Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59

Merger of Plymouth Savoy into Plymouth Belvedere

I see that the Plymouth Savoy article has now been merged in to the Plymouth Belvedere page, one of a number of similiar merges that have occurred recently relating to American cars of this era. I am strongly opposed to this action. The former Savoy article gave a very clear history of the model, something which is no longer available as the Savoy history is now interspersed with other information on other Plymouth models, particularly, but not only, the Belvedere. I do not see this merge action as resulting in a nett improvement to Wikipedia.

What is the feeling of this group on this and similar merges? GTHO (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

GTHO —I wholeheartedly agree with you. I always thought the Savoy was an export-only model largely sourced in Canada. Eddaido (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
From what I can tell, this particular merger was done with no discussion whatsoever. While the Plymouth Savoy article is sorely in need of improvement (start-class at best), it is possible for it to stand on its own; the merger into the Plymouth Belvedere article cuts out most of early history of the model line. In my opinion, along with the merger being done with no discussion, it was done so poorly that it also justifies its reversal. On a separate note, what other mergers need attention? -SteveCof00 (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
In the US the Savoy was the entry-level full-size car from the mid-1950s(?) through 1964, in 1965 it was discontinued (to Fury #?). Belvedere was the top end (I think) full-size car until 1965, when it became an intermediate with a different body than the full-sized cars. Belvedere was only a separate body for a few years. Just background knowledge, nothing sourced enough for the article. Sammy D III (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Dodge Royal and Plymouth Plaza are two more examples of dubiously merged articles. GTHO (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
This comes from the era of American car brands where they had one platform (in 2dr, 4dr, and possibly wagon body styles), and each "model" was basically equivalent to what we now call "trim levels" of a single model. For example, here is the brochure for the 1958 Plymouth. The Plaza is the entry-level model, the Savoy the intermediate, and the Belvedere the top model. But they're all the same basic car, with different trims (extra chrome, slightly different fenders, etc.). So, when compared to the page content of more recent car models, I believe it makes sense to have the Belvedere, Savoy, and Plaza all in the same article, at least for the generation where they were similar. If there was a generation of the Savoy or Plaza that was unique, and had enough content to justify its own page, then I'd say leave the page separate, and repeat some of the info for the shared generation on the Belvedere page. But I'm not sure that's the case here.
If there is more evidence that the Savoy name was used in other markets on cars not related to the Belvedere, then maybe make Plymouth Savoy a disambiguation page, and add a link for each related model. --Vossanova o< 18:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I also disagree with the merge (plus some others done by the same editor); the combined article is not easy to follow nor is it easy to find information on a single model. It wouldn't be out of line to revert, in my opinion.

