Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 59

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

"Marque" and WP:PEACOCK

As some may have noticed I boldly moved numerous "marque" articles, replacing that word with "car brand". I know what I was doing, thought the move will fulfill all three WP:BOLDMOVE points, but no. Huge backslash ensues, editors telling me to "be careful"... let me explain.

The word marque always strikes me as weird and too-fancy. As a non-native English speaker I also thought many other non-native would not be familiar to the word - this falls in the WP:COMMONNAME guideline. "Car brand" is no less precise or unambiguous than "Marque" so it's also not quite a downgrade. What triggers me to remember of this issue is this edit by @Mr.choppers which has not met any objection, replacing "marque" to "brand" due to "a bit of a WP:PEACOCK issue".

The suspicion of the word being too fancy is apparent in dictionaries. These are the definition of "marque" by several dictionaries:

  • Cambridge (Business English): "the name for a range of cars, which is sometimes different from the name of the company that produces them""
    • Example: If you are not so worried about having a brand new car but want a fancy marque, you can try Premium Cars.
  • Oxford Learners Dictionaries (American): "a well-known make of a product, especially a car, that is expensive and fashionable"
  • Wikitionary: "A brand or make of a manufactured product, especially of a motor car (in contradistinction to a model)."
    • Example (British media quote): The group wants Rover as its luxury marque and MG as the performance car.
  • Merriam-Webster: "a brand or make of a product (such as a sports car)"
    • Example: The German luxury marque has just announced the opening of its first charging hub in the U.S.
  • Collins (American English): "a product model or type, as of a luxury or racing car"
    • Example: The group has said that it wants to focus on top luxury marques.
  • Longman (British English): "the well-known name of a type of car or other product, especially an expensive one"
    • Example: the prestigious Ferrari marque
  • Dictionary.com: "a product model or type, as of a luxury or racing car."
    • Example: More than just a symbol, she is the embodiment of our brand, and a constant source of inspiration and pride for the marque and its clients.

Clearly a sentence that sounds like "Dacia is a budget marque of Renault..." wouldn't sound right based on these definitions, let alone in an encyclopedia.

To sum it up, "car brand" is concise enough while being neutral and not risking using a WP:PEACOCK term (which may also apply to the word "luxury", but that's for another time).

Pinging @DeFacto @Infinty 0 @Urbanoc to this discussion. Andra Febrian (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

