difficult to justify customised colours for any marque. On the issue of whether we should use an unobtrusive colour such as pale blue or green instead of dark grey as the standard background for the titles and headings of automobile infoboxes, I would suggest that the main candidate for use instead of dark grey is the shade of pale blue used as the standard background colour for navbox titles (hex code #ccccff). However, I have sampled this colour with a number of articles, and in my view it doesn't co-ordinate very well with certain types of images (eg images of red Ferraris, or images of dark coloured cars), whereas the dark grey looks good with pretty much any type of image. I also suspect that pale green would be even less likely than blue to co-ordinate well with infobox images. If I can figure out how to do it, I might even illustrate this point by adding a sample infobox to this page, showing how an infobox with pale blue title and heading backgrounds might look with an image of a red car. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with changing the header style from outside to inside the infobox. I don't think there is a reason for such a major change, considering that most contributors have got used to the style used so far. It is also contrary to how the most widespread infoboxes on Wikipedia are structured, particularly to those which are closely related to the Automobiles project, such as infobox company, and it was also not in the initial original request. I understand that the edit was done with good faith per the bold policy, but I think the improvements should not be done unpleasing other editors. I have recently been editing the infoboxes of the automobile artciles, in order to bring them to a common style, but I was very disappointed when I found out this modification. I prefer we keep the style used so far, which was with the title of the page outside the infobox. It is also easier to read since it does not add a colored background to the title. I do not disagree though with the category headers, yet I think that the related field should remain at the bottom of the infobox, as it is not a primary information that one would look for when reading the article about a specific vehicle and also because sometimes it spans over multiple lines (when several models share the same platform). In such cases information of lower importance occupies a large portion of the upper side of the infobox, before the information of essential importance, and in my opinion that is not appropriate. BaboneCar (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your comment about which type of header structure is the most widespread. Both types are very common, and (for example) both Infobox person and Infobox settlement have their titles inside the infobox. Perhaps more importantly, Template:Infobox makes provision for both types, and that's a strong indication that both types are acceptable. The main reason I made the changes I made is that several editors had indicated that they wanted an infobox more like fr:Modèle:Infobox Automobile, which has its title inside the infobox, and dark grey backgrounds to the title and the headings, and no editor had indicated any opposition. That said, I don't have any issue with the further changes you have made, and I like the shade of blue you've chosen as a substitute for dark grey. As far as the "related" parameter is concerned, I wasn't quite sure where it should go when the headings were added. It could just as easily go underneath the "Platform" parameter at the end of the "Body and chassis" section, and on reflection I now think that's the most appropriate place for it. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you discussing the article title being outside the infobox? I'd prefer it inside the infobox personally. I can pick pretty much ay article at random with a infobox and it will have the name inside the infobox. Example.

Why keep it differet for vehicles? It just looks odd. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 20:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any real difference whether it is inside or outside. Both ways look neat and don't hamper readability. Stepho talk 22:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia might have its own general style for infoboxes. We cannot adapt everything from there as it would not match with the style of the other infoboxes in the project and particularly Infobox company. If there has been expressed a disagreement over an important change, such as the position of the title within the layout of the infobox, then I think it's better to keep the style that was used so far, rather than change to a disputed new style. We also cannot copy the coloring scheme of the French template exactly, because it complies with the general plan for infoboxes used there, which doesn't match to the infoboxes used here. For example the text in the headers there is in white, which implemented here means going too far with these modifications. I noticed the initial background color was approximately the light grey from the header of the wikitable class, which was considered too bright to be noticeable. The second version of grey implemented seems too dark however and does not match with the bold text. I consider that with that color these modifications do not have a positive effect on the project generally. I changed it therefore to a background color of medium lightness, not as bright as the one in the wikitable class. I know we should not edit war over the background colors, so hopefully we will be able to get to an agreement on this. BaboneCar (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in edit warring, but the consensus appears to be that the title of Infobox automobile in its present form (ie with its new headings) looks better inside the infobox than above it. A title inside the infobox has the advantage that it can have a grey background, like the background of the new headings, whereas a title outside the infobox can only have a white background. Infobox company is not confined to automobile manufacturers, and doesn't have any headings, so I can't see how it's relevant to this debate. Once you add headings, as has now been done to Infobox automobile, the argument in favour of moving the title into the infobox and giving it a background like the headings becomes pretty compelling, I would have thought. Bahnfrend (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have again reverted BaboneCar's edits as the changes were not discussed, and the comments above give consistent praise for your improvements Bahnfrend (no one mentioned that the old headings are better). I agree with BaboneCar that the medium-grey box colour is better than the lighter or darker greys, but other editors have expressed a preference for the dark grey.