Vossanova has a good point, however, in that these models are all variations of the same basic "full-size Plymouth." My suggestion would be to have an article for each generation of (e.g. 1955 Plymouth) and convert the articles for each nameplate into what would probably amount to in-depth set index articles, giving an overview of that nameplate's specifics and linking to the main article for each generation. --Sable232 (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: I found DeSoto Fireflite, DeSoto Firesweep, DeSoto Suburban, Dodge 330, Plymouth Cambridge, and Plymouth Plaza have also been merged relatively recently into other articles. --Sable232 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
These are all Chrysler Corp. Sammy D III (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
For reference, here's how it's done for 1941 Ford and 1949 Ford. But then, others are still split like Ford Mainline, Ford Customline, Ford Crestline, and Chevrolet 150, Chevrolet 210. I guess it can also depend on how much content there is, and how often the cars are referred to in outside sources by their trim model names, versus just the brand name. --Vossanova o< 15:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The '41 and '49 can't possibly be "Start" and "Stub", can they? Sammy D III (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe that having a Plymouth Savoy page makes more sense than having Plymouth Savoy information spread across the Plymouth Belvedere page or (as proposed) spread across countless "year" pages. The unique page makes it much easier to research the history of a specific model name. I know that's what I prefer when I use these pages. I for one would not find it useful to have the Chevrolet Impala page information spread across the Chevrolet Bel Air page. GTHO (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Now I see combined Ford model pages go all the way up to 1960 Ford. But there are still separate pages for each trim like Ford Fairlane (Americas). So, I think it's fair to make both single-trim model pages (covering all generations) and pages for the full (full-size) model lineup (covering just one generation). --Vossanova o< 17:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Most readers are probably going to look for a model name when trying to find information, so I agree that maintaining articles for each nameplate should be the core of the solution. It's better to duplicate information than to have it be difficult to find. --Sable232 (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement from (Regushee (talk) - I contacted them, they didn't want to post here, so they posted the following on my TP - Sammy D III (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC) :
"In researching Chrysler Corporation products from 1925 to 1965, when they introduced the Chrysler A, B, and C platforms, Chrysler made one full size car and branded it Chrysler, DeSoto, Dodge and Plymouth, with shared technology engines and chassis, with the same interior, with different sheet metal on the front of the car, then later started adding chrome in various styles followed by two tone paint jobs, and used model names to denote how much they wanted for the car. Model names were flexible from year to year as marketing department decisions were made.
They are all the same car...Chrysler, DeSoto, Dodge and Plymouth. Chryslers were made at Jefferson Road, Dodge at Hammtramck, DeSoto and Plymouth at Lynch Road then later in the 1930s the Los Angeles Plant was a branch assembly that put them together for the West Coast.
The articles, as some editors mentioned, were fragmented to say the least, with content copied from one car to another, so I merged all contributions onto one site with bolded names to signify the different models. If they want to split the articles into fragmented articles, fine, just copy the content from one article and copy everything into separate pages like clones with model specific pictures. I found the content from two books that are often sited on these car articles from books I've purchased so as to cite the source, and both books treat these cars, within the different brands, as one car.".
In light of the above discussion, I propose that the merger of each of the above-mentioned Plymouth, Dodge and DeSoto articles be reversed. GTHO (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Altogether too much "dumbing down". US market cars were / are? sold differently outside of USA. Here's an example — Mercury Monarch. Eddaido (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I don't do cars and have no opinion but one editor made a merge (without discussion?) that more than one editor oppose. Seems like a no-brainer to revert and stay on the talk pages. I don't see where anybody has contacted that editor, though. Maybe I missed it, but they should get a heads up. Sammy D III (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the merge revert. Like I wrote in my last comment above, it seems best to have separate pages for each trim/model that span multiple generations, and (if there's demand) a combined page covering all related trims/models for a single generation, with some redundant information organized differently. --Vossanova o< 16:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments above. --Sable232 (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Support the reversion. As I noted above, this issue started when the initial merger was done with almost no discussion (highly frowned upon...), leading to a poor contribution to the Plymouth Belvedere article. I do concede that the Plymouth Savoy article is in need of improvement, but it does look like it can stand on its own with editing attention. All the merge did was copy and paste one article onto another. Things like these can get very complicated, but I find it best not to merge too many of these articles, as the branding of car nameplates can get complicated (the above statement by GTHO is a simpler example...of American cars). SteveCof00 (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that we can say that the proposal has been approved. I will start work on reviving the deleted pages shortly. GTHO (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Support the reversion on procedural grounds only. A merge is not "highly frowned upon". Noncontroversial merges are acceptable. The issue is when controversy arises. I didn't look at the articles in question but it is absolutely a community norm to include various trim packages/models of the same vehicle in one article. Things that should be considered would be if one model or trim package has merit for a stand-alone article over inclusion. If split articles result in two lower-class articles then a merge would help create a better class article. Again, I am just supporting because there does seem to be controversy on the merge. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Added note: Merges that are uncontroversial are totally acceptable, as this must have been at the time but consensus can change. I do want to add that "if" the page(s) intended to be separated should look like the "old revision" linked to above it would not be beneficial. The "Multiple issues" tag includes possible OR and a lack of inline citations. While splitting an article allowing for more in-depth coverage is not a bad thing this should really be covered in the affected articles and not here. I would suggest a merge request on the articles and link here that it is ongoing. This also allows more community involvement over just a project one. --- Otr500 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I have restored each of the following pages to its pre-merge status: DeSoto Fireflite, DeSoto Firesweep, DeSoto Suburban, Dodge 330, Dodge Wayfarer, Plymouth Cambridge, Plymouth Plaza, Plymouth Savoy. I have not yet taken action on the articles into which these pages were merged. GTHO (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Plymouth Suburban also now restored. GTHO (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
DeSoto Adventurer also now restored. GTHO (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I have been looking at the history of the articles into which the above pages had been merged, with a view to reverting each of those articles to their pre-merged state. The articles are: DeSoto Firedome (merged 21/8), DeSoto Series S-10 (20/8), Dodge Polara (1/9), Dodge Coronet 28/8, Plymouth Cranbrook (4/9) and Plymouth Belvedere (8/9 & 9/9). The problem is that some of these have had additional changes made to them by other editors since the merges were done. How can we best handle this? GTHO (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
DeSoto Firedome restored to pre-merger status (17/7/2021). GTHO (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
DeSoto Series S-10 restored to pre-merger status (20/8/2021). GTHO (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Dodge Polara: Dodge 330 info removed. GTHO (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Dodge Polara: Dodge 440 info removed and Dodge 440 page restored. GTHO (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Dodge Polara: Dodge Matador info removed and Dodge Matador page restored. GTHO (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Dodge Coronet: 1955 Dodge, Dodge Wayfarer, Dodge Meadowbrook, Dodge Royal, Dodge Custom Royal, Dodge La Femme and Dodge D-500 info removed. Relevant pages restored if not already done. GTHO (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Plymouth Cranbrook: Plymouth Cambridge and Plymouth Concord info deleted. GTHO (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Plymouth Belvedere: Plymouth Savoy, Plymouth Suburban and Plymouth Plaza info deleted. GTHO (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Holden FAR

I have nominated Holden for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hood (soft top)

An American seems to have deleted this article and tidied up the links on these pages. I do not know what was in the article (except I guess it was to point out to Americans that a car hood might not be what they imagine it is) but it was probably doing its little job. How do I get it restored?

22:48, 25 December 2021 diff hist −20‎ Bond Minicar ‎ Removing link(s) to "Hood (soft top)": Removing links to deleted page Hood (soft top). current Tag: Twinkle
22:48, 25 December 2021 diff hist −20‎ Jaguar XK120 ‎ Removing link(s) to "Hood (soft top)": Removing links to deleted page Hood (soft top). current Tag: Twinkle
22:48, 25 December 2021 diff hist −20‎ Limousine ‎ Removing link(s) to "Hood (soft top)": Removing links to deleted page Hood (soft top). current Tag: Twinkle
22:48, 25 December 2021 diff hist −20‎ Jaguar D-Type ‎ Removing link(s) to "Hood (soft top)": Removing links to deleted page Hood (soft top). current Tag: Twinkle
22:48, 25 December 2021 diff hist −20‎ Barouche ‎ Removing link(s) to "Hood (soft top)": Removing links to deleted page Hood (soft top). current Tag: Twinkle
22:48, 25 December 2021 diff hist −4‎ Hood ‎ Removing link(s) to "Hood (soft top)": Removing links to deleted page Hood (soft top). Tag: Twinkle
22:48, 25 December 2021 diff hist −20‎ Cabriolet (carriage) ‎ Removing link(s) to "Hood (soft top)": Removing links to deleted page Hood (soft top). current Tag: Twinkle