In British English "marque" is the correct and common word used for car makes of all levels. It is not a 'peacock' term - the first paragraph of the Dacia article says: "In 2021, the Dacia marque sold...". And COMMONNAME applies to the main title ('Rover' or 'Mini', for example), not to the disambiguator.
You also seem to have misunderstood several of the dictionary entries you quote.
  • In the Cambridge entry "fancy" is an adjective applied to "marque" in an example, it is not part of the definition. The example would be just as valid if it said "If you are not so worried about having a premium brand car you could buy a brand new one with a budget marque".
  • Similarly with the Wikitionary entry, it's a usage example, "The group wants Dacia as its budget marque and Alpine as the performance car" works too.
  • The same with the Merriam-Webster entry - it could have equally said: "The Romanian budget marque has just announced the opening of its first charging hub in the U.S."
In American English it might have a different meaning.
"Marque" is more concise than "car brand", so is a better fit with WP:TITLEDAB, in British English at least. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The Cambridge, Wikitionary and Merriam-Webster entries show the typical usage for this word, and it's really not a coincidence when three of them use the word luxury and fancy in it. That's my point.
Notice how only Wikipedia heavily uses the word "marque" in any applications (including budget brands) as explained by Mr.choppers. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Nah, in Britain (or at least all the old British mags that I used to read), marque really just meant brand - high class and low class and everything in between. Eg https://austinmotorvehicleclubqld.org/blog/2019/4/6/1969-austin-models-uk-and-australia for Austin Mini and land crabs. It's quite literally the maker's "mark", derived from a time when French cars were world leaders.  Stepho  talk  08:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
According to the Google Definition, a marque is "a make of car, as distinct from a specific model", a French back-formation of marquer ‘to brand’.
To me, this is less of a PEACOCK issue and more an issue of MOS:JARGON. To preface my points below, I concur with DeFacto to the extent that marque is both correct and non-specific as to a trim level or brand identity in American English.
As set for in WP:TITLEDAB: "When deciding on which disambiguation method(s) to use, all article titling criteria are weighed in", under which marque fails both Naturalness and Recognizability.
  • Marque is not natural. To a reader searching for vehicles carrying the name of an ambiguous manufacturer, (e.g., Jaguar) the most natural additional descriptor would be "car". However, "car" fail under the precision and/or consistency prongs because it is more commonly associated with an individual model (and arguably excludes "truck") and not the brand as a whole. While marque is correct and concise, it's less natural than "automobiles" or "vehicles".
  • Marque is not recognizable. As the word's French origin suggests, and its pronunciation reinforces, it is most intuitively associated with a brand. To wit: the French term Marque de commerce, known as a Trademark in English speaking countries. As mentioned, marque is jargon as it's likely only recognized by the readers most familiar with various marques/brands. Because the definition is simply a combination of two things with which most readers would be familiar (cars and brands), it risks being imprecise to a non-expert reader who incorrectly interprets it to be a brand of anything, and is nonsense to somebody that has never seen the term. The proposed alternative "car brand" is more recognizable, but fails under the concision and/or precision prongs. Marque is less recognizable than "automobiles" or "vehicles".
For these reasons I think the disambiguating term "automobiles" is more appropriate. Automobiles is recognizable to casual readers, while remaining a concise single word. Additionally, it is precise because the plural form indicates it is a group of vehicles (and not one in particular), which implies it is a brand. Finally, it is consistent with what is already used for Scion (automobile), Pontiac (automobile), GMC (automobile), and others. IPBilly (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
"Automobiles" may be ok for articles written in American English, but it isn't in common usage in British English, so isn't suitable for articles written in British English where 'marque' is in common usage in this context. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Even in British English, marque may have a common usage, but mostly for premium/luxury brands. This is why I'm suggesting using "car brand", not "automobile", because the former is widely used in both American English and British English and more understandable for non-native English speakers and non-experts. I do not doubt the correctness of the word "marque", but I'm more concerned of its use cases and reader's understanding. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
No, as has been said elsewhere by me, and others, "marque" is used across the spectrum for car brands in British English. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
"Marque" is commonly used in British English, be it in reference to Lada or Rolls-Royce. In British English "brand" is more ambiguous, as it could also refer to the model name (ie. with the Austin Allegro the term "marque" unambiguously refers to the "Austin" part of the name, whereas the word "brand" could be referring to the "Austin" brand, the "Allegro" brand, or the "Austin Allegro" brand). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Brands can span a range of models like ST/RS (Ford) , AMG (Mercedes), Aircross (Citroen), Quadrafolgio (Alfa Romeo), E-tech (Renault), or Quattro (Audi) spring to mind. These are neither marques or models.
The perfect examples are DS, a marque spun off from the DS line of Citroens, which were inspired by the original DS model. Really, they are all brands.
Make and marque are interchangeable IMO. However make might be seen to mean manufacturer, which if a manufacturer sold it's namesake marque could be two different Wikipedia articles.
Stick with marque. Pretentious is in the eye of the observer only. Rally Wonk (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This has come up a few times in the past. Both "brand" and "marque" are correct terms. Neither is jargon, neither is better or worse than the other. They just have different popularity depending on your country. We should not change marque to brand or vice-versa except to be consistent within an article. It's just like windshield vs windscreen, taillight vs taillamp. Let it go - it's a no-win to force your own preferences on the rest of the world.  Stepho  talk  22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't see "marque" as a "peacock" term at all. It's an industry-specific term, yes, but not unrecognizable jargon. It may be more common in British English, but I have seen it in American writing. --Sable232 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't doubt the correctness of the word "marque". It's also not an issue of English variation, in which the WP:RETAIN policy took place. Okay, say peacock is not an issue. But recognizability might be an issue. Non-native readers and non-expert readers might took a bit of time to understand what is a "marque", but "car brand" is self-explanatory and understandable even by children. My thinking is that we should pick a word that is understandable by 99% of readers instead of, say, 75% even if its slightly longer. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Where the meaning of "marque" would be natural, obvious and clear to most people who were interested in cars, "car brand" would take a bit of processing, and would possibly stick in the craw of many, and be incomputable to those who associate "brand" with just designer brands. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I find it very pompous sounding, although I don't live in the UK. In Swedish or German or many other languages, märke or merk is the normal term, but at least in America it's something pretentious that you'd see in Robb Report or hear from a real estate agent. I'd say use brand for American entries, marque for British entries, and let the rest fall where they may. If I said that Dacia was a brand of car in the UK, would anyone think it strange sounding? Here is a blurb from Dacia UK's page about who they are:

DACIA, A BRAND REBORN

Dacia was founded in Romania in 1966, with a clear objective: to provide modern, reliable and affordable cars to all Romanians. Its name was taken from Dacia, the former name given by the Romans to the region now known as Romania.

But it was in 1999, when Renault acquired Dacia, that the brand began a strategic shift, without straying far from its roots. Logan marked its first success.

Sounds like brand is a natural and commonly used word on both sides of the Atlantic.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto: The example would be just as valid if it said "If you are not so worried about having a premium brand car you could buy a brand new one with a budget marque". From my location, ye olde Google search for "budget marque" (in quotation marks) returns 100% French-language results, not relating to cars, "budget brand" millions but again not generally car related. "Budget marque" car has 4,870 results and "Budget brand" car 155,000. "Luxury marque" has 190,000 results, in large parts thanks to crossword puzzle clues with ACURA and LEXUS as the answers. "budget car marque" has 7 results, whereas "budget car brand" has 118,000 results. My east-coast US version of Google clearly shows that "marque" has aspirational connotations, but I am curious to see the results others get.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
"Marque" seems reasonable for articles on British cars, and car articles written in British English, but the word has near-zero currency in American English (the US term is "make", as in "make and model: Mazda Miata"). I don't know about Canadian, Australian, etc. That said, The Cambridge, Wikitionary and Merriam-Webster entries show the typical usage for this word, and it's really not a coincidence when three of them use the word luxury and fancy in it seems like a valid point, and might bear additional investigation. If there is any non-neutral implication given by this word, it should probably be avoided. I really don't know where "car brand" came from, though. That doesn't seem to be a common term in either AmEng or BrEng.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The alternative of "marque" is "brand" - which is not specific enough for most cases. Thus, "car brand". "Automotive brand" is a mouthful, while "automobile" has an American English tendency (so does "automaker").
"Car brand" is used over 14 million times according to Google (in addition to 32 million for plural "car brands"), so it is quite common. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning "make", I left that out.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
"Make" is typically used as an attribute of a car, for records such as DMV, insurance, police, etc., and included with Year and Model. For example, the Year/Make/Model of that car is 1998/Toyota/Camry. "Brand" is used as a unit of a car company, for marketing and business. For example, Chevrolet is a brand of General Motors. In that sense, I think it makes sense to keep the existing use of "brand" (as applicable by region) here, and define Make under Brand or Make (disambiguation). --Vossanova o< 01:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
In polish we use "marka samochodowa" from "car marque" without any luxurious connotations. But maybe simple "car brand" would suffice.YBSOne (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Apple (automobile)#Requested move 17 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Apple (automobile)#Requested move 17 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Aston Martin Rapide at FAC

