Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Engine displacement

The convention implies that cubic inches should be specified for every engine. However, cu in has not been in common use for displacement since pre-1980 in the US and pre-1970 in Australia, as the convention notes. I believe that cu in need only be listed if it was ever specified by the manufacturer in press releases or brochures for the vehicle. As the convention states, if the displacement was first given in cu in and later given in L, then it should read X L (Y cu in), otherwise, if L was never given, then X cu in (Y L). --Vossanova o< 16:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[]

We've discussed this quite a bit, but the short version is people in different parts of the world are used to different measurements. For instance, if you tell a European that an engine is 490 cu in, they likely won't know how big it is because they don't have anything to relate the size to, but if you tell them it's 8 liters, they'll know it's pretty big. Same thing goes for North America. Like it or not, people here are still used to engines being described in cubic inches and many, if not most, find it easier to relate an engine's size in cubic inches (i.e. 1.8 L sounds bigger to some than just 108 cu in).--Flash176 (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
If you have discussed this quite a bit, can you provide a link to the (archived) discussion? I've seen cu in being used, some of the time, for modern, big-block "muscle cars" like the 2009 Dodge Challenger and 2010 Chevy Camaro. Maybe large truck engines as well. But to demand it be included for cars with small engines seems ridiculous. Who on Earth would ask for the cu in displacement for a Chevy Aveo? .. OK, I just did a Google search for 'Aveo "cu in"' and it actually came up with results. I'm still not convinced that cu in is used often enough to warrant inclusion in every infobox, but maybe you can convince me by showing examples from other websites. --Vossanova o< 15:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
I don't think this is a matter of defining a convention per article type. It's simply a unit of measurement and the three common ones are L, cu in, and cc. The {{convert}} template helps maintain all of this. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]
I've been scouring through various press releases, ads, and reviews for recent (American) cars, and some, but not many, use cu in. I was going to argue that very few do, but a few major reviewers do, so it's easier to argue in their favor. I really don't mind if cu in is added, and yes, the convert template makes it easy. But I still feel it should be optional. If somebody wants to add it, they can, otherwise don't argue with them because they didn't. I'm from the US, by the way - good luck arguing with a European editor that they must add cu in displacement to their European car article. --Vossanova o< 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time for Wikipedia like I used to (if you look at my contribs, you'll see that they've dropped sharply). I'm afraid you or someone else will have to find the previous discussions. As for requiring editors to do something, perhaps I misspoke. What I meant was that the different measurements are required on the articles, not that an editor must add them to the article. We all contribute what we want to Wikipedia, no one can make you add things you don't want to, but if a convention says it should be there, then an aditor should add the required things if they have time, instead of leaving work for someone else. Does that make any sense?

As for telling a European editor to add cu in, they already do. It isn't just North Americans making changes on this project. It's a compromise. We add show the displacement in liters of old engines from the 50s and 60s and they show their displacements in cu in. I don't understand why this bothers you so much. Most articles are almost completely unverified and the cu in displacement can usually be found when looking up a source to cite for the liter/cc displacement.--Flash176 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[]

Conversion template problems?

I am not familiar with the auto conversion templates, but there seems to be a problem with some of them. This version of Enzo Ferrari (automobile) had formatting issues apparently caused by the templates. Anyone know what the problem is? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Its maybe that some bot robot has added extra noinclude tags there, maybe someone has time to check those templates. --Typ932 T·C 03:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[]

(More) Displacement, cc, cm3 and the SI

I've had one edit reverted after i changed the abreviation from 'cc' to 'cm3'. I do see that 'cc' is standard in this WikiProject, but i think the 'cc' should be replaced with 'cm3': The Manual of style says 'The symbols sq and cu are not used with BIPM-approved unit symbols.' I take that to include 'cc'. 'cm3 is mathematically precise. (And the BIPM is rather blunt in their brochure (p. 38, Sectio 5.1): 'It is not permissible to use abbreviations for unit symbols (...) such as (...) cc (...)'). See also cubic centimetre.--ospalh (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[]

This (along with cu in, in3 and CID) has been brought up before, here, and here.
Let me quote one of the previous responses:
"In casual writing, sure, go for cc if that's what you like, but aren't we writing an encyclopædia here? Ought we not write somewhat more formally than your average car mag? This page states "We will use the standard SI units when describing automobiles, and will generally follow the SI writing style" well, let's follow it here. Jimp 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)"[]
I am not 100 percent sure which way we this project should go, but the above point does have merit. Another of our previous conventions was to exclude commas from numbers (for example, 3450 mm vs. 3,450 mm). We later discarded that policy in favour of WP:MoS conventions. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[]
When this has come up in the past, consensus generally favored using the units that are most familiar in general use. Wikipedia is meant for the general reader, not scientists, and in the vast majority of North American automotive writing (I've never read European or Australian journals) the common abbreviation is "cc." While most people would probably understand "cm3 as "centimeters cubed", "cc" is almost universally accepted as a unit for engine displacement.
(Plus, it seems the software no longer has a button to insert a superscript 3 anymore.) --Sable232 (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[]
I believe British publications also use cubic centimetres. I will check recent British ones at the bookstores. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[]