Eddaido (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

See Deletion_of_articles_on_Wikipedia#Deletion_review_and_undeletion.  Stepho  talk  10:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Stepho, the way the system works I was unable to find anything (everything has been disappeared) but I did find somewhere a note by the deleter of the links that the article had been on PROD for a decade and had never been accessed. That suggests no-one had ever found the term puzzling.
If everyone else is content I will let sleeping dogs lie. Eddaido (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Yea, it's tough to see something that's been disappeared, I don't remember ever knowing how to do it. So lets shoot at shadows?
I just checked out XK120 and I think something should be there. As a US speaker "With hood and sidescreens erected" makes no sense. I don't see how an article explaining the difference is necessary, though, I would probably just put (something) in parentheses. It would have been nice if that editor had paid attention and replaced something and not just deleted, but, well... Is it worth your time just to follow them around and fix things up?
I first thought that only Commonwealth auto-nuts would care but XK120's getting 150+ hits a day. Sammy D III (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Image discussion again

I apologize in advance, and probably as many others here, I am annoyed of these discussions as well, but there is a new image discussion at Talk:Audi_Q5#Image_revert running. It would be nice, if some more opinions arise. As is usually the case, when I ask here, the problem is more or less the same. Thanks and have a good start in 2022.--Alexander-93 (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil

Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Peerless Motor Company listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Peerless Motor Company to be moved to Peerless Motor Company (American automobile company). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Shrensbury Winton

Recently noticed this on Commons: File:Family in Shrensbury Winton automobile, probably in Seattle, 1910 (MOHAI 2024).jpg. Never heard of one of this make, and we appear to have nothing. Could this possibly be Winton Motor Carriage Company and "Shrensbury" is a red herring? Any clues welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 00:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Merge: J-segment and Sport utility vehicle

Hello editors. It has been proposed that the article J-segment be merged into the article Sport utility vehicle. And one or both of those articles is within the scope of this WikiProject. If you would like express support for or object to the merge then you are strongly encouraged to do so at the talk page for Sport utility vehicle. Thank you!

--Andra Febrian (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Article request

I couldn't figure out how to request an article here, so decided to do it here: Houdaille shock absorber now has 14 red links and Houdaille Industries, which besides the aforementioned dampers produced also car bumpers, other kinds of car accessories and later machine tools, has 22. There are plenty of sources on both, one could start from, e. g., http://www.geocities.ws/MotorCity/Garage/1205/hhist.html Ain92 (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ain92: Why not create it yourself? You are auto-confirmed. If you prefer you could also go via WP:AFC but you don't need to. A7V2 (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, probably not the best way of going about it to edit multiple articles, adding redlinks, and then asking that an article be created. Eagleash (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The situation where the links led to Ralph Peo, whose only relation to the damper type is being the executive vice-president (not even the chief engineer, not to speak about the CEO!) in the aformenetioned company for a decade, and neither the damper nor the company was described in his bio, was totally confusing for the readers. Much better to have precise, albeit red, links. Ain92 (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ain92: That is not how Wikipedia typically works. Write the article first, get it accepted and then tweak or add the links as appropriate. Adding mutltiple redlinks and then saying, 'X product has loads of redlinks, surely it needs an article' is a little disingenuous. A 'naive' Google search for Houdaille does not reveal much in the way of SIGCOV. The top results are trade sites then there's an Autosport forum (not WP:RS), Graces guide, which is sometimes OK others not so much and a couple of American sites which I cannot comment on in respect of reliabilty or anything else. In the meantime and until an article is written, I have tweaked the link at Ferrari Tipo 500 to here which has some content about the Houdaille. Eagleash (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ain92: For future reference the place to request an article is at WP:RA but there is often a backlog and you would need to be patient. As far as this project is concerned, another editor may also have an interest in the topic and therefore come to your assistance. However, that is not in any way guaranteed. Usually, the quickest way, if you want to see an article on Wikipedia, is to create it yourself, particularly if you have sources and consider them reliable. Unfortunately, there is no panel of editors waiting to create articles 'on demand' as it were; even at WP:RA editors are likely to pick whatever topics interest them. All contibutors here are volunteers and will edit however they wish. Eagleash (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Since you have knowledge of the subject matter and some sources, the normal way is to simple create the article(s) yourself. After all, WP is meant to edited by anyone. I would create Houdaille Industries first (just click on the red link and follow the instructions), with the shock absorber as a section within it. Then I will create a redirect for Houdaille shock absorber that simply takes the reader to that section. Don't worry if you get some of the formatting details wrong - we'll help you clean them up.  Stepho  talk  22:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Does a source for a car's curb weight need to specifically state "with standard equipment"?