I would like to mention to BaboneCar that making a bold change without discussion is ok, but it is not ok to keep reverting it others users disagree, that is when you need to discuss it. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

yes, the edit warring is getting tiresome. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I marginally prefer the outside name layout per consistency and I don't see an objective reason to change it. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

How big is this vehicle?

This says 1610/1625, but is that 1610mm without the aerial and 1625mm including it? I don't want to assume. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A 15mm aerial would not be much use. I suspect they are quoting a range of roof heights allowing for different tire sizes, options, and maybe spring rates. Even identical spec cars vary in roof height by several mm. Greglocock (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The website says 1610/1625mm with no explanation. I would have assumed that some models are lower/higher (sports suspension, taller wheels) but the downloadable brochure says only 1610mm for all models. It's not a critical dimension and both measurements are close to each other, so I'd just say 1610mm. Stepho talk 10:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the wheel range is from 15 inches - 18. I think yours is the most likely explanation Stepho. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

On spec

Tho it's a bit OT for this project, I wondered if there's a specification template for vehicles? In particular, something that would be useful for this, capable of including everything from turning circle to gradient performance. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Help at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jaguar Clubs of North America ?

We have a novice editor trying to drat an article about the JCNA, but it appears he could really use some help with sourcing, WP:Notability, etc. If anyone is into Jags and likes being helpful, it'd be great if you could drop him a line offering assistance. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ask the Wikipedian who owns one

After finding yet another cite for it, I'm now so thoroughly confused about the actual wheelbase(s) of the Packard Eight, I'm not sure any of the numbers are right. Can somebody who actually knows something about Packards, or with a reliable, well-organized source, take a look? Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

External links at Alfa Romeo GT

Anyone got time to look? A table appears to have got tangled and i'm currently too busy to look into it. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed (someone had forgotten to close off the table). Bahnfrend (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"Automobile"

Bentley Speed Six

Is a mess. Maybe someone knowledgeable (not only about old Bentleys but also about WP policies and guidelines) could spearhead some much-needed improvements? Writegeist (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

May I use this to complain about the years of behaviour of one particular copy editor who suffers from a permanent acute need to follow me and to criticise my writing on subjects it is clear he knows little about. My patience rapidly deserts me when the apparently inevitable interference begins and the result after some years are quite a number of Wikipedia articles about people and old cars which may have references to other publications to suit that particular copy editor but remain incorrect or show the curious biases and omissions that result from being self-taught about a subject ( a bit of Googling). We now have another classic example at 4½-litre Bentley. Discussion with that editor on talk pages is a waste of time. It is now a waste of effort for me to write anything new. It is so very easy to rip others work to shreds and leave behind bad information, please would someone take her under control.

What is to be done? Eddaido (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The key part of putting the record straight is using verifiable WP:V information to correct common assumptions and misinformation. Editing an article really is the easy bit, referencing it to support your contentions is where the hard work begins. Particulalry when many of the easily available (and thus easily verifiable) references about old cars on the net tend to be the ones filled with generalised assumptions or rehashed historic errors. If you can support everything you write with verifiable sources, you're much better placed to defend yourself against reversion or criticism. Ultimately though, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and while you may feel hard done by, unless you're expanding an article, you're also very likely to be ripping someone elses work to shreds yourself. Mighty Antar (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your sound and sage advice, I would give the same or very similar. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific as to just who this "worst of all possible editors" is, because to be quite frank, I've seen a lot of editors who have very similar problems dealing with you and your editing style (I'm just one) and I don't think it's fair to blame everyone. I don't recall crossing words with you on Bentley articles.