Years, part 2

I made a suggestion back in 2006 here regarding using production dates with months were known, and avoiding end dates. There seemed to be agreement on this, but it was never added as a convention (I forgot about it, and was never sure when a convention as regarded as accepted), and I'd like to develop this further:

  • The month of start of production should be provided where known to avoid ambiguity as to wether the year is an actual calendar year or a Model year.
  • Model years should be avoided unless refering to a North American vehicle, or during specific discussion of the sale of a vehicle in North America. It should be noted where model years are being used (link to Model year maybe at the first mention in an article maybe?). Actually, on this subject, are model years used widely anywhere else besides the US? What about Canada?
  • In the context of internationally-sold cars, the end dates of production/sale should be avoided in tables and titles - I'm not sure about this one exactly (see previous discussion).
  • Also, how about making a template like Template:Vgrelease for dates of introduction for use in infoboxes? This would hopefully clarify dates somewhat with internationally-sold models.

The Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic articles are prime examples of this "year hell" - a mess of calendar dates and model years, and constant edit wars between the two. A while back I tried to clear things up by adding the month and year of introduction in Japan in the main text and header for each generation on both of these, but they've mostly been screwed around with by now. Any comments? --Zilog Jones (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[]

add ur suggestions here -> | C  21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Oh, thanks. But I'm not just talking about the infobox issue. And I just noticed the longwinded recent discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles (I guess I should have started this there), which always seem to stop before any agreement is made :(. And to clarify, my main issue is with internationally sold vehicles. I have no problems with model years being prominent in articles about North American cars. --Zilog Jones (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[]
I would like to bring this conversation back alive. Either not using end dates in infoboxes and headers at all, or sticking to the end date in the cars home market. An end date in this case would be when the car in question was replaced in a majority of markets. I would argue that the 1973-79 Mitsubishi Lancer should remain under that name, even though the wagon (Van) version continued in production for the home market until 1985. Titling the section 1973-85 Mitsubishi Lancer would cause a lot of confusion, leading to conflation with later models. Anyone?  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[]
I agree with that. Same goes for a generation of vehicle that ends regular production in 2001, but remains in production until 2005 elsewhere. However, excluding the extended production dates is not the best solution; it is best to have two fields:
  • 1997–2001
  • 1997–2005 (Brazil)
Section headings should list the 1997–2001 date range. OSX (talkcontributions) 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[]

Agreed, meant to mention that too.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[]

Lead Image

there should be a hierarchy of preference for a lead picture.

the current guideline has rooms to improve on what is the preference hierarchy for a lead picture. the lead picture should be preferably chosen from either the latest generation or the most popular/well known models which appears to be the trend of the automobile pages.

perhaps reverse chronological pictures of generations could replace the lead picture. just a thought Shimman (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[]

The liberal application of the 5th image criteria has lead to a negative impact on article quality in this viewer's opinion. I elected to pursue a career as a history teacher, though found myself in industry, but remain sensitive to distortions of historical context. I believe the idea proposed above makes sound encyclopedic sense. Notability is paramount for inclusion and thus the presentation of data should both serve and be determined by notability - car pictures should be no different. (Just because it's a really good picture of a marginally significant vehicle does not make it more notable than a weak photo of a historically influential one)
Why is model X notable and included in wikipedia? There are 3 possibilities. The first is that it is a current product from a major manufacturer that affectes the contemporary consumer context. The second is that some varrient of it is/was culturally significant (orginal mustang, Smokey & the Bandit Firebird, classic GTO, General Lee Charger, etc.). The third is that it is part of the historical context surrounding vehicles in 1 or 2, that is to say another product by the same manufacturer as part of a complete picture of that culturally/economically significant company.
It therefore makes sense to reflect why a given model is significant by the selection of the image to represent it at the top. The hirearchy that come to mind for me is first preference to current production models - that is what the consumer sees and keeps the content of the reference current, second preference to the most culturally and historically significant varient (which would be first choice for out of production models). Lastly, lacking a pic of either of those, the next most historically significant/ best known/ highest selling model. --Rwberndt (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[]
Disagree. I don't believe that the newest is the most notable. It can be, but it is often also not the case. The 1964 1/2 Mustang for instance, is always going to be of more relevance culturally than the newest one. Meanwhile, for some, the eighties 5.0 embodies Mustang. I believe that as long as the photo is of a high quality and of a relevant car (not some obscure version) it can be used for the lead photo. In any case, as long as the photos fulfill certain quality standards and are also not in use in the relevant generational boxes, they can be used in turn. There is no reason why the 1948 Lincoln Continental couldn't get the lead spot for three months, followed by a 1979 for a while and so on. Lead photos are easy to change.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[]
The Mustang is an excellent example of a case that is not historically/culturally clear. At some point, if they keep making mustangs, the generations that see the original as the architype will fade and more people on earth will be familiar with whatever is current - but at what point in history that happens is admittedly not clear. On the other hand, the 1984 Lincoln is just not all that notable. I learned to drive in a 78 Camaro, and am biased toward it, but recognize that it is not historically/culturally significant when compared to others. I would argue that, for a reference to be relevant and current, the present context should always take precedence. I will admit that it could also be argued that the most historically influential should - I only shy away from that because of the challenge in determining such in some cases. But Wikipedia should not be an art gallery. It should be a reference resource - and choosing pictures for a key point in articles should be a matter of supporting and enhancing the content, not displaying someone's photographic artistry that may or may not be particularly relevant.--Rwberndt (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[]
Completely disagree. The top infobox lists a range of years of a car's production. Any car from that production range is suitable, and there is no reason why we should not elect to use the best photo available -- especially on subjective grounds of various users' preferred generation. Furthermore, using most recent as the requirement almost guarantees a lower-quality photo, as there will almost always be less to choose from.
Rwberndt suggests it's about "photographic artistry" -- not at all. The image standards do not favor artsy photos. Rather, they put a preference on photos that eliminate elements that make it difficult to see the features of the illustrated car or that call attention elsewhere: cluttered backgrounds, poor/harsh lighting, poor angles, reflections on the car, etc. These are the issues, not a lack of artistry, that make many photos undesirable as an article's most prominently featured. It is all about enhancing content, and putting a photo that suffers from the issues above is failing to enhance the content.
And lastly, there is no legitimate reason for illustrating the most recent generation. The only arguments I've heard over the years are it's easy from an editing perspective (Wikipedia doesn't exist for the convenience of its editors) and that we don't want to confuse people who are researching buying a current car (a. This is an encyclopedia, not a consumer guide. b. Which photo is selected for the top of the article doesn't stop someone from using the article as they please.) To the discussion of notability above, the guidelines already specify avoiding rare variants of a car, but from an encyclopedic perspective a 2002 Toyota Camry is in no way less notable than a 2010. IFCAR (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[]
The '78 Camaro has some relevance. It is easily recognizable as a Camaro, which is the most important part of why a particular generation would work. It's certainly more historically/culturally significant than the current generation. But I am not trying to argue for using only older cars either, I am just saying that to decide which generation of a car is more culturally significant than any other is just going to lead to eternal and pointless wrangling.
The one thing that should be addressed is the idea that the one "best" picture should automatically be chosen for the lead infobox. If one picture is 97% perfect and another is 94%, they're both good enough. Especially when shrunken to 250px width, which is how they're seen. I feel that any shot that meets certain minimum standards should be considered as good for the top of the page, with none other taking precedence because "there's bird poo on the wing mirror" or such minimal problem.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[]