As the title says, does a source for a car's curb weight need to specifically state that the curb weight is "with standard equipment" in order for it to be acceptable? Or are sources which state "curb weight without options" or just "curb weight" acceptable? Quick responses would be appreciated. Carfan568 (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. In practice, that would eliminate the weights in the majority of articles. Car brochures often state weights without referencing which level of trim or if any options are present or deleted - or even if they have a full fuel tank or nearly empty. Same for car articles in magazines - they just weigh what they got. Also, the standard options often differ between countries (eg Australia was traditionally given the poverty pack in terms of equipment levels compare to the same car sold in the US).  Stepho  talk  22:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
It's an interesting question and I'm not sure the best way to handle it. Stated weights vary widely, especially if it's mfr claims. I would suggest simply noting if the weight is mfr's stated weight or a weight as tested and of course provide the source. Springee (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Sources need to specify the standard that belongs to the figure. The reason for this is comparability. This means that, the mass figures are not meant to indicate the actual vehicle mass that is true for every vehicle that is included in the set of a certain type of vehicle, instead, they are meant to allow comparing two different sets of vehicles under the same standardised conditions. Real world vehicle masses obviously deviate from standardised mass figures, and this is totally acceptable; after all, we've got to deal with tyre wear, fuel consumption, different payloads, and so on, and so forth. And, we must not forget that, at a speed of 180 km/h, every additional kilogram of mass results in an increased power requirement of maybe 10 W – and that is virtually negligible given the fact that modern car engines typically have power output figures well beyond 100,000 W. So even if a source doesn't state the standard that belongs to its vehicle mass figure, I'd say that the source is still acceptable, simply, because vehicle mass doesn't matter that much. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Some unimportant anecdote: Vehicle weight changes with the vehicle's position. Several years ago, in a similar discussion on the German language Wikipedia, I calculated that, a Melkus RS 1000 sports car would lose about 2 kp of weight at the North Pole, and gain 2 kp of weight at the Equator. The message here is that, a true vehicle weight figure cannot exist due to Physics limitations, so any reasonable figure is acceptable as long as it allows a decent estimation of the car's mass. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Bollocks. It's mass doesn't change, and neither would the international standard kg wherever it is. Greglocock (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Curb weights are a nightmare from the manufacturers perspective, at least in an engineering sense. They directly effect the inertial weight category for emissions testing, so there is always a push to minimise the quoted figure, but in the end i think they quote the expected sales volume related average for a given vehicle. For my models I usually take either the max take options, or the average of the zero options and fully loaded configurations. I don't know what they use for crash etc, and for homologation tests. Greglocock (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Have you read what I wrote? I said the weight (kp) changes with the position, the mass (kg) obviously stays the same. In "CO2 emissions determining", additional mass used to be beneficial for car manufacturers, as it allowed them to build cars with ridiculously high fuel consumption figures, because the mass was used as a "correctional factor" for the 95 g/km CO2 limit. This was espiecially important for car makers after buyers switched from Diesels to less efficient Ottos… --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes I did and it is just high school pedanticism. Curb weights are quoted in kg, not kN. Greglocock (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

For anyone to whom it might concern, the regulation No 333/2014 can be found here. On average, a European car may only emit 95 g/km of CO2, but car manufacturers have some tricks up their sleeves. Bascially, what the car-manufacturer-dictated regulation assumes is that, a default vehicle has a mass of 1400 kg, and that it emits 95 g/km of CO2 (this is equivalent to a fuel consumption of 3.6 l/100 km). However, not all vehicles have a mass of exactly 1400 kg, so additional CO2 may be emitted for vehicles that are heavier. The problem here is that the regulation assumes that fuel consumption is equivalent to vehicle mass – which it is not. So car makers can "cheat" the regulation by simply increasing the mass of their average car: Increasing the mass from 1400 kg to 1500 kg makes no practical difference, but increases the CO2 emissions limit from 95 g/km to 98 g/km, which increases the permissible fuel consumption from 3.6 l/100 km to 3.7 l/100 km. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Just asking as a clarification, does "curb weight without options" essentially mean the same thing as "curb weight with standard equipment"? Carfan568 (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume it has a consistent meaning. I might take it to mean a base model without features. In the past that might mean a version without AC or ABS and with a manual transmission. However, the "standard" version that sells best would include AC and an automatic but say no ABS. This is why it's best to simply state, to the best of our ability, who is providing the stated weight and how they got it (road test, mfr provided etc). Springee (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue is complicated further by "recent"-ish changes regarding options, and whether those options add or remove weight. My understanding is that in the past manufacturers could choose whatever vehicle specification they wanted for homologation weight, but "Cars must now be homologated without any weight-saving options ticked" source. IPBilly (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Porsche has used a marketing trick with the Porsche 982 GT4. In this case, Porsche says that the vehicle mass is 1420 kg according to the DIN 70020-2 standard.[8] This standard allows a deviation of 5 per cent, i.e. that a car with a rated mass of 1420 kg can have a real mass of 1495 kg (including a 75 kg driver, and all necessary fluids such as oil, fuel, etc.). In the US, the standards are different, which is why in the US the exact same car has a weight of 3,208 lb (equivalent to a mass of 1455 kg).[9] All car manufacturers "cheat" as much as the standards allow, and not all regulations and legislations are uniform across all countries in the world, so the standards have to be included with the mass figures (if possible). The worst thing that can happen is not that the "real vehicle mass" is different from the figures, but that we have mass figures that were determined using different standards without clearly indicating that. Imagine a comparison between the said Porsche 982 GT4 with its DIN 70020-2 rated mass of 1420 kg and a BMW G29 Z4 M40i roadster with an EU-regulation-rated mass of 1610 kg. At first glance this looks like an almost 200 kg difference in mass, while in reality the mass difference between these two cars is rather around 100 kg. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree, it's all a marketing game. I think the context of the article is the supposed weight gain between the published 981 GT4 weight (1,340kg) and the published 982 GT4 weight (1,420kb), with the 981 weight reported from a car with all the weight-saving options equipped (CC brakes, CF seats, radio delete, etc) vs "standard" w/o options. I've read(at least with respect to Porsche), US homologated cars are not equipped with the same emissions equipment other regions have. IPBilly (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, as editors we should not be making claims about weight changes between models etc using various weights we find. If the weights were always apples to apples it might not fall afoul of wp:OR but given it requires an editor to decide if the selected example weights are apples to apples this would be OR and thus isn't allowed. If a RS auto magazine reports a difference or notes the difference between two test samples that might be DUE. However, we would need to be careful to note if the magazine is quoting the a mfr claim ("BMW said the the new Z4 is X kg lighter/heavier than the outgoing model") or if this is a review source claim ("Road and Track said their 2021 Corvette test car is X lb heavier than 2018 model they tested"). Springee (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Overland Automobile

This article seems to be incomplete. Eddaido (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Spanish and German Wiki's have more information NealeWellington (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
That's good. I hope someone is interested enough to take on the job. Eddaido (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Johan van Zyl (businessman)#Requested move 28 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Johan van Zyl (businessman)#Requested move 28 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ram TRX