Funny how there are so many of these terrible editors, and they're all choosing to haunt you in particular. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you please provide evidence of these three statements or claims you make above: "Worst of all possible editors", a lot of editors who have very similar problems dealing with you, there are so many of these terrible editors. Eddaido (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In response to the original request (which is why this response is only indented once), I am unable to lead such a project because I don't think I have the required source material to add to or correct what is already there. I could help with editing to have it meet Wikipedia guidelines, though.

I can think of someone who would be all too glad to help in terms of content, but he doesn't care much for using formal tone, avoiding weasel words, peacock words, or excessive adjectives, maintaining a neutral point of view, citing the sources of content he thinks should be "obvious", or being asked to do any of these things, so I won't recommend him.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks SamBlob. I understand. Writegeist (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible for editors to keep watch on articles related to Bentley and the Daimler Company? There is an editor or group of editors determined to retain peacock words and phrases in these articles. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Still some issues with article "Volkswagen Santana"

The original VW Santana B2 had stopped its production. However, VW Santana Vista 1.6L / 1.8L is still in production only for taxi fleets. See http://blog.autohome.com.cn/article/11370.html. Santana 3000 / Vista 1.8L & 2.0L shares specifications, so please fix the first row of the table "Shanghai VW Santana Specifications". Get 2007 Santana 1.8L specifications from http://www.autohome.com.cn/149/297/options.html. Get 2008 Santana Vista 1.8L specificationshttp://www.autohome.com.cn/207/options.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.66.115.237 (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Automotive Industry Action Group

It was suggested to me by a Wikipedia editor that the Automotive Industry Action Group page might be improved by review by members of WikiProject Automobiles, especially those who might have industry insight into frank reviews of the effectiveness of the group. I'm having a hard time sourcing articles that aren't directly or indirectly from the organization. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks about right. APQP is huge. USAn Tier ones probably have more insight than me Cheers Greglocock (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

commons:Category:Martin Amphibious Air Car

Would anyone be interested in writing a stub (or a DYK) about this weird contraption I photographed a while ago? I am not seeing that much on Google, but it seems notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

why is it notable? Greglocock (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It should be notable in that there haven't been many attempts to build a car you can drive on the road, across the sea and fly. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have generated any media coverage other than that put out by the Forney Museum when it went on display. They mention it got coverage in Popular Science magazine in the 60s, and its also said to have got a mention in Cars & Parts magazine, but neither show up anywhere on-line or in the resources I have available. Unfortunately other than several blogs and forums, the only other coverage is one newspaper article here (this was republished with a different headline), a listing on an aircraft database here and the Johnson Space Centre R/C aircraft newsletter here. It's a great looking vehicle, but I don't think there is enough source material to create and reference a robust stub from. Mighty Antar (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't give up quite that easily. What you're saying sounds like FUTON bias to me (and in making that observation, I'm not trying to be critical of anyone). If the Forney Museum is correct in asserting that there was coverage in Popular Science in the 1960s, then that coverage alone would be sufficient to make the vehicle notable, because Popular Science is a reliable source. The problem is finding the coverage. First, you need to find out which issues of Popular Science covered it (and the Forney Museum may be able to help you with that problem - you could try emailing the Forney Museum and asking). Then you need to find those issues. The latter problem is not likely to be a huge obstacle - there should be copies of the relevant issues of Popular Science available in libraries (maybe even at the Forney Museum), if not also online at websites such as eBay. I now look forward to seeing the new stub article. Bahnfrend (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

http://books.google.com normally covers old issues of Popular science quite well. But I couldn't find anything on this car. Did you mean another magazine like Popular Mechanics or similar ? Stepho talk 06:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