But to select 94 percent over 97 percent, to use your example, we'd need some legitimate reason to make any sacrifice in quality. Some users' preference for a particular generation doesn't merit the slightest degradation, and would lead to constant insistences that "oh, it's just fine" in the case of photos that do not approach that 94 percent mark. IFCAR (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[]

I feel that the last few decimal points of quality are no longer of enough relevance to decide. It's like comparing a Gevrey-Chambertin with a Vosne-Romanée. Then cultural reasons (and variety!) must also have a say. If one photo has a very few reflections and another has a too busy background, who is to decide that one is better than the other? As long as they're both well-lit, 3/4, uncustomized cars. The arguing won't be any different from what we deal with already, and hey, they can easily be changed back and forth. Meanwhile, all of this talk seems to be just because Shimman doesn't like the lead photo in Hyundai Elantra: see discussion here.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[]
But there's no legitimate reason to call for a particular generation. If there are questions about the merits of photographs as photographs -- reflections vs. background, as you suggest -- let's discuss them that way. IFCAR (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[]
There's rarely one single generation of a car that would be considered overwhelmingly more notable than the rest. Yes, a '78 Camaro is instantly recognizable, but so is a '68 and so is an '88. It's inherently POV and arguments for selection would be based mostly on which model a person likes better and it would be unlikely for a consensus to be reached. The image guidelines came about because of this, to keep personal bias as it comes to the vehicle out of the process. Fortunately we've had very few cases of having to debate two nearly-equal images in terms of quality.
Using the newest model everywhere seems too often to be people trying to advertise for their preferred manufacturer. If anything the newest model is the worst one to use since there's fewer images available and in some cases the only ones are images from auto shows taken inside convention centers which are often the worst-quality photos.
Putting images in a rotation would cause more problems than its worth in my opinion. I'd rather remove the lead image altogether if it's going to become that contentious of an issue. --Sable232 (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I think Sable232 might have a point. This discussion has gravitated back to the image as the star, but in an encyclopedia the knowledge is the star. Images are there as supporting actors. My initial concern was that the choice of image at the top of a page does influence how the content of that page is percieved. Human memory and mental processing is, to varying degrees, visual and placement of a specific visual data element can have a significant effect on how the mind pre-characterizes the textual content. Perhaps there should not be a lead photo, offering instead the sumary info alone to focus on what the article contains - information about a model of automobile.
Or how about a photo of a name badge for the lead infobox ? --Rwberndt (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]

"If you can't agree, no one gets anything" is a response of a parent to a kindergartener, not how we should determine a key component of a Wikipedia article. By the same token, how do we pick which GENERATION of badge -- uh-oh, this generation has a more significant badge, this generation has a better-looking badge, this badge is from the newest generation, this badge is from the best-selling generation...