Hello! I'd like some help in updating the Ram TRX article to be up to date. I have put in a technical move request to move it to Ram 1500 TRX (not meaning to canvass but just mentioning it for transparency and in case it does get moved). The current article only goes as far as to describe the truck before it released and needs information now that the truck is in production. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 04:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably not the response you're looking for, but I'm not convinced that a separate article is warranted in this case. The "production rumors" section is unencylclopedic and referenced to sources that probably aren't particularly reliable. The "in media" section shouldn't be included either, which leaves very little content for an article to stand on its own - and most of that is for the concept, not the production vehicle. --Sable232 (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@Sable232: Nah I'm perfectly fine with that response. Really I'd just like to improve it as much as I can and then based on what you said probably just merge it into the article on the Ram Pickup (fifth generation) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. None of the other Hellcat vehicles have a dedicated page nor does the F150 Raptor. The only example I could find was the Dodge Ram SRT-10, which could probably be merged with its relevant page. IPBilly (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Assistance with Honda Ridgeline (second generation)

Hello! I would like some help in improving the article Honda Ridgeline (second generation). Taking a look at it, it's pretty bad. It goes way too in-depth with some things. I can do most of the copy-editing, however I will need help in determining what references are needed and which ones aren't. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Lancia Pangea

I deleted in Fiat Sedici the part in the template "aka = Lancia Pangea" because this denomination and name never existed and the source that was cited presented a photoshop! Can it ever be a photoshop encyclopedic source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.67.196.41 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Further discussion should be done at Talk:Fiat Sedici#Lancia Pangea. --Sable232 (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ram Rebel TRX#Requested move 12 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ram Rebel TRX#Requested move 12 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 07:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ford Maverick (2022)#Requested move 8 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ford Maverick (2022)#Requested move 8 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hackney (automobile)

Notice

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

Unverified for 12.22 years

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I removed the PROD tag, removed the word "defunct" in the short description, added their website. They moved from High Point, NC to Washington, NC., exactly 200 miles east. They make commercial beds/frames for the commercial market. https://hackneyusa.com/ The article does still need sources besides the primary link, I might have to go to the library and look that up, since I live less than 30 minutes from High Point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of badge-engineered vehicles#Requested move 16 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of badge-engineered vehicles#Requested move 16 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 08:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: If you wish to comment please do so at Talk:Chevrolet Corvette (C7)#Related

I have run into this issue, what really qualifies as related? On the Corvette C7 page, there is was and currently is a dispute whether to the Equus Throwback (a bodykit for the C7 Z06/C7 produced by a low-volume American manufacturer), and the IsoRivolta GTZ (a coachbuilt Z06, see sources @ C7 talk page for detail as to why its related) are related to the C7 or not. I mean, for crying out loud the Equus even has the same mirrors, and I'm highly disinclined that they aren't bespoke chassis either. No one has mentioned whether they're bodies in white but donor or body in white, I reckon they qualify as related. An IP has argued against this, stating that these

Companies like Iso and Equus are completely a niche of their own and almost no car enthusiast cares about those brands

Which I personally just find ridiculous. Not to mention the insults he puts in to spice things up a bit. Your thoughts? Do those two cars belong? They [the IP] also mention that it shouldn't be an exhaustive list, well I don't think it is either, since a quick google search of "C7 bodykit" brings up a gajillion results. X-750 I've made a mistake, haven't I? 11:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Chevrolet_Corvette_(C7)#Related. Rather than split the discussion, it would be better to answer over there.  Stepho  talk  11:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
True. Amended. X-750 I've made a mistake, haven't I? 11:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to have custom car expert double check new article I created

Greetings! I have created the article about custom car designer Bo Huff. I don't think this article is directly within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, but I have used terminology for specific types of automobiles and custom auto techniques/styles throughout. I come to this topic from an interest in car subcultures and from a desire to learn more about the mechanical functioning of cars by making grammatical edits to existing articles. (I am an editor and researcher by trade, not an automobile expert.) Thus, I am hoping that someone in this project who is an automobile expert can just give this new article I created a quick read and make sure I have not incorrectly used any terminology related to cars, for which I have provided internal links. Thank you so much!LRFtheLion (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Well done!  Stepho  talk  11:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I really appreciate you double checking it for me! LRFtheLion (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Vehicle manufacturing groups along with their brands.

In the automotive industry article there used to be a table with vehicle manufacturers and their brands. It was removed in a 29 January 2021 edit which intended to remove some "OICA" ranking. As it is a really useful information that was systemized in a compact table, I suggest its return and update. An example why its usefull is that nowadays manufacturers use a few platforms to create a wide range of vehicles which are fundamentally the same. Knowing all the brands of a particular manufacturer lets you decide on a platform you like and then check all its iterations throught the manufacturer's portfolio of brands. Thank you! 84.21.203.68 (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

User contributions for 88.98.85.216

This IP is running through adjusting technical terminology to personal taste. I think it is often wrong but I do not have the knowledge to convincingly dispute the IP's changes. Perhaps a more knowledgeable enthusiast could run an eye over these edits. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I did a spot check of some of the changes and they seem reasonable. Can you give an example of what bothers you?  Stepho  talk  18:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources for Toyota Prius (XW50) - have I cited this right?

I added this section to Toyota Prius (XW50), but is this correct for sources cited and are they reliable sources:

Discontinuation

Only Australia and New Zealand discontinued the Prius.

It was discontinued in New Zealand in August 2021, and at the time was reduced to the Prius Prime plug-in hybrid model, with the regular hybrid discontinued in 2020. It was discontinued due to slow sales as only 38 were sold nationally between January and July 2021.[1]

The Prius was discontinued in Australia in May 2022 after 21 years because other Toyota hybrid models were selling well and its unique selling point had been lost.[2].