180° V12 versus flat-12

At Talk:Ferrari 158, an editor has questioned whether a 180° V12 is in fact the same thing as a flat-12. Some quick Googling suggests that they are different, but I don't completely understand the explanations provided, so I was wondering if someone here might be able to explain the difference at Talk:Ferrari 158. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've popped in a wikilink to Flat-twelve engine, as that is what Ferrari itself refers to the engine. I think any clarification of the diferrence would be helpful on that page too! Warren (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox electric vehicle - merger

FYI: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 31#Template:Infobox electric vehicle. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Grand theft of auto pictures?

The article BMW Concept Cars has a lot of photographs from Commons that were copied from a web site that does not state the sources of their photos. At least one of the photos is attributed to Pininfarina where there is no record of the site using such a licence from Pininfarina nor of the site having Pininfarina's permission to use the photo. Worst of all, a copy of the photo is in a book I have, and the book's photo credits do not include Pininfarina.

Is this a grand theft of auto pictures, or am I overrreacting?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of those photos look suspiciously like professional photos lifted from a BMW website or brochure and some look like they were taken at the BMW museum (also of a generally high quality). Without proof of them being free, I'd mark the non-museum ones for deletion (eg File:Bmw nazca m12 9.jpg) and wait for the "owner" to say where they came from. Stepho talk 07:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I had actually changed some of them to photos already existing in Commons after starting this thread. All the questionable photos have been submitted by one editor, and I have requested a mass deletion for all the pictures that editor uploaded from the site in question. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

sincerely Samblob

Stands accused by me of (now years of) persistent following stalking or dogging.
Here is the evidence, a week without the recourse that might otherwise be expected for these straightforward reverts:

Eddaido (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of deliberate vandalism among those edits. I do see some rough editing that could use some mentoring and an over zealous reverter. There's also a difference of opinion on style and a need for some talking and mediation - but no actual vandalism. There's a middle ground that we can reach for here. Stepho talk 10:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

How long has this being going on for now between you guys? I see no evidence of vandalism, just a nasty disagreement. I best not complain too much because I've been guilty of edit wars before due to lack of wanting to enter time-consuming discussions; however, is this something you can work out through dialogue? Seems like the only solution to me. Rather than reverting blindly, may I suggest you try a different route by changing the wording of the offending paragraphs. Might take you a few goes to get it right, but has to be better than what your doing now.

Lastly, not wishing to increase the anger by taking sides, but without knowing anything much about these cars, Samblob's versions do seem to (mostly) be the more logical/encyclopaedic to me. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 10:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. If this were a balloon debate, I would keep SamBlob as an editor over you, every time. Your knowledge of some subjects is excellent and you have made great additions to some articles, but all too often you get some fanciful idea instead and then you're a dogged edit warrior to keep it in place, no matter how incorrect this is. SamBlob has frequently challenged you on this, as have I. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, regarding Daimler Conquest:

Neither of these were addressed, either on the talk page or in the edit summaries.

Secondly, Daimler Fifteen: It is true that I did not take the discussion to the talk page, but what was there to take? Violation of WP:IDIOM? I have already brought the policy to his attention. In fact, I left him some links at his talk page that I thought might be helpful to his writing style; his response to which was to delete my post and to tell me not to mess up his talk page. Removal of the terms "new" and "now" from events that occurred in the 1930s? I did not realize that the discrepency would not be clear once pointed out. The citation request? The statement to which the request was appended was not mentioned in the main body of the article, much less cited there. Without any citation, the statement might be speculation drawn out of thin air. The only remaining change is a simple grammatical correction. I cannot comprehend why any of the changes should be objectionable, and the edit summaries do not make this clearer. All I can conclude in the matter is knee-jerk reaction and WP:OWNership.