Hi Wikiproject Automobiles contributors, a note that the Aston Martin Rapide article is currently at the featured article candidates process if you'd like to add some comments. The Aston Martin DB9 article is close to its promotion, so if you'd like to leave your comments go ahead :). 750h+ 11:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Great news

Great news WP Automobiles contributors, the Aston Martin DB9 article is officially a featured article, recognising it as one of the best articles produced by Wikipedia :). If you'd like to leave your comments go ahead. 750h+ 13:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Congrats! That's a lot of work being recognized.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Mr.choppers! Also expect one of your pictures to appear on the Main Page on 27 July! 750h+ 09:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Automotive industry in China

Been doing work to clean up and properly source Automotive industry in China, but would very much appreciate other sets of eyes on it as some of the stats/figures might be fabricated as they either lack WP:RSes or even sources altogether. - Amigao (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Ferrari Monza SP

Checking the sources, it appears that the article is made of sources put together from three different press releases, besides one about a concierge service - one about its introduction, winning a design award (one is WP:PRIMARY) and one about the last model built.

Like articles about their one-offs, I cannot see there is anying to justify a standalone article, thus I recommend a merger to Ferrari 812 Superfast. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

week oppose they are too distinct to not have standalone article. SP3 has it also. YBSOne (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The same could be said for Ferrari's Special Project cars such as the SP3JC, which has so much in common with the Monza SP. An argument against it will be; the only thing separating it will be the body. As mentioned in my now archived argument against the McLaren F1 LM, does that and the Monza SP have the significantly high press coverages that the Porsche 911 Carrera RS 2.7 has? I would've been supportive of a separate article about the Monza SP if it has the coverages it has with their mainstream models. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't have the strongest opinions on article mergers/separations for related vehicles, but it is worth noting that the SP1, SP2 and SP3 are part of Ferrari's Icona series and are series produced models, not one or two offs like the rest of Ferrari's Special Project cars. Also, keep in mind that since I wrote most of that article when the car had just came out, there are more sources that have came out since then that I haven't gotten around to putting in the article. For instance, there's now a full Top Gear review, a review in EVO, and a Car Magazine ride along at Goodwood. TKOIII (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

More great news

Hello contributor to the WP Automobiles project, great news! As we know, the Aston Martin DB9 article has been promoted to featured article status, identifying it as one of the best articles produced by the WP community (only 0.09% of WP articles are featured articles). Even better news has been put upon us, as now the article will appear on the Main Page as today's featured article on 27 July 2024! Pinging @Mr.choppers: as it will be his high-quality image that we will be using. 750h+ 04:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I am blushing. Congratulations and thank you.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Telo Trucks

I just created a draft for electric vehicle startup Telo Trucks. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't particular feel like creating the content but if you create the content then I will tidy-up the formatting, etc. I've already tidied-up what little is there. Remember that you are writing for an international audience and that not all readers will know US customs and that what is true in the US is not necessarily true outside the US.  Stepho  talk  04:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

TDI (engine)

Hello. There's some kind of unusual activity on TDI (engine). I'm not sure if the edits are constructive or not. Could someone take a look? Ae245 (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverted all; all of the edits were suspicious and unsourced. 750h+ 11:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ford Evos (concept car)#Requested move 17 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ford Evos (concept car)#Requested move 17 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Trailer light converter

Notice

The article Trailer light converter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page is linked by one article, trailer (vehicle)#Electrical components, it summarizes this article well. sometimes you need another device to connect the lights on the trailer to a car. I am not sure that there is much more that is encyclopedic to say about it

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. Gnisacc (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

That article says nothing of substance and has no references. Change it to be a redirect to trailer (vehicle)#Electrical components.  Stepho  talk  00:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done by User:Gnisacc.  Stepho  talk  00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Japan Mobility Show (former Tokyo Motor Show) needs rewrite

Japan Mobility Show has changed format from biannual to something more complicated described in this official press release. Article could do with an update/rewrite to accurately describe what the new format of the show, as it's a pretty significant change. 2.107.248.41 (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Press release says that it now runs every year, with alternating years focusing on business links or customer links.  Stepho  talk  00:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Engine Charts

Hello! Remodeled The Engine Charts for the Honda K Engine To make it slightly more compact and a bit easier to read. Please give your opinion on this: Draft:Honda K Engine MotoMottor (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Pilot (automobile)

Pilot (automobile) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contains 3 different unrelated topics. That's a problem, since it is not a topic article, but a grabbag of independent topics that share a name. There are also other automobiles not in this article called Pilot listed at Pilot (disambiguation). -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Pilot (automobile)

65.92.247.96 (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: This has been split into 3 artricles -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Before I start a massive RM