Any help is welcomed. --Easteary861 (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That's pretty good. I normally put in the location field too (New Zealand or Australia). But it's as good as the majority of references we have. Well done.  Stepho  talk  20:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. The refs appear to be reasonably reliable, however the discontinuation being caused by the loss of the unique selling point is arguably unsupported. I would suggest looking over MOS:OVERLINK, I don't think any of the WLs you've added should be included here. Cheers. IPBilly (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sluys, Andrew (17 Aug 2021). "Toyota's iconic Prius Hybrid quietly disappears from NZ line-up". Retrieved 26 May 2022.
  2. ^ Mathioudakis, Byron (12 May 2022). "Home Car News Toyota drops hybrid hero: Pioneering Prius discontinued in Australia as eco icon's legacy lives on in almost every other mainstream Toyota model". Carsguide.com.au. Retrieved 26 May 2022.

Template:Rolls–Royce

I attempted to edit Template:Rolls-Royce to place the upcoming Rolls-Royce Spectre in the correct chronological position relative to the current vehicles, but the table is too cumbersome to make changes. It should be reformatted using Template:Timeline. And the color contrast is terrible. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"MPV" as a jargon

User:HumanBodyPiloter5 has made some changes in lead sections of most MPV articles, for example Renault Espace, Eurovans, Toyota Corolla Verso and many others, which I think should be discussed. The changes generally looks like this:

Before:
"The Toyota Corolla Verso is a compact MPV produced by the Japanese manufacturer Toyota between 2001 and 2009. The first generation Corolla Verso..."
After:
"The Toyota Corolla Verso is a car produced by the Japanese manufacturer Toyota between 2001 and 2009. Described in the motor trade as a compact MPV, the first generation Corolla Verso..."

The reason of the changes generally are "remove WP:JARGON from MOS:FIRST sentence of lead to avoid confusing non-expert readers." My comments are:

1. I understand MPV is not a common term in several regions such as North America, however I want to point out that in places where the term is commonly used it probably does not take an "expert" to understand it, it's as understandable as "SUV" in some regions.

2. Maybe it is a jargon, but as long as there's a link explaining what that means, I think it wouldn't cause much confusion. I looked through articles from other WikiProjects such as WikiProjects Ships, and they use jargons in the first sentence just fine. For example, in USS Indianapolis (CA-35) (a high traffic, high-importance article) it says:

"USS Indianapolis (CL/CA-35) was a Portland-class heavy cruiser of the United States Navy, named for the city of Indianapolis, Indiana", not:
"USS Indianapolis (CL/CA-35) was a cruiser of the United States Navy, named for the city of Indianapolis, Indiana. It is described in the US Navy as a Portland-class cruiser and classified as a heavy cruiser."

I'm not a ship expert, I have no idea what Portland-class means in the first sentence, but there is a link that I can follow so now I know.

3. How about other terms such as "SUV" or "crossover SUV"? Why is "MPV" a jargon but "crossover SUV" isn't? As the article Crossover (automobile) pointed out, in some regions they don't distinguish crossover and SUV, so the usage of such term might also be confusing for some readers. But currently there is no concern whether "SUV" or "crossover SUV" is a WP:JARGON.

4. "Motor trade" itself might be a WP:JARGON, usage of such term is very uncommon.