Thirdly, Lanchester Fourteen: I did not address this on the article's talk page, but this is where the "not un-" formation that I spoke of on Eddaido's talk page came from. The car body is also referred to as "very pretty", which is uncredited and about as subjective a statement as can possibly be made. Since bringing this to his attention had me admonished for leaving a mess, I decided to clean the mess up myself, going on to format section headings, separate words that had been run together unspaced, and turn ungrammatical notes into sentences. I went on to move a thumbnail to a less obtrusive place, to reposition section headings to include the infoboxes relevant to the sections within the sections, and to disambiguate the subsection headings that had previously had identical names to each other. I have to ask who, apart from a vandal, would knowingly and willingly change the article from how I had left it to how I had found it. On one occasion I also expanded the lead to include a summary of further information existing in the main body; this was also removed.

Finally, The Great Horseless Carriage Company: This can be summed up in one word: "brilliantly". Eddaido believes this word should be used to describe the defence of Ernest Terah Hooley by Rufus Isaacs, 1st Marquess of Reading. WP:PEACOCK, a section of the Manual of Style, says that it should not. This all boils down to a battle between enforcement of policy on one hand and article ownership on the other.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

sincerely Samblob, the dogging editor

That alone says it all but you can certainly embroider it with obsessed stalker and follower, WP:Hound and WP:DE. Maybe I should mention Svengali
Thanks for the above chat about edits and things. Its a long time since I've read anything Samblob has written beyond its first few words (if that) so I can't comment further.

And, please don't mistake me, I do want to belabour the point about Dogging - it is the whole purpose for my writing here.

Wait on, there is something else—readers should consider the possibility that if they think Samblob has changed a statement and corrected it that might just mean they know as little about it as Samblob does. Eddaido (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that, if you keep complaining about how I ruin your articles and others aren't seeing the reduced quality you're talking about, then maybe, just maybe, I'm not the one who's getting it wrong?

Further, why is it that you only communicate clearly when you insult people?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it more helpful to concentrate on which parts of the edits are considered wrong. Attacking each other only makes it less likely for them to listen to you (as evidenced by the knee-jerk reaction of both of you reverting each other without further thought).

I'll start it off. I think the use of the word 'brilliant' in an encyclopaedia is a bit POV unless it is used in the reference. Do either of you have a comment for or against using the word 'brilliant' in the The Great Horseless Carriage Company article (without commenting on the other editor)? Stepho talk 23:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't seem to go as far as the Manual of Style does. WP:PEACOCK has a list of words that includes "brilliant", and says of them:

Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.

Whether the word "brilliantly" is used in the reference or not is immaterial. It adds image without adding substance and should not be included. "Successfuly", while redundant, would at least quantifiable. People in their own books can colour their phrases however they want. We are not supposed to do that in Wikipedia articles. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right that it's just a peacock term. But just in case the majority of references do actually say that the court defence was a high point in law history, I'd thought we should give him the opportunity to point it out. If he can't point out any such extraordinary measure then of course it should be deleted. The main point I want to get across is that discussion among a handful of editors will usually get to the heart of the matter. Pointing out a policy in the edit summary is useful the first time. But if it's being ignored then either he doesn't think it applies in this case (ie he may have more knowledge about this case than you do) or he has misunderstood the policy. In either case, an explanation/discussion can help more than mere reverting. Stepho talk 05:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, reluctantly, here's a couple of references both from London's The Times.

Lord Reading. The Times, Tuesday, Dec 31, 1935; pg. 6; Issue 47259

The Times Tuesday, Apr 28, 1936; pg. 10; Issue 47360

The headline on the first (its almost an entire page of obituary) refers to Rufus-Isaacs brilliant career. The second, a review of a new biography, refers to his most famous trials. The first name in that list is Hooley.
Eddaido (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for those references. A pity we can't see what they say. Could you provide some quotes, please? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I will note that this paragraph and subsequent paragraphs are indented differently from the previous paragraph because the previous paragraph is in response to Eddaido's post while this paragraph and later paragraphs are in response to Stepho-wrs's earlier, less indented post. This explanation is for Eddaido's benefit, as he has "corrected" the indentation of a similar discussion in the past.