It's fine exactly the way it is: picking a high-quality photo based on the merits of the photograph -- within reason, to avoid a nonrepresentative photo -- as an illustration of a vehicle line. IFCAR (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Thank you for emphasizing my point. A “key component of a Wikipedia article” is what we are talking about. And as such, it should support and enhance the content. An image, selected on its aesthetic qualities, not its significance to the subject, is therefore in conflict. (Not to mention being contentious as a source of pride/celebrity for the artist)
I don’t have all the answers, but this current situation has a deleterious impact on article quality. An objective, not subjective, criterion relevant to the encyclopedic purpose is needed.
Are there any other non-photographers with thoughts on this issue ?--Rwberndt (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I don't think that there are any serious problems with the current situation, but I do se that people want to see different versions of a car, and as long as the photos meet the necessary (high) standards, I think that some variety would be good for everyone. It's admittedly rare to have several passable photos, at least in articles I edit, so it is not a huge problem. Honestly, I would be quite alright with no picture at all for the main infobox - I don't really see the need for the main infobox period, since cars often develop so far from their original roots that these boxes become either so vague or so sprawling as to become useless. A well written intro is much more important to me.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[]
"An image, selected on its aesthetic qualities, not its significance to the subject, is therefore in conflict." For the top infobox, which covers the entire range of a vehicle model, any car is significant. And there's nothing automatically more encyclopedically significant about the newest model of a car than any other. IFCAR (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I tend to agree with IFCAR, but I do think we need to liberalise our selection policy slightly. Criterion five of our convention currently states: "low-volume, unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image." This doesn't go far enough in my opinion. The lead infobox should attempt to be as recognisable to as many people as possible.
  • Older models: example, Toyota Corolla. What use is there in having an image of a first generation Corolla in the Toyota Corolla article when that car is so old now that it is unrecognisable to many readers due to that particular generation being rarely seen on the roads these days? This does not mean the current series necessarily needs to occupy the lead infobox position.
  • Same car, different styling: example, Toyota Corolla. Images of the E110 and E120 generations would make bad lead infobox choices because several different front-end styling themes were offered, depending on the market. At least the current E140 model has consistent frontal design treatment in export markets, so its inclusion is preferred.
  • Different car, same name: example, Honda Odyssey. The second generation onwards North American models vary from the rest-of-world models. Since the first generation model was the same regardless of market, an image of that generation is preferable.
  • Common versus obscure: example, Honda Insight. The first generation Insight could be safely considered an obscure model with only 17,020 global sales over seven years. There was a lengthy debate last year over this, something that was not justified given the obscurity of the original car.
  • Not sold here: example, Volkswagen Polo. The first few generations were mainly confined to the European market, whereas the newer versions have been sold in many places around the world. As such, an image of a more recent generation would be preferred.
In case my point my message is still not clear, consider that the Eiffel Tower is the universally-recognised symbol of the French capital. The Élysée Palace is not and one would expect to see an image of the tower at the top of Paris article, even if an image of the Élysée Palace was nothing less than stunning, yet the best Eiffel Tower image was photographed in bad weather using a phone camera. Likewise, because we are in the present, the first image of the New York City page should illustrate the city as it stands today (or in recent times) as opposed to 1900 when the city had no high-rise development and was a very different place. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I'm largely with OSX on this one. For some cars there will always be wrangling between editors, and for some cars the choice is obvious. Sometimes quality is more important, sometimes the subject is more important. Sometimes the pictures may need regular changes (Lincoln Continental or Volkswagen Golf, for instance).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I'm somewhat with OSX on this one. I still think the obscure model rule should be reserved for more extreme cases than some of his examples, though maybe with a less extreme definition of extreme if that makes sense. In other words, the current convention can stand to be tightened slightly, but I wouldn't go as far as OSX is proposing. IFCAR (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Question for all - What should be the choice when a model changes drastically (Case in point, Chrysler split off Ram as a division, so the Durango nameplate has been placed on a station wagon where formerly it was a large truck)? Do the present rules adequately support the contextual relevancy detailed by OSX or is something more needed?--Rwberndt (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Yes, because there is nothing more encyclopedically significant about the car-based Durango than the two preceding truck-based generations. IFCAR (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[]

I would like to add the above examples to the conventions page. Any supporters (or suggestions for modification or additons)? OSX (talkcontributions) 11:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Consensus on using chassis codes for section titles

I did some quick searching but could not find a discussion in the archives.

For many vehicles this makes perfect sense. Some automakers use simple chassis codes (i.e. BMW, Nissan, Corvette). But it doesn't make sense for others -- most Toyotas are an example. I noticed that the MR2 section titles were changed to W10, W20, and W30 for the first, second, and third generations recently. This just doesn't make sense. Nobody would know what W10 means without being told. The VIN for a 1985 MR2 will not say W10, it will saw AW11 since that is its chassis code (which includes "A" for the engine code and "11" instead of "10" since the second digit is the revision/version number). No one will know what this means -- and there is nowhere on Wikipedia that says it. I found List of Toyota platforms which appears to be a halfhearted and incomplete attempt at making a page that might explain how to decipher a Toyota chassis code -- and this page is not even linked to in any Toyota article. Most other Toyota vehicle articles are like this, and few of them actually make sense. (The Camry article may be an exception since Camry production was complicated enough to require distinction.)