I've been wondering for ages why articles about EVs in regions are all called "plug-in electric vehicle in X", for instance plug-in electric vehicles in the United States. I don't think that's the WP:common name (anymore?), and people almost uniformly refer to these cars as EVs now. Before I open a RM with >100 entries, I thought I would ask here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You may want to consider that an EV is technically any vehicle that is driven purely by electric motors and that the electricity may come from different sources. Sources may include purely batteries (PEV or battery EV), fuel cells (FCEV), a petrol engine (series hybrid or electric drivetrain), solar power and others. Add in petrol powered range extender options that can charge batteries but not fast enough to power the vehicle in motion.  Stepho  talk  00:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Is that true? The DOE defines an EV as relying on batteries. Similarly, the IEA defines an EV as a BEV + plug-in hybrids. The Wikipedia article on electric vehicle uses a 1996 source for its definition on the other hand. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
But that is a US only definition. Remember that Wikipedia is international. Australia defines 4 types of EV - BEV, PHEV, FCEV and regenerative hybrids. See https://arena.gov.au/renewable-energy/electric-vehicles . Other countries may differ again.  Stepho  talk  09:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Stepho - the current titles are clearer and more understandable internationally. --Sable232 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chrysler#Requested move 20 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chrysler#Requested move 20 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

First

After 20 years of this project being open, our featured list has been promoted! It is List of Mercedes-EQ vehicles for anyone who's interested. 750h+ 00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Toothed belt#Requested move 29 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Toothed belt#Requested move 29 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi people of the project, could i ask if you all consider Electrek a reliable source? 750h+ 11:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty spotty. I think it was discussed at RSN a while back. They were big on Tesla a while back (sycophant level) but that enthusiasm may have waned. A large portion of their content comes from a single author. If they are the best source you have it's probably content that we should question. Springee (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
It's fine for basic facts. I generally trust Fred Lambert's articles. As with any magazine, take care when they give opinions.  Stepho  talk  23:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Could i also get some opinions on Top Speed? 750h+ 08:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Top Speed the magazine is excellent. The TV show is utter crap presented by clowns for laugh value only.  Stepho  talk  10:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I think you're referring to Top Gear and the Top Gear TV series. I'm talking about Top Speed. Are we referring to the same thing? 750h+ 10:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. I was thinking of Top Gear. I have no opinion on Top Speed.  Stepho  talk  11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Tesla Model S

Hello contributors of the project, the article Tesla Model S, one of the most important electric vehicles of the 21st century, has been put up for FAC, if you would like to leave your comments, they'd be highly appreciated. Much thanks, 750h+ 13:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC concerning an article which may be of interest to this project

See Talk:Flying car#RfC on the inclusion of Whitehead's No. 21 machine in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Idea

I was thinking of creating a list of what we'd consider "reliable" and "unreliable" sources on the WP Automobiles project. Pinging such editors as @Andra Febrian, Mr.choppers, and Stepho-wrs: to see their opinions on this. 750h+ 04:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? I'm open for it but Wikipedia policy WP:RS feels sufficient for now. Andra Febrian (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I feel like Top Gear (magazine), Classic and Sports Car, and Autocar (magazine) would be top-tier reliable, while Carsales and Autoblog might be on the concerning-spec, and blogspot and Best Selling Cars Blog would be unreliable. 750h+ 16:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I think WP:RS is largely sufficient, to be honest. If anything, I'd like to add a note regarding those spec compilation sites (automobile catalog, carfolio, and ultimate specs - in order of reliability IMHO) can be trusted for basic specifications but are considered to be of less weight than reliable, secondary sources. Same thing for manufacturers' publications - fine to verify specs, dates, etcetera, but not for anything contentious or any value statements.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Same, let's just follow WP:RS. Most of the the well-known car magazines are very reliable sources. The compilation sites I don't trust much - some of them have merely scraped data/images from my own site and I'm reasonably sure they do no fact checking of their own. Non-car magazines (eg New York Times) are fine for very basic facts but are usually not written by or for car enthusiasts - more like telling rich readers which car makes this year's best image statement. Manufacturers are also fine for basic facts (eg wheelbase, engine size, release dates but not power, emission or fuel economy figures) - as always, if there is a buck to made for "enhancing" the truth then it will be stretched within an inch of its life.
I'm not seeing a big problem with choosing reliable sources. Is this a major issue that you are seeing?  Stepho  talk  00:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm gonna go against the grain here and say I actually think this is a decent idea since i've found many larger general sources which are considered reliable by WP:RS such as the NYT to be less reliable and substantially less detailed than smaller and less established enthusiast run news sites and blogs, and certainly less reliable than established enthusiast sites and magazines. There are also a handful of semi well established car news sites which seem to have suspect reliability but are cited in many articles. Off the top of my head, HotCars comes to mind, as its basically a quantity over quality content farm. TKOIII (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Late resp: I was just thinking about something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, which would help editors choose between what sources to and not to use 750h+ 13:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. This discussion so far has been about magazines and newspapers which are not exactly scientific studies, they're chat at the end of the day and often based on or consisting of paid material even if the final text is written by the publication. A decidedly reliable source can repeat the same press release as a decidedly unreliable source, doesn't change anything about the quality of the information. Unreliable claims should be made on case basis, and if a source can be found that is questionable without a reliable one being found by the editor, than the substance of the article should be considered more than putting a list together somewhere else. Rally Wonk (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Holden Commodore (VE)