The case might well be Isaacs' high point as a barrister, or might even have introduced an important legal precedent in English law (or it might not, depending on what the references presented actually say), but

it would be more enlightening and less like propaganda to quantify what made the defence "brilliant" than to merely claim that it was, and
if Isaac's defense of Hooley was that extraordinary, shouldn't there be an article or section about it somewhere in Wikipedia? Then, instead of a superlative with nothing to support it, there could be a link to the article or section in question.

Furthermore, I am not sure the extent to which the term "brilliant" applies to legal matters. I had thought it was a quality of light rather than of law.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Eddaido sent me scanned copies of the newspaper articles in question and I have put them on my website at http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/brilliant/ I will probably delete them when this is over.

To me it's a bit 50/50. The lawyer definitely had a brilliant career and Google finds plenty to gush about him, including this trial where Hooley was set free and the other man sent to prison. I think it fair to say that Isaacs presented a very good case in court. Whether 'brilliant' is the right word to use here is more subjective. Possibly we could say that Isaacs (as Hooley's lawyer) was instrumental in having Hooley set free while Lawson (representing himself) was sentenced to a year of hard labour (http://books.google.com.au/books?ei=bS-CUqjqFMfjkAWQwoDgCA&id=6KIKAQAAMAAJ&dq=hooley+lawson+hard+labour+isaacs&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=hooley+lawson+%22hard+labour%22). And of course the supporting references of the newspaper articles and "The First Marquess of Reading" book should be added. Stepho talk 13:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The extract from 1936 includes the Hooley case in a list of important cases in Lord Reading's career, and the snippet from Google Books shows me that Hooley was acquitted while Lawson, who defended himself, was convicted and sentenced to twelve months of hard labour. However, I have read through the long and detailed obituary of Lord Reading in the extract from 1935 and I have not seen the Hooley case mentioned anywhere. Could you please direct me to the column in which it might be found? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ford EL Falcon GT

Some assistance recquired. This vehicle, which is a very limited run and low notability, keeps getting recreated instead of being a redirect. Sourcing establishes the vehicles statistics, but not its notability and it's a double intersection of vehicle generation (EL series) and vehicle specification (GT). There was a discussion at Talk:Ford Falcon GT#EL GT but the editor is now ignoring it. Your advice? --Falcadore (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Page is a redirect to Tickford Vehicle Engineering, 30th Anniversary GT. Space alligator (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

An idea taken from WikiProject Motorcycling

While I do not normally put forward ideas of starting new organizations for fear of having to be involved in the creation of them, I have noticed the Special Interest Groups in WikiProject Motorcycling and I think it might be a good idea to have one in WikiProject Automobiles for British automobiles. To paraphrase the one for British motorcycles, it would aim "to ensure that the coverage of the history of British ~~motorcycling~~automobiles on Wikipedia is as accurate and comprehensive as possible."

There are many articles on British automobiles and automobile manufacturers and they vary widely in content, quality, and compliance to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Would it be helpful to have a task force of editors to assess and improve existing articles and create new ones where necessary?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Japanese cars have a similar group: Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Japanese cars task force. Stepho talk 01:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested in being part of a task force devoted to German cars. I'm already a member of the Rail transport in Germany task force. How difficult is it to set up a task force focusing on cars from a particular country? I note that the task force for Japanese cars appears to be a task force of WikiProject Japan, not WikiProject Automobiles, although apparently the latter WikiProject is a "parent project" of it. I also note that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Task Forces page that sets out a 2006 proposal that there be a large group of task forces – should this proposal now be taken up to a greater extent than at the moment? Bahnfrend (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Improving the project

This project really could use a few truly dedicated obsessives. What might be the best way to try to attract them? sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought we already had a few. It's not like we are paid, how many hours per day are we supposed to editing for? OSX (talk • contributions) 07:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