I understand using chassis codes for many vehicles makes perfect sense, but it doesn't for ALL of them. I propose either using the chassis code found on the VIN (i.e. the one that is used when referring to the car) for the section title, or deleting it and just calling it the first/second/third generation when appropriate. The way it is now is confusing and is only understood by goofball enthusiasts (like me). Further, when people are switching out the section titles with the new chassis codes, they are not removing all the instances where the actual chassis code is used in the article, making even more confusion/work for others to clean up. Bdc101 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[]

I prefer not using chassis codes and stick to first/second/third generation. Articles need to be clear and make sense to people just learning about the car. This isn't meant to be a fansite for die-hard enthusiasts. Chassis codes can be mentioned of course, but people learning about these cars aren't going to have any clue what the codes mean without reading further. Not to mention, such codes are typically not even published by the car makers outside of internal/dealer docs. I'm against them appearing in section titles or timelines. 1st/2nd/3rd generation is something that can be globally understood. --Vossanova o< 18:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I think that it's hard to draw an exact line. As an anorak I usually prefer chassis codes, but you're right in that W10/20/30 means nothing to most people (even me, an AW11 enthusiast). These are best left as anchors. The problem with 1st/2nd/3rd gen is that often these are arbitrary decisions, and are certainly not officially recognized. Check out Seat Ibiza and Volkswagen Passat for instance, where some people consider mid-term facelifts new generations and some consider them 6.5 or Mark 6B or whathaveyou, leading to a certain amount of uncertainty. Instead of having hard guidelines for these things, I think consensus will have to be slowly and painfully built for many of these articles on an individual basis. What I do strongly feel is that model years/production years are best left out of the section titles, as they are often subject of constant changes back and forth and often very hard to define, with production continuing in India or Venezuela or Tonga or somewhere. (I will now check out the MR2 page to see what's going on).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I agree that it's hard to draw an exact line. I think my opinion is more towards not referring to them unless necessary. These are nothing more than VIN codes, after all. Only enthusiasts care about them, and WP is not an encyclopedia for enthusiasts. I don't think VIN codes are encyclopedically relevant, except when the distinction between generations/models is slight enough to confuse the reader without additional information.
FWIW, the official "convention" says to use the model code, but the official "layout" does not. Where was the consensus made on the conventions? I can't even find who changed the convention to require it. Bdc101 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I think we agree for the most part, with perhaps a shade of difference inasmuch as that chassis codes are definitely true and verifiable, being issued by the manufacturers themselves. I think we should lean towards using the codes in general. That being said, when the chassis codes are somewhat obscure (MR2 being a perfect example) and the generations are very clearly delineated (MR2 again), then the choice not to use them becomes obvious. I don't know how or when the conventions were chosen, sorry!  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[]

I don't see how model codes are necessarily confusing. "W10" is simply a technical name given to refer to a particular generation of "MR2". In the same sense, "MR2" is the marketing name for the car yet magically this one isn't a problem. What if a reader is confused by "MR2"? Do we rename the article Toyota mid-engine, rear-wheel drive sports car, as produced between 1984 and 2007? It is not up to us to ensure that each and every reader understands the history behind how a specific model code was assigned, because this is really not of any interest to the vast majority of readers. Those that do, can undertake additional research at list of Toyota platforms. All that is required is for readers to understand that "W10" refers to the original MR2 model and "W20" designates the second series, et cetera.

However, in the case of the MR2, if I was setting out this article, I would incorporate "generation" identifiers into the section headings as well. W10 (1984–1989) would become First generation (W10; 1984–1989). OSX (talkcontributions) 23:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[]