So I would like to propose that any of these changes to be revised or reverted because it currently creates discrepancies with the rest of automobile articles. Any input is welcomed. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I too would put MPV in the same class as SUV - technically jargon but practically everybody knows what it is. I think Americans prefer to call them mini-vans. But, as you said, that what links are for. I really hate phrases like "Described in the motor trade". We could put that in the front of almost any description in any automobile article but it just clutters things up and doesn't actually add anything. I do think his heart is in the right place but it's not quite working.  Stepho  talk  07:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
In my view essentially any term which isn't "car" or "van" or "truck" or "automobile" or the like is jargon for the purposes of the MOS:FIRST statement of the MOS:LEAD. The opening subject-verb-object formation of the article should be as clear as possible to as broad an audience as possible without getting dragged down by convoluted qualifiers that in many cases may reduce opportunities for MOS:COMMONALITY. Terms like "multi-purpose vehicle" or "coupé" or "SUV" are overly-precise for that context, even if they can be appropriately used later in the lead or even the first sentence. It's also worth remembering that many readers may (for numerous reasons) not be able to see the images in the article, in which case immediately establishing the general subject of the article without going into specifics is far more important as a MOS:ACCESS issue. I will admit it's probably unnecessary to state that something is "described in the motor trade as [x]", although my goal with that wording was to reassure non-expert readers that they aren't abnormally ignorant for not knowing specialist terminology which may not be commonly used in their dialect. I strongly dispute the claim that "practically everybody knows" the meaning of these terms. I have repeatedly had friends, family, and acquaintances ask me for help regarding car-buying decisions specifically because they've been overwhelmed and confused by terms like "saloon" or "crossover" being used instead of WP:PLAINENGLISH. The ship examples are a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF but they should probably be amended so the opening statement includes a word like "ship" or "boat" too. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Specifically addressing "minivan" as a term here, my only real concern with that in the opening statement of most articles is that it may give the impression to non-Americans that the subject of the article is a small commercial vehicle rather than a passenger car, but I think it's far clearer in most cases than "multi-purpose vehicle" (which to the non-initiated could mean frankly anything) or "people carrier" (which is relatively commonly understood in the UK to mean "car with more than five seats" but probably sounds more like a type of public transportation vehicle to speakers of other dialects). This can relatively easily be addressed though. I think "minivan" should specifically be avoided in articles about vehicles manufactured by the British Motor Corporation, British Leyland, the Rover Group, or BMW on the grounds that it is far more likely in those specific cases that it could mislead readers into believing that the article's subject is in some way derived from or related to the Mini (original or new), although given WP:ENGVAR this is unlikely to be an issue for most of those examples. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I believe most “Americans” use “minivan” and “MPV” means very little. I think there is some serious ENGVAR here. I also notice that none of the three examples, Espace, Eurovan, and Verso, show what language they’re written in on the talk page. Sammy D III (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I too agree that these changes should be reverted, but in thinking about this I changed my mind several times. Limiting every road going vehicle to "car" or "van" or "truck" or "automobile" is overly broad and would be no different than the opening sentence for a dog breed being "XXX is a sub-varient of meat-eating animal commonly domesticated by humans" or every cellphone article beginning with "XXX is a portable communications device" rather than "android based smartphone". However, I generally agree with some of the accessibility and ENGVAR considerations as well as despise acronyms and think for purposes of the first sentence they should be spelled out. IPBilly (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not arguing that the opening sentence fragment should be strictly limited to "the [model name] is a car" or the like, it's just that the opening sentence fragment should always include one of those near-universally understood terms and that any adjectives included before that term should be ones which are similarly likely to be universally understood (ie. "the [model name] is a battery-electric car" or "the [model name] is a two-seater sports car") and limited in quantity to avoid confusing people (so "the [model name] is a four-door five-seater front-engine rear-wheel-drive compact executive sports saloon car" should be avoided in favour of "the [model name] is a four-door car" or something with plenty of WP:COMMONALITY). Regarding the "android-based smartphone" example, that works reasonably well because it still has the word "smartphone" in it, which is commonly understood by the general public. "Multi-purpose vehicle" does not clearly establish to a non-expert whether the subject is an automobile or a train or a blimp or a ship or a space rocket, so it should be established that the "vehicle" being referred to in that term is a type of automobile first. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I think this opinion and the example (as well as other) edits are at odds with each other. I do agree that the number of adjectives should be limited. While "multi-purpose vehicle" may be ambiguous on its face, I do not agree that without explicitly stating that the subject is an automobile a non-expert would be lead to believe "multi-purpose vehicle" would encompass your examples. Furthermore, if that were the case, even terms such as "car" and "van" might need further clarification lest they be confused for passenger car (rail), railroad car, railcar, elevator car, box car, box truck, box van, or road train. IPBilly (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
In this specific case I see nothing wrong with saying, "The Corolla Verso is a MPV based on Toyotas...". MPV is specific enough for many readers and it can always be linked to the parent article. This is a case where we should be careful regarding what to call the vehicle based on market. Consider 3 cases, North America, Japan and UK/Europe. I think MPV is really a UK English term. As for other European languages, I don't know if their term for an MPV is a roughly literal translation or if it's a totally different word. For example is it a BMW "Estate" or "Station Wagon". Neither term is a literal translation of the German name so I wouldn't favor one vs the other. I would apply the same standard if we are talking about a Japanese car that is sold both in Europe and North America. However, if we are talking about a minivan/MPV that was not sold in North America I would tend to use the UK terms. Consider what it would be called in it's primary English speaking market and use that. Chrysler minivan, Renault MPV. I would avoid terms that aren't common or come off as a marketing term to avoid calling something an SUV or (shudder) a station wagon. Things like "Sport activity vehicle" or "personal luxury coupe". Springee (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Generally agree. The pages WP:CARCLASS and Car classification are generally informative, specifically the table showing various US/UK/European equivalencies and the preferred usage. As "MPV" is an official Euro NCAP class I don't think (at least when spelled out) that it's any less common, or more ambiguous, than "sports car". IPBilly (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree. When compact MPV is linked, any uncertainty over what it means is easily resolved by reading the article. Yes, they're still called minivans in North America, although there are few left on the market. And, realistically, an average American confused about what a compact MPV is will look at the lead photo and have a pretty good idea. "Described in the motor trade" is cumbersome wording that offers nothing to the reader (and, as mentioned above, "motor trade" is no less jargon than any vehicle classification). --Sable232 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Blind and visually impaired people exist and use Wikipedia and there are many people who may be accessing the text of a Wikipedia article who may not be able to access Wikimedia's image servers (eg. because their school has blocked access due to the presence of certain medical images etc.) or who may not be able to access the destinations of wikilinks. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I am well aware of that. The fact remains that the phrase "described in the motor trade as" provides the reader with no additional understanding whatsoever. --Sable232 (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Concerns regarding sourcing

Another concern that I have here is that an awful lot of cars just don't fit into neat little boxes where a single term can definitely be said to describe a car with both maximum precision and accuracy. Trying to find sources for the Honda Stream, Mitsubishi Space Star, and Nissan Almera Tino articles just now I found that different sources had plenty of different terms to describe them with (or indeed the same source will use multiple different terms), and that's just the sources that are easy to grab in web searches for twenty-year-old cars. Part of why I'm keen on starting articles by saying "the Saab 900 is a car" or "the Bedford Rascal is a van" is the various WP:MOS aspects I bought up before (particularly MOS:ACCESS), but there's also the issue of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to consider. Avoiding WP:OR means looking at sources, but that's often likely to reveal a big jumble of different terms used to describe a car (especially if one focuses on independent reviews rather than news articles regurgitating press-releases), and picking one of those as definitive or trying to smash them all together into one descriptor is likely to be WP:SYNTH. That's where the accuracy and precision aspect comes in: It's better to use a term we can be confident is accurate (like "automobile") than to risk compromising on accuracy by trying to maximise precision from the very MOS:FIRST sentence fragment. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
After having a go at adding sources for the article on the Opel Meriva (which is more recent than the aforementioned models and thus has more sources that are easier to find) my concerns about WP:SYNTH regarding car classifications has only increased. Prescribing every car a single definitive class in the infobox seems exceedingly likely to result in cases of WP:SYNTH in a well-sourced article and to be a magnet for WP:OR in a poorly-sourced one. I know WP:OTHERSTUFF, but one place to start would be to look at how music infoboxes are handled: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (a featured article) lists four genres in its infobox, not just one. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
It is true that most vehicle classes in WikiProject Automobiles are based on WP:OR, with nitpicked source, or sometimes by WP:BRD. But this is definitely a tricky issue to solve as you said. One vehicle could be considered a mid-size in one region, subcompact or small in the other, or compact elsewhere. Of course writing multiple classes to represent different views in different sources is not a solution either, one is that it further confuses readers and once we do that for articles that already included multiple vehicle classes (example: Suzuki Vitara) it would become an exhausting list. With music genres it's acceptable because genres are generally short words. Long story short I couldn't come up with a solution for this. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for a new field in the automobile infobox