I'd like to insight from a variety of editors. Would we call GoAuto, carsguide, drive.com.au, and carsales reliable sources? i plan to bring Holden Commodore (VE) back to FA from which it was demoted in 2020, and would like to make it one of the site's best articles. 750h+ 10:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I consider goauto.com.au and drive.com.au as completely trustworthy for facts and expert opinions. carsales.com.au is also trustworthy but only covers basic facts and does not offer opinions (expert or otherwise).  Stepho  talk  11:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Stepho. Pinging more experienced editors like @Andra Febrian, Springee, and Mr.choppers: to see their thoughts on these sources 750h+ 12:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
All of them should be fine, I used them several times. Andra Febrian (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Trustworthy, but obviously not gilt-edged references like newspapers and learned journals and the like. Good luck!  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with those sources but in general if the sites appear to have some level of editorial oversight and if the claims in question are not controversial I would err on the side of use with caution. Looking at the sites it appears they do offer articles and they aren't just some enthusiast blog (not that some of those blogs aren't really good). Yeah, I would be OK so long as the claims aren't extraordinary/red flag. Springee (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Most car websites do have some kind of the editor's opinion of some sort. On the safe side just avoid the car review articles. Andra Febrian (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Chrysler

An article that been involved with (Chrysler) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Stellantis North America). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Adriazeri (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

FAC's: Tesla and unions + Tesla Model S

Your feedback and reviews for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates is requested for two related candidates Tesla and unions and Tesla Model S. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fiat New 500#Requested move 22 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fiat New 500#Requested move 22 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 04:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fiat New 500#Requested move 22 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fiat New 500#Requested move 22 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 07:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Lexus LS

Lexus LS has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion (PROD): U.S. Automobile Production Figures

FYI, the article U.S. Automobile Production Figures has been proposed for deletion (WP:PROD). The first sentences summarize the subject this way:

  • "Automobile experimentation and design in the US started a few years after Carl Benz patented and produced his original gasoline-powered motor car in 1886, and a handful of companies were producing them in the US by the turn of the century. The table below shows the annual unit volumes for the top US producers in each year from 1899 to 2000."

The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:

  • "Essay without inline citations"

Note that the article mostly consists of tables of production data by brand dating back to 1899. These table do not use inline references.

If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the deletion notice for what to do.

Thanks, A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding one's own photos?

I've noticed people add their own photos to the articles on cars. Should people generally leave this to others? CutlassCiera 00:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's a new addition or a significant/obvious improvement, personally I have no problem with that. But if it is replacing an image with more-or-less the same quality or even better quality, then it's a problem. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. It's generally acceptable as long as you don't spam it to every car article possible and that the quality is better than what it replaces. See WP:CARPIX for tips but in short use decent light and front 3/4 angle from eye height. Avoid close up pics (car looks nose heavy), high non-factory modifications, gloss black paint (reflections), cluttered/distracting backgrounds and backgrounds the same colour as the car. As long as it is improving Wikipedia and not just an ego trip. Have fun.  Stepho  talk  06:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Agreed - my rule of thumb is to think twice and generally not reinstate my own photo if someone changes it (this excludes situations when random IPs go on picture changing sprees or if the replacement photos are blatantly in opposition to WP:CARPIX). If you take a good photo, it is not likely going to be discovered by other editors right away, so there is a case for doing it yourself. As far as ego trips go, it is a hundred times more satisfying when someone else picks your photo, anyhow.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Convert Template unintentional rounding

Many articles put power and torque figures into the Convert Template to provide additional units. However, there are many instances where the conversions are incorrect or unintentionally imprecise, as by default the template interprets ending zeroes as insignificant figures, when that may not be the user's intention. This can be avoided easily by adding a decimal point (.) to the end of the number to be converted (input #1).

Examples:

1,250 PS (1,230 hp; 920 kW) vs. 1,250 PS (1,233 hp; 919 kW)

190 PS (190 hp; 140 kW) vs. 190 PS (187 hp; 140 kW)

280 PS (280 hp; 210 kW) vs. 280 PS (276 hp; 206 kW), which is especially egregious due to the Japanese Gentleman's Agreement :)

Have fun cleaning up these little errors sprinkled everywhere :) Needlesballoon (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

At the same time, I would say it's important not to treat the trailing zeros as significant without a good reason to do so. I would argue incorrectly/unintentionally imprecise is better than incorrectly/unintentionally precise. A7V2 (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
There are lots of tricks to make conversion templates behave:
{{cvt|190|PS|hp kW|0}} gives 190 PS (187 hp; 140 kW)
{{cvt|1100|PS|hp kW|sigfig=3}} gives 1,100 PS (1,080 hp; 809 kW); there are cases where this can be useful, like when discussing turbo boosted F1 cars where the max outputs are definitely estimates.
{{cvt|115|PS|kW PS hp|0|order=out}} gives 85 kW (115 PS; 113 hp) - this allows you to maintain the input unit from the source, while having the output lead with kW which is preferred for newer cars.
Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent undiscussed page moves

For everyone's information, BrightDrop Zevo was recently moved to Chevrolet BrightDrop, and GMC (automobile) was recently moved to GMC (marque). The former appears to be at least technically correct, as GM recently announced that they're now selling those vans as Chevrolets. The latter, the previous title was the result of an RM, but that discussion was from 2011. --Sable232 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