We could pay them? That's unlikely to happen...ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are already many of us dedicated to the project and obsessed with automobiles; I'm sure we've already been telling our friends about it? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That's right and you, Samblob, seem to be obsessed with me. (that's focussed on content not personality!), sincerely Eddaido (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's focused on SamBlob. Focus on the issue. 'An eye for eye' rarely produces useful results. Rise above it. Stepho talk 23:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Two headings up, Eddaido started a thread to complain about SamBlob. At least two editors said the accusations had no basis. Nobody agreed that SamBlob was hounding or stalking anybody; it's just a content dispute. Now here we are with yet another thread created by Eddaido for no purpose except to again try to see if the charges against SamBlob can gain any traction. We call that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: Failure to get the point.
This heading should be deleted. It is here to mock and harass SamBlob. Either drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, or take it to WP:ANI.
With regard to content, both SamBlob and Eddaido need to listen to and heed the opinions of others who have joined the disputes, and accept that they might not get their way. But clearly it is Eddaido who is using sarcasm, mockery, and personal attacks, and that must stop. Now somebody delete this thread and let us never speak of this again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Are these coupes?

From our Mercedes Benz SL article i found these two pictures:

Is anyone able to confirm that these are Saloon/Sedans or Coupes? And if they are both convertibles (One clearly is). There is no mention of the available body styles in the infobox or article. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

All convertibles, the first photo showing a car fitted with a removable hardtop. Mr.choppers | ✎ 10:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Really?

I've just had another look but not all of the images we have for the two models i'm looking into look like convertibles. See Mercedes-Benz R129 and Mercedes-Benz R230.

Some like like they are just Coupes. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 11:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I know a fair bit about Benzes. They're both R129 SL roadsters. The burgundy coloured one has a detachable hardtop roof. Bahnfrend (talk)

OK...But are they all convertibles or does the article show some that aren't? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

They're all roadsters - see the article roadster (automobile) for more info. The R129 is fitted with an electrically operated fabric roof, and can also be fitted with an optional hardtop, which can be completely detached and left behind in the garage while the car is out on the road. Its successor, the R230, is fitted with an electrically operated metal roof, which folds away completely out of sight when the roof is open. In each case, the "R" in the model designation refers to "roadster". At the time the R129 was on the market, Benz also made a cabriolet (ie convertible), the A124, and a coupe, the C140. These are both distinctly different, both from the R129 and from each other (although the floorpans of the R129 and the A124 are similar, as are their fabric roof mechanisms and electrically operated pop-up rollbars). By the time the R230 came out, both the A124 and the C140 had been replaced by later models. Incidentally, the problem you have identified is not so much with the images, but with the articles Mercedes-Benz R129 and Mercedes-Benz R230, both of which could do with significant improvement. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"They're all roadsters" Looking at that pic of the SL500, with the hard C-pillar, I'd say coupe...& the definition of "roadster" I use is, "no top", so they're 'verts, not roadsters, anyhow. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That's everything i needed to know. Thanks a lot guys ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 16:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry TREKphiler. The roadster article says "without a fixed roof". The hard C pillars of the SL500 are completely detachable at their bases, so that the whole hardtop roof can come off. Therefore the SL500 is a roadster. Bahnfrend (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been written a number of times already, but here it is again: fitted with a "removable hardtop". Here's a pic in case this is still not clear. As for roadster versus convertible, I'd say that's mostly marketing speak and not really worth an argument. In my opinion, a roadster ought to have a cut down windscreen and it should be fairly light and spartan - I'd call the R129 a convertible. Mr.choppers | ✎ 04:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable online sources, eg Car magazine, Car and Driver, The Daily Telegraph, Top Gear, and Mercedes-Benz, invariably refer to all SLs (except the Gullwing of the 1950s) as roadsters, as do printed reliable sources, eg Taylor 2009, page 36.