Hello! I'm seeking for consensus to add a new field in the automobile infobox, which is 'model_code'. Model codes of vehicles are already incorporated in many infoboxes of car articles, just not in a dedicated field which provides no context, causes clutter and problems in referencing. If you would like express support for or object to the proposal, then you are strongly encouraged to do so at the talk page. Thank you! Andra Febrian (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Gulf Oil listed at Good Article Reassessment

Gulf Oil has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

photo for lincoln

As some of you may notice, Lincoln Motor Company does not have a photo, which negatively impacts the ability to search for it. Since it does not have a headquarters to use as the photo, I would like to discuss using an alternative image for the brand. I suggest an advertisement photo that contains both a continental and a mark series vehicle. I would suggest one from 1969, given that the suicide door continental and the Mark III are the most well known of their respective product lines. GeorgeRoush5 (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion is at talk:Lincoln Motor Company#Added a photo. Please answer there.  Stepho  talk  01:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Car layout § Requested move 27 July 2022

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Car layout § Requested move 27 July 2022. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Variants?

As a brief overview, the CLK GTR (W297) is a racecar manufactured by Mercedes-Benz. It has a variant, called the CLK LM. There is a separate infobox for the CLK-Straßenversion (street legal version), my question is should I create a separate infobox for the CLK LM? I think I should, but I'm not too sure. X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 23:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As long as the 2 variants have substantial difference then a separate infobox is fine. if they are the same except for a few points (eg engine size/power) then use the same infobox with both variants mentioned by name in the appropriate field.
It's useful if you give us a link to the article as part of your question.  Stepho  talk  01:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Stepho-wrs, yes I suppose a link would be useful. The article in question is Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR. The CLK-LM has slightly different measurements and has an entirely different engine (V12 vs V8). I just think that if there's another infobox for the road-going version, there should be one like there is at Maserati MC12. X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 21:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for the ping Stepho-wrs, upon further deliberation I reckon a separate article is necessary. Why, you may ask? Well it's not a variant in the sense that the C7 ZR1 is a variant of the C7, and deserves to be under that page. It's more an evolution, like BMW V12 LM and BMW V12 LMR, or Peugeot 908 HDi FAP and Peugeot 908. What do you reckon? If you agree, I would also just like to ask whether we should overwrite the redirect or tag it for speedy deletion & then create a new article? I ask this so that the page can be reviewed again. X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 00:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I would leave them in the same article - mostly due to size. If the 2 articles were significantly larger then I would probably agree with your reasoning. But some editors are deletionists who like to delete small articles, claiming that they are not notable enough. The current article is large enough that they will leave it alone. Theses cars are related closely enough that they still make sense together and provide some context for each other. Plenty of other race car articles have done similar - eg Toyota 7.  Stepho  talk  01:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll be more than happy to fight the deletionists, Stepho-wrs. Your decision to support me or not is totally within your own prerogative, but I'll boldy make a new article. The question remains though, do I overwrite the redirect or is there some {{db}} template that I can use? X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 01:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
No problem. Simply overwriting the redirect will do the job.  Stepho  talk  02:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources for Duesenberg

I'm doing the GA review for Duesenberg, and am concerned the article is a little short for a fairly famous car company. The review is here. More opinions would be welcome on whether the article is comprehensive -- the nominator pointed out that they were only around for 20 years or so, and many of the sources that cover them are coffee table books without a lot of content. That seems reasonable but I'm no expert so I thought I would ask here. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Chevy Blazer and Equinox EV

Hello! I would like to get an opinion on these articles. Currently, I don't believe they are notable enough to be separate from the normal Blazer and Equinox articles based on their current state. A quick search reveals a lot of sources, however I'm unsure if they say enough different things to make these 2 electric vehicles notable enough to have their own articles. Chevrolet Blazer EV and Chevrolet Equinox EV are the links. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a tough call in my opinion. As both the Equinox and the Blazer, ostensibly, share only a name with the non-EV versions, I don't think they are appropriate for inclusion in the respective ICE vehicle articles. Perhaps, for the time being, they could be combined into the same article. I couldn't easily glean how either of these vehicles is different enough from the other to warrant a separate article anyways. IPBilly (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@IPBilly: Thanks for the response! I'll wait to see other people's opinion before starting a merge discussion for both articles. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
As of now I think that they should have been a section of the ICE page, but are they going to become pretty important in the next year? Will they both need separate articles in fall 2023? (Basically, how important is the name). Should you leave it/them (crystal ball?) up until they are needed? A solid foundation/s? Just a thought.
@IPBilly: Just curious, why "ostensibly, share only a name with the non-EV versions"? Won't they share bodies and most chassis parts, only the drivetrain itself will be different? Moon Joon (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I read some of the source articles, and they say the EV cars won't share chassis or body parts with the ICE versions. ⛐Boivie (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Boivie: That makes sense considering that's what they're doing with the Chevy Silverado EV (which is a much better article than the Equinox and Blazer EV articles). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Bottom of Blazer EV ref #3. Sorry. Moon Joon (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • They need to be merged into the parent article for now. There isn't enough information, and scattering the data over two articles isn't benefiting the reader. Make a redirect. Eventually, sure, they will be separate articles as it is assumed they will have different frames but for now, merging makes sense from a reader perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

General note: since Blazer EV was last edited the car magazines have picked it up (Autoweek, Businessinsider, Car and Driver, Consumer Reports JDPower). Although largely regurgitated GM propaganda they are all RS(?) and have a lot more information than is in the article now. Moon Joon (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Maserati MC12

I have nominated Maserati MC12 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dodge Hornet#Requested move 18 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dodge Hornet#Requested move 18 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_56&oldid=1118091616"