For the latter, I think there should be a concistency within the project. Why does Pontiac, Plymouth, Mercury, Envoy, Geo use "(automobile)" but Mini, Rover, Sterling, Smart uses "marque"? Why MG is "MG cars"? Why is Chrysler (brand) named like that, is it because "marque" is associated with British English? Then why are we using "(marque)" for Chinese brands? I think this should get sorted out...
Andra Febrian (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
It probably isn't possible to get a project-wide and trans-Atlantic consensus. If it was easy it would already have been done.
You might have already seen the various opposing thoughts in this recent discussion, that you started. Rally Wonk (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't mind a regional consensus. If the decision is to use automobile in America and marque for RoW, then so be it. But this time we can't really say that the title "GMC (marque)" is an inappropriate title, other than the fact that it is an undiscussed move. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd support reversion to (automobile) if necessary. However, I think GMC (automobile brand), GMC (automobile marque) or GMC (automobile manufacturer) (whatever the article needs to be) is better. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I would recommend using natural disambiguators for marques that have them (e.g. Jaguar Cars or MG Motors).
Then:
  • Marque in brackets for British and European marques which need to be disambiguated and don’t have any other possible way which would follow Wikipedia:Commonname.
  • Brand in brackets for North American marques with the same conditions as above.
Adriazeri (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
What if there's another brand with the same name? For example, Mercury. Andra Febrian (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
It’d need to be car brand in that specific circumstance then. Adriazeri (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I personally use British English so I recognise marque as being in respect to an automobile brand. If that’s not agreeable to speakers of North American English, or it’s not considered appropriate for use on a North American auto marque. Then brand would make sense. Adriazeri (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Marque can still be used for other vehicles and even products nothing to do with transport: yachts, busses, rifles, shoes, pens, jewellery ... and so on. Although, it's fair that it isn't widely used.
Marque is more accurate than brand because it's the brand of the maker/manufacturer when models/model ranges, trim levels, performance specs, technologies are also usually always brands. Subaru Impreza WRX STI has four brands in the name, whereas the manufacturer is (or was) Fuji Heavy Industries. DS is an automobile marque spun off from the Citroen DS sub-brand which was inspired by the Citroën DS model. All brands. I'm not sure what GMC is, but the problem there is within the content of the article, not the disam naming. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Marque, make and brand are just synonyms. Different countries had preferences for each but at the international level they mean the same thing. And just like how some companies own other countries, you can have marques, makes and brands owning other marques, makes and brands. Beware of trying to count how many angels can dance on the badge of a car.  Stepho  talk  00:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
They're not all synonyms, unless you can show an example of product branding being described as a marque. Marques are branding of the manufacturer/seller. The selling manufacturer is not always the maker manufacturer and related ownership is not always the case. Brands don't own anything, so marques cannot own other marques, but sometimes the marque is synonymous with the manufacturer/company name, e.g. Ford.
I've doubts to what 'make' is commonly used for, but see this coachbuilder example. For me, the marque is Overfinch, the make is Range-Rover, the vehicle manufacturer is Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, with branded product options like Aurora, Shadow Chrome, Centurion and Cyclone. As sold straight from JLR, a Range-Rover is then the marque. I wouldn't call JLR Ltd a brand, but the rest all are.
If this is not important to you then I think that's a shame. I think it should matter to anybody contributing to improving articles. Rally Wonk (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
marque redirects to brand. There it mentions branding irons (used to mark ownership of cattle). Also mentions making marks on pottery to show who made it.
www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/marque says "a well-known make of a product, especially a car, that is expensive and fashionable". Clicking on "Word Origin" says "early 20th cent.: from French, back-formation from marquer ‘to brand’, of Scandinavian origin."
www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/marque says "a well-known make of a product, especially a car, that is expensive and fashionable".
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marque says "a brand or make of a product (such as a sports car)"
This shows that all 3 mean the same thing. It's just that certain regions prefer to use one over the other in certain circumstances (eg, in Britain they like to use French words for fancy stuff and English words for common stuff). However, other regions choose different circumstances, making the distinction useless in an international encyclopedia.
I find it a shame that we waste time on trivialities instead of actually improving things.  Stepho  talk  14:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree it is timewasting to continue this discussion with you. There's nothing I can possibly say that will return value to my efforts. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
We had the same discussion in 2011: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_29  Stepho  talk  14:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I think you’re over complicating things:
  • Brand or marque simply refers to the manufacturer or the brand that the manufacturer operates under.
  • Model refers to the automobile itself
Adriazeri (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I asked WP:Brands to help out as you saw, but as I'm sat here waiting for a bus, I did my own research and found out I was correct all along:
  • Marque refers to how the manufacturer wants to brand itself.
  • Model refers to the products a manufacturer will without doubt brand as part of standard marketing procedure.
  • Manufacturers protect their marque's and model's branding (and trim/technologies/coachbuilding/auxiliary services) legally using trademarks, including registering brand names
Sources:
  • law firm
    • "A brand consists of several elements, including: Image, Character, Identity, Personality, Essence, Culture, Reputation. A trademark can be used to protect various aspects of a brand, including: Brand name, Signatures, Words, ..."
    • "all trademarks are brands, but not all brands are trademarks"
    • "The brand name is chosen by the business on how it would like to be identified. Trademarks, which are sometimes called “service marks,” carry legal weight and protect the business and its services and products."
  • legal advice site
    • "All trademarks are brands, while not all brands are trademarks."
    • "Trademarks can be specific words or phrases, .. which are a vital part of your company's brand.
  • IP company
    • "All trademarks are brands. However, not all brands are trademarks."
  • Agency that picks brand names for products
    • "While the following product naming rules are simple, our clients find them very helpful as we work together to create a winning brand name."
  • article on product branding
    • "The company's brand positioning focuses more on innovation and being a long-standing leader in its field, while its product brands each have their own unique brand identity."
If brand and marque are interchangeable as you say, then model names like Impreza, Evoque and Camaro are not brands, right? Nor WRX, AMG, Quattro and other non-car products like say, almost everything on Template:Kraft_Foods_Group. If they're not brands, they are not trademark protected as per the above sources. I simply don't believe that.
Hopefully somebody finds this useful. The next person to tell me I'm wrong really ought to use some sources or examples if they want to be convincing. Rally Wonk (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Camaro, Evoque and Impreza are model names of a car brand, to try and liken a name to a brand is a bit peculiar in my opinion.