OSX, that makes absolutely no sense. "MR2" is not a technical name: it is the product's only name given by the manufacturer, used in every single piece of public literature regarding the car, as well as the registered trademark for the car. How could someone be confused by the name of a product? "MR2" is what the MR2 is known as, to EVERYBODY. (If you're referring to it as an acronym, it was never officially used as an acronym by Toyota until the UK's "Heritage" page went online a few years ago.) There is a teensy bit of a difference between the name of a car and a VIN identifier, when talking about what label a random person might use for a specific car. For this vehicle it becomes one level more confusing since the "W10" is a totally unused name among enthusiasts, owners, or anyone else who would read Wikipedia (nor is it displayed on any VINs except for the incredibly-rare home-market-only 1.5l carbureted cars).
What you are saying to the reader by using this terminology is that when reading Wikipedia, they will use an arbitrary code to refer to a particular generation of vehicle, and that code is derived somehow from the VIN (simply for some cars and obtusely for others), and that to understand what the code means, you have to know how to decipher the VIN in a way that is useful for nothing except reading this Wikipedia page. That does not seem very encyclopedic to me, not to mention user-friendly.
I think you hit the nail on the head: the specific model code is not of any interest to the vast majority of readers, hence why include it in the section titles? For this case, using "First/Second/Third Generation" would be absolutely appropriate -- because the "W10/20" chassis codes have no meaning to anyone, anywhere, ever. For many other vehicles (BMW 3-series, Nissan S platform, etc) this is not the case -- but if we include the chassis code to eliminate confusion among certain obscure vehicles that do not have clear boundaries between numerical generations, what about those obscure vehicles for which chassis codes (or the convention's prescribed derivative of) do not apply to the vehicle anywhere outside of Wikipedia?
(And the list of Toyota platforms page, like I said, is unfinished, unlinked, and totally confusing. There is almost nothing useful there and what is there is copied from a couple of fan sites. The page should be deleted or completely re-written.)
Do you know who wrote the convention, and who provided input on the sole use of the chassis code in section titles? Bdc101 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[]
May I ask that you not take my statement out of context? For the record, my comment was that most readers are not interested in "the history behind how a specific model code was assigned" and cutting off the bold component completely manipulates the meaning of this.
"W10" needn't be seen as a technical name either: it can be seen as an identifier for the first generation car. And there is nothing confusing about that. If a reader isn't going be confused that the characters "M", "R", and "2" make up the product's marketing name, I fail to see how the same reader is going to be unable to see that "W", "1", and "0" refer to the first generation. Also, the Toyota MR2 is not known by everybody and is not a very common car. So if a reader "discovers" this car for the first time and are supposed to easily understand that "MR2" is the marketing name for three generations of one car, I fail to see how would they would be unable to comprehend that the generations go by the names W10, W20 and W30. There is no equation to decipher here, no arithmetic is involved, just the acceptance that "W10" is effectively a synonym for "first generation". The codes are not arbitrary either and are relatively consistent among all Toyota vehicles.
Lastly, I've suggested that W10 (1984–1989) become First generation (W10; 1984–1989), is this not a satisfactory solution? This way any concerns of perplexity by our allegedly brain dead readers are alleviated. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[]
My preference is similar to OSX (ie First generation (W10; 1984–1989)) except that in some articles there is disagreement over the generation number. Usually this is of the form 'Japan started making them in 1966' vs 'they were first imported to the US in 1976' or a name change is taken as taken as starting the generation numbers anew (eg Toyota Corona Mark II -> Cressida). I see no harm in including the chassis code in the section title. For new comers it doesn't mean much but for enthusiasts (and the factory) it is an unambiguous handle. You'll find that most fan sites and even most manufacturers (at least in their manuals and parts catalogues) use the chassis code in the same way. Newcomers usually pick up the naming scheme quick enough (education is the idea of an encyclopaedia, right?). So, the chassis code hurts no-one, is short and unambiguous, is handy for the old hands and educates the newcomers - what more could you want?. The years are mostly for the newcomers - who are unlikely to know the chassis code and may not know the generation. And again, it hurts no-one else. My preference is to have W10; 1984–1989 if there is likely to be fighting (er, enthusiastic discussion) over the generation numbering or if for some cars they are not widely known by generation (eg I think BMW go most by chassis code or year). If the fights/discussion over generation are not excessive then I am quite happy to use First generation (W10; 1984–1989).
Note: chassis code and VIN code are not always the same (eg in the US the Corollas GT-S circa 1982 has AE88 in the VIN but AE86 in the chassis code - strictly a US anomaly, other countries call it an AE86).  Stepho  (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I second that. If generations cannot be implemented without distorting the article to make them fit, then they should be excluded like they have been at Toyota Camry (for those who haven't seen the previous layout of that article take a look here). OSX (talkcontributions) 02:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[]
To me this is why the MR2 does not need chassis numbers. The three generations are very easily delineated (no room for doubt whatsoever), whereas the "stem" chassis codes are more obscure than they are for most Toyotas. I like the individualized approach here; the MR2 can definitely use simpler section headings (=plain English) than the Camry can, with its considerably more complex development history. All this said, I am completely content with any of the various section headings proposed and am only arguing out of keen interest and to be able to better name sections in future articles according to other editors' preferences, priorities, and pinings.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I like consistency - at least on the Toyota articles :) If I let go on the generation and you let go on the chassis code, could we settle on First generation (W10; 1984–1989)?  Stepho  (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[]
That seems best for me at least.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[]

If we are going to do this for the sake of the convention, so be it. My argument for not including it is twofold: first, hundreds of vehicles get by without it (mftrs/platforms which do not have chassis codes) so the consistency argument doesn't really make sense, and second, it's nonessential information that has the potential to confuse enthusiast readers while giving non-enthusiasts the ability to distinguish between generations that need no distinguishing. How often do you think we'll get anon edits changing "W10" to "AW11?"

If the consensus is to leave it at First generation (W10; 1984–1989) then I will defer. :) Bdc101 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[]