Roadster (automobile) says "A roadster is an open (without a fixed roof or side weather protection) two-seat car with emphasis on sporty handling" (my emphasis). Convertible says "A convertible is a type of automobile of various automobile body styles that can convert from open-air mode to a provisional enclosed (roofed) mode." Assuming the car is of a sporty nature (ie not an open top boulevard cruiser), this seems to imply that a convertible is a subset of roadster. So if a sporty car can sometimes have no roof or sometimes have a soft top or sometimes have a removable hard top, then it is both a roaster and a convertible. Stepho talk 05:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say that roadster is a subset of convertible. Both the roadster article and the convertible article could probably do with some further references to reliable sources such as this one. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The first roadsters didn't have any tops at all, later they got the same rudimentary folding tops and side screens as touring cars (the British called both touring cars and roadsters "tourers") Convertibles (or all weather tourers) had well-fitting tops and side glass retractable into doors. Eventually, most "roadsters" became two-seat convertibles.

One can still get a new car that's like the old roadsters: the Caterham 7, Morgan Roadster, and Ariel Atom come to mind.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Mustang"

New article

I would like to hear your opinion about this recently created article: Range extender (vehicle). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It answers the question (1) "What is it" and makes a good start on (2) "How does it work?" I like that. And it's nice having brief descriptions of the things in action courtesy of GM and BMW. I like that too. Overall, it combines the simplicity needed if the general reader is not going to give up with enough back up to be helpfully informative. I like that. And lots of nice pointers for the incurably curious. Thank you. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how far you can drive a Chevy Volt before you have to stop, and how long you have to stop for. Plus how long can you keep the car before you have to replace it? But I appreciate that the closest thing to a simple answer there may still start with "It all depends..." Meantime I stick with my VW designed turbo diesel that doesn't go wrong very much and which the local garage understands how to fix if it does.. and which the local filling station can fill. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

yyyy-mm-dd date format in references

Many of our vehicle articles have all the references in yyyy-mm-dd format. But a recent policy change at MOS:BADDATEFORMAT says that year+month dates (ie without a specified day of the month) are no longer allowed in the yyyy-mm format (claiming a conflict with year ranges in the 2013-14 format). This requires a reference date such as 2013-04 to be changed to April 2013. But this conflicts with MOS:DATEUNIFY, which requires all reference dates to be in the same format and thus forcing all other reference dates in the article to no longer use the yyyy-mm-dd format. If you hate the yyyy-mm-dd format and want a chance to boot it out then add your view at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Is YYYY-MM an acceptable date format?. Or if you love the yyyy-mm-dd format and want to keep it, then add your view at the same place. Stepho talk 06:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all!

Everybody post your goodwill messages to get a warm and fuzzy feeling. We'll delete the section in a week or so when the fuzziness has turned into blurriness :) Stepho talk 03:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas on this third day thereof. I hope the French hens were/will be even more palatable at dinner time than the ~~calling birds~~turtle doves were yesterday! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone plz review my article

Can someone please look at my article and see if it can go into the article space? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Qunty/sandbox2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qunty (talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at what's there and there's very little; just an infobox showing that the Allard J2 was made from 1951 to 1952 and that 89 were made.

However, I also noticed that there isn't really a page for the real Allard J2 and I think it's a crying shame. You might find some information on the J2 through Google Books, in your local library, or from classic car magazines if you have access to them.

More power to you! Thank you for starting the article.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a start! I organized all the Allard photos in the Commons and planned on making articles, I say go ahead and transfer it and I'll be happy to add perhaps enough material to bring it over the stub threshold. And then the Allard K, L, M, and P models will no doubt eventually follow. As a side note, here are two photos I took of a K2 this summer - sadly not much use for wp... Mr.choppers | ✎ 07:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys! You can help me with my Allard J2 article but I was talking about the Healey Silverstone that was reviewed 2 weeks ago.

Thanks again though! ~ User:Qunty 01:35 PM, 9 January 2014(EST)