I don’t know why you’ve brought up non-automotive at all, but your thing about Kraft Foods is also wrong, those are all brands that Kraft operates under, just like for example Cadillac is a brand GM operates under. Adriazeri (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Rally Wonk@, going through your sources:
  • law firm - this compares trademarks vs brand. We are not talking about trademarks. It does not talk about brand vs marque vs make. So we can reject it.
  • legal advice site has large sections that are word for word the same as the previous source. Same deal. Rejected.
  • IP company has different words but the same faults. Rejected.
  • Agency that picks brand names for products talks about choosing a name. This is quite different to defining what the words brand/marque/make mean. Rejected.
  • article on product branding has different words but the same faults. Also diverges into product branding, which is not the same as company brand (it even says so itself). Rejected.
Something they all had in common was they talked about brand image. "Brand image" is different to "brand". Coke is a brand. The red colour, the white swirl, and the font are brand images that conjure up the brand in the customers mind and have a lot of protection under the law but are not the brand themselves.
You asked for sources but gave irrelevant sources of your own and totally ignored the dictionary definitions I listed earlier (using both British and American definitions).
You mentioned model names. Agreeing with Adriazeri, in most cases they are not brand names. In "Ford Mustang" we have the brand/marque/make "Ford" and the model "Mustang". Only in a few cases do model names become brand names - eg "Morris Mini Minor" later became the brand "Mini (marque)".  Stepho  talk  08:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I ignored your dictionary definitions because if you look up Brand in the same dictionaries you do not find them using the word Marque. Your argument that this makes them synonyms is weak. A dictionary is not a thesaurus, and even if you used a thesaurus we are discussing technical differences that they wouldn't.
Maybe we easily mix brand with brand name and brand image across this discussion. Have a look into this context (Global brand variables#Brand name). 'A brand name constitutes a trademark', it says. But you reject talking about trademarks as irrelevant. It's absolutely relevant. Do you want to tell me that any of the brands we discuss as either marques or models are not actually brand names? Is this not the conversation we are having? Do we disam GMC as GMC (reliable, trustworthy, affordable) instead or something? That section also specifically mentions names of products. Please don't continue to write that off and tell me I'm wrong without using sound logic, reason, evidence.
You are right, the second source is very similar to the first. There are a plethora of other search results to choose but I'm wasting my time if it's all still irrelevant.
I was curious and found where Ford registered just the word (no images or text extensions) Mustang in the UK with the Government intellectual property office: 1 2 3 4 5 There are plenty more registrations for the string Ford Mustang and also their slogans, logos... there's thousands for Ford. We've been told trademarks are brands from multiple sources. Do you still want to reject it all using your own conjecture? That's your choice, but I will remain unconvinced by it. Rally Wonk (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it is peculiar, but sources say that it is that way. These models are trademarked, trademarks are brands. Wikipedia is built on sources, not conjecture of the loudest/ biggest bully editors. I don't know how to spin out discussion of that point.
Years ago, Honda had a brand reputation of making cars for old and retired people in the UK. Meanwhile, Honda had a brand reputation of making hot hatches for youngsters to tweak and attend cruises on retail park car parks. Maybe the branding of the products, trim, technology had something to do with achieving that duality?
With the Kraft point; If you're saying Kool-Aid is the maker (like a marque), not the product, what is the product or is there not a product? Because that article makes it sound like a product. "Kool-Aid was invented by...", "this powder was named Kool-Aid", "Kool-Aid is usually sold in powder form, in either packets or small tubs." If you are saying that article needs many improvements than this is where I am with so many car articles too Rally Wonk (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
@Stepho-wrs has demonstrated that your “sources” are irrelevant to the matter. Brand image is also irrelevant to this matter.

It appears to me that you’re grasping at straws because you’ve been proven to be bringing up points which are not relevant to the discussion. Adriazeri (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
! Rally Wonk (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Here's some more peculiar straws in the form of ordinary use of car models being described as brands. I've tried to restrict this to reputable sources:
"Mustang Dark Horse is the most track-ready series production Mustang and the foundation for the Mustang brand’s motorsport campaigns." Ford.
"This is the V8 version of Chevy’s muscle car Camaro brand, known as the SS." BBC Top Gear
"But the appeal of the Beetle brand gives the concept a better chance of appearing in showrooms." Daily Mail
"the continued success of the Impreza brand. And it is a brand; from its early beginnings as a misunderstood and unglamorous rally car spin-off for the road to cult hero and supercar baiter, the car and brand is a core part of Subaru's operation." The AA
"have Land Rover taken the Evoque brand a step too far?" Auto Express
"the Coupe makes the Altima brand stronger by appealing to a new segment of buyers" Nissan
"The debut of the Civic brand in July 1972 represented Honda's first 'mainstream' car" Honda
"the manufacturer wants to leverage its existing investment in the model Y brand" Google (Not Tesla but same context)
"minor model changes were also made to increase the luxurious image associated with the Corolla brand" Toyota
I can't make my points much thorough or suitably sourced. Brands/brand names/branding are not restricted to marques/makers/companies; marques are not restricted to cars, and car models and general products can be brands. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
You keep bringing up Mustang; it is considered somewhat a sub-brand of Ford. It almost acts as a spun-off brand of Ford but it is still a Ford model, a little bit like what Range Rover is to Land Rover. The article for the Ford Mustang still has the brand Ford in the title because Ford is the maker.