I think that the consensus is that we can't have conventions when every case is so different. Instead, each car (and sometimes a whole brand) will follow their own paths, depending on what is the most clear and helpful way to title sections. And chassis codes are definitely not nonessential - it's usually the most exact way to identify a car. It may not mean anything to you, but TA62 and W123 are loaded with meaning to me.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I'm absolutely not trying to say that chassis codes have no meaning, but "W10," W20," and "W30" have no meaning to MR2 owners or anybody else. I refer to my MR2s as AW11s and SW20s and I refer to lots of other cars (Toyota or otherwise) by their chassis codes. I think the consensus should be to use codes which have meaning and to leave out codes that do not. Bdc101 (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[]
The reason why I prefer a short code like W10 is because Toyota often makes a number of variants in the same generation with different engines and slightly different numbers. The first gen MR2 has the AW10 and AW11 - slightly clumsy but just plausible to put in the title. The 2nd gen MR2 has SW20, SW21 and SW22 - getting more unwieldy to put in the title. Other models like the circa 1982 Celica has the following models: SA60, RA60, TA61, GA61, MA61, RA63, TA63, AA63, MA63, SA63, TA64, RA64, RA65 - untenable to put in any title. But these are often grouped as the A60 series or the A6# series by both fans and Toyota and A60 is the perfect size to put in a title. You say that AW11 has meaning for you - but that is the limited case of the most common model in your country (and for a vehicle that only had a couple of variants). When talking about international readers and international cars, we need to talk about the entire series, not just the version that you are familiar with. Of course, when the article gets down to specifics of a particular vehicle in a particular market we can use the full code. Newcomers may not understand that short code at the beginning but if the article is written clearly then the newcomer will soon be taught what that code means. It should also be obvious the that numbers are increasing for each generation (eg MR2 W10, W20, W30). The newcomers (along with the old hands) can then use that code intelligently to refer to a whole generation.  Stepho  (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I agree with what Stepho says, but would like to add one sidenote. For a brief moment in Sweden, the E20 and E30 Corollas were sold separately. Toyota always referred to them simply as the Corolla 20 series and 30 series. The E (or W, as it were) could always be dropped, since it's common to all the versions of a platform. Just a thought.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[]
Sounds good. The anorak in me wants to stay with W10 (or E20 for the Corolla example) but something like First generation (10 series; 1984–1989) would be easier for newcomers and no harder for us anoraks. There are a few cases like the Toyota Corona Mark II and the Toyota Camry/Vista where the letter code changed (Mark II started as T60/70 series and then changed to its own X10/20 series, the Camry/Vista started with the V10 series and then changed to the new XV10 series - concurrently with the V50 series to keep things confusing). Perhaps First generation (T10 series; 1968–1972) for the unusual cases and First generation (10 series; 1984–1989) for the common cases. Actually it seems like the word 'series' is the important part - it tells the reader that this is about the entire 'W10' (or '10') generation instead of trying to use a particular model like 'AW11' to represent all possible models in that entire generation.  Stepho  (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I think "10 Series" would be even more cryptic. It's even less relevant to the actual VIN code (for this case) than "W10 Series." If I had read "10 Series" without understanding who had written it and why, I would have changed it to "AW11" without even a thought of looking at the convention.
Moreover, we already had an anon edit changing all the "W_0" codes to AW11, SW20, and ZZW30 today. This is going to happen constantly because nobody uses the terms W10, W20, and W30, nor equates them with MR2s. To paraphrase Stepho's words, this is a "limited case of the most common model in your country (and for a vehicle that only had a couple of variants)" but what you neglect to include is that this is the most common model in ALL countries by a humongous factor (AW10s made up maybe a couple percent of Japanese sales for a couple of years and were never exported new). SW20s did have 21 and 22 VIN codes, but are also referred to universally as SW20s, and ZZW30s ALL said "ZZW30" in the VIN, with no exceptions. I understand that this doesn't apply to Celicas or Camrys or 99% of Toyota models and I'm not suggesting we change the convention. This is an MR2-specific case.
It is just a technicality arising from a convention that means to make a universal standard, but in certain rare cases just ends up confusing people. Are we trying to make WP readers conform to our (and Toyota's, though never published or even used) eccentric terminology, or can we just ignore the convention for those rare cases where it doesn't make sense? Shouldn't that previous sentence actually be understood for any convention? This is just conforming to convention for convention's sake. In this case, the convention is not required for distinction, makes no sense to anyone, and for those reasons should be left out of this particular article. Bdc101 (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[]
Quite funny how quickly that anon character (a drifting fan, apparently... yuck) popped up. Anyhow, once we change the section headings to First generation (W10; 1984–1989), it should become quite obvious what the meaning is. I just wish people would take the time to read an article before changing it about.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[]
"I just wish people would take the time to read an article before changing it about." But isn't that the point of having a user-editable encyclopedia? So that when something doesn't make sense to readers, that it can be changed so that it does? And the only reason we have for making the section titles confuse everyone is conforming to some arbitrary convention. The more we debate this the more obvious it is to me that it should be left the way it was.
To summarize, I'm suggesting that the convention should be held to in all cases, except when it does not make sense regarding the subject and context of the article, such as this case. It makes no sense to change the convention for rare or singular cases, but it makes just as much sense to obey the convention blindly while ignoring the context of the article that the convention is being used to describe. Our task is not to create a universal standard for presenting Wikipedia articles, but to make good Wikipedia articles. This should be an understood/unspoken basis for any WP convention. Bdc101 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[]

I fail to see how the less-correct "10 series" identifier is any less confusing than "W10 series". Both would be ambiguous to the uninformed. Those that are aware of these number-only aliases would in general, have a solid interest in cars and would therefore not have not any trouble deciphering "W10". For the more casual readers that don't understand the "W10" code, we have the word "first generation" prefixed beforehand along with the years afterwards. Also, it is my understanding that Wikipedia strives for accuracy—it is not a textbook with a sole purpose of "dumbing down" content. OSX (talkcontributions) 11:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Accuracy taken out of context is not something that WP strives for. We already got our second anon edit changing it back to the commonly understood codes, and Mr Choppers' response to the edit, while I'm sure he meant it in good faith, may quite possibly have come across as stuck-up to the anon contributor who obviously was not aware of this discussion: "One would wish that this anonymous editor would begin reading the article and perhaps familiarizing themselves with the Toyota model codes." That is how these titles come across to the average reader. Nothing against MC as I'm sure he did not mean it that way, but I certainly won't be part of any consensus with that attitude, be it deliberate or just apparent, towards the WP reader.
  • Per WP:RF, readers of the MR2 article expect to see "AW11," "SW20," and "ZZW30" in an article about MR2s, not "W10," "W20," and "W30" (as exhibited by two anon edits this week). This does not go for other Toyota articles (Camry, Celica, etc.) where the distinction between generations is not as clear, hence they should be left as they are.
  • Per WP:IAR, this rule does not improve this particular Wikipedia article. It does not make the difference between MR2 generations any more distinct for the average reader or for the informed reader. Concurrently, it confuses average readers who don't come to Wikipedia to educate themselves on meaningless terminology, but just want to learn about MR2s.
  • Per WP:UCS, "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." This is a common sense decision. No one uses the "W10" terminology -- nobody. It is technically correct but has no common meaning.
  • Even the convention itself says that "The most common or prominent versions should be given precedence" with regards to chassis codes in section titles. This is not a case of catering to one nationality or market over another: "AW11," "SW20," and "ZZW30" are the "most common and prominent" codes used both commonly as well as in VINs, globally (or at least in all English-speaking markets, since this is the English WP). So the article as it existed last week was actually following the written convention to the letter, and the convention does not need to be changed to accommodate this article.
For these four reasons, following WP:RF, WP:IAR, and WP:UCS and the WP:AUTOS convention itself, the section titles of this article should be reverted back to the way they were last week. I don't know how I can make it any clearer. Stepho and OSX have done a fine job fixing the larger, more complicated Toyota articles up, but those are vastly different articles than these smaller ones, and I think I've supplied enough proof from various WP standards and conventions that this particular article should be changed back to the way it was. Bdc101 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[]
None of the above links are policies but rather essays written by individual editors (there is nothing stopping me from writing an essay titled, Reasons why Toyota articles must use bare model codes at all times).
Regarding the convention, you really need to stop taking statements out of context by ignoring the text before and afterwards. The WP:CARS/Conventions clause, "The most common or prominent versions should be given precedence", is referring to a specific case, the fifth generation BMW 3 Series. This particular generation of 3 Series has different model codes for each body style: sedan (E90), wagon (E91), coupe (E92), and convertible (E93). Therefore, the sedan (E90) has been given prominence since it is the most common version. If there was a universal model code (as used by Toyota), then I am sure that this would be used. The example given directly before the BMW is the "Lexus RX (XU30)", with XU30 being the bare model code, and the RX 330 (MCU33/MCU38) likely being the most common version.
I propose we immediately explain the model codes in the first paragraph of each section. For example:

Toyota introduced the first generation MR2 in 1984, designating it the chassis code "W10". When fitted with the 1.5-liter 3A engine, it was known as the "AW10". Likewise, the 1.6-liter 4A version is identified by the "AW11" code.

This convention would apply to all applicable Toyota and Lexus models and should remove the confusion seen by some editors who would have otherwise assumed the character "A" was mistakingly excluded from "W10". More complicated examples such as the Celica may benefit from having a small, left-aligned table adjacent to the infobox instead of prose. OSX (talkcontributions) 04:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[]
The reason I was suggesting that anon read the article is that the chassis numbers were explained in the text, and were also listed in the infobox precisely to make their meaning clear. I have myself made edits in places and then reverted them after actually reading the article, so I know that it happens - but I also felt shamefaced afterwards. As for referring to the first generation as AW11: It is factually incorrect. I still prefer "first generation", without model years nor chassis code as a section header, but several of the anon edits also targeted the chassis code as listed in the text (it definitely has a right to be there, even though I think it redundant in the section heading) and in the infoboxes. Perhaps an <!--invisible section--> explaining the situation should be placed at the top of each section, no matter what the consensus on section titles is. I have been adding the chassis codes to the engine listings in the infoboxes here and there, but perhaps separate tables would be clearer.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[]
Bingo, OSX has nailed it. Up above the question was asked if we should favour good articles or a good encyclopaedia. If we were just a collection of unrelated articles then the answer would be 'good articles'. But we are writing an encyclopaedia, with lots of linking that encourages readers to jump from one article to another. Consistency helps readers understand articles in a wider context. To go a little deeper, inconsistency between articles confuses readers more than what optimising within individual articles helps them (ie the cost is more than the gain). I spend most of my day job dealing with information systems - I have regretted nearly every optimisation done at the expense of consistency. Using short codes in some articles and long codes in others leads to confusion. But Bdc101 still has a valid complaint that 'W10' is confusing to new readers and that they are tempted to change it to 'AW11'. We have witnessed a couple of anon editors do this just like Bdc101 said they would. Sadly, part of the 'user editable' nature of WP is that many editors will change things according to their local knowledge - they have never heard of an AW10, so they think the entire first generation is called the AW11. If the intro is carefully written for each section as suggested by OSX, then hopefully a new reader's thought's will go something like 'W10 ? What the **** is that, they really mean AW11 ... oh that's short hand for a number of models that I knew nothing about - hey I just learnt something'. Of course, some readers will stop at the title and change things without reading the surrounding context. We already watch out for Americans forever changing calendar production years to US style model years - this is just another thing for us experienced editors to watch out for. If we need to revert it a lot then we need to write the intro a little clearer (or possibly put