The other ones you mention such as the Beetle are by definition, models of the manufacturer’s brand, and would never be titled on Wikipedia as their own article without the brand in front. As is demonstrated with Volkswagen Beetle, clearly having Volkswagen in the title as Beetle is not its own brand. Adriazeri (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
In the scope of the article, should GMC be a business with legal responsibilities that employs people, manufactures products, makes money and pays taxes; or is it a brand; being the values and reputation of the products or entity represented officially with IP in PR and marketing? Or, does it want to cover both? The first sentence, wikidata item and infobox say 'legal entity' whilst the short description and title say 'brand'.
In an article Brand (brand) (or marque), I would expect to find content about the marketing, advertising campaigns, surveys of brand recognition, sales figures, product associations, celebrity endorsements, etc. I would not necessarily expect information about who founded the legal entity and when, where the HQ is, production methods, what other brands and companies the parent company purchased, etc.
If the article was named General Motors Truck Company, I could expect all of that; as there is no reason why Brand could not be a section where it is a property or possession of the titled company or its products, and where size and/or notability doesn't warrant a split.
GMC (automobile) is not discriminatory in this regard, the article is fine covering both legal entity and brand content, but if it's only seen as incorrect because trucks and vans aren't seen as automobiles, maybe GMC (vehicle) or something is sought?
I can't help but think a guide to article naming along these lines could be included in the project page somewhere if consensus was in agreement. Rally Wonk (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
GMC (automobile) would make it sound like the article was referring to a vehicle called GMC, rather than a marque. GMC (vehicle) would be even worse in that respect. Adriazeri (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Isn't the whole point of disambiguation to establish the topic, not define the name? Using the first suggested at WP:Disam for example, Mercury (mythology), Mercury is not a mythology itself but a God.
What about other brands/marques called GMC? (And thinking globally if consistency among project articles can be established). Rally Wonk (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment This post looks dead, just a note for the future. As a US English long-time driver I have no idea how to pronounce "Marque". My guess is "Mark" but I don't think I have ever heard it used. In my state they use "Year/Make/Model". No search, no grammar, just common use in my area. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Your pronunciation is correct. English words ending in "que" are derived from French and are pronounced as though ending in "k". Eg antique, technique.  Stepho  talk  00:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. My meaning, though, was just that I don't think the word "Marque" itself is commonly used in the US. Again, thanks. Sammy D III (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Move GMC back to the earlier title - "marque" has a fancy, aspirational vibe to it, as per the dictionary citations presented by Stepho earlier. Brand is neutral and is commonly used in the UK as well, not to mention all of the other English-speaking nations.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As I'm from a country where the mother tongue is not English, I'd like to give the following into consideration. First of all, the English WP articles of course are not only a source of wisdom for users in the UK, USA, Australia and other English speaking countries. Because the articles often are more extensive than their equivalents in 'local' languages, or because the articles simply do not exist in certain languages, the second choice often is to go to the English article. This means that English is a world language, whether we like it or not. So keeping that in mind, the discussion about locally used vocabulary (color or colour, trunk or boot, etc. etc.) probably will never end anyway - users in e.g. Sweden, Brazil, China or Gabon don't care, as long as they can understand what's written.

Secondly, English being a world language also means that all those people reading WP articles in the English version, but not coming from an English speaking nation, should just as well be able to understand what's been written. And yes, we have 'simple English' versions of certain pages, but that's not what I mean. I mean that it's sometimes preferred that we use vocabulary and syntax that are more mainstream than others. So whether it be marque or brand, one of those two must be more generally in use worldwide than the other (and I mean that where they are used having the same meaning), and then I'd say let's go with that one (my guess is that in this case it's brand). Erremm (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, English is not a language - it's a group of related dialects used in different countries. I know that I would hate it if WP choose to use only US English. Similarly, Americans would hate it if we used only British English. Our uneasy truce is in WP:ENGVAR where each article chooses an English dialect and remains consistent within the article. Far from perfect but nobody has found a better solution. As for brand or marque having more usage worldwide - that too varies by which country you are in and whether that country has more ties to Britain or the US. What is great for you may be awful to someone else - or vice-versa.  Stepho  talk  00:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, I didn't say it has to be either American English or British English, because I do understand all the sensitivity around that. I just propose that the most commonly used word is used. There's also guidelines that suggest this: WP:COMMONALITY says under bullet 1: "Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles." and under bullet 5: "... the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred." Erremm (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree, English is not a 'pedigree' language itself and continues to evolve with global influences, however that's no excuse not to uphold standards, or to invent a reasoning against convention which is what some users did above.
I have no problem with brand instead of marque but I don't think either helps with disambiguation and there's too much conversation on this brand v marque. The OP question was automobile v marque (or brand). Of those advocating for xyz (brand), there's not much explained what happens when the same brand name from different companies and different product sectors happens. Rally Wonk (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Isetta § Was the Isetta manufactured or not in Argentina?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Isetta § Was the Isetta manufactured or not in Argentina?. Peaceray (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_59&oldid=1268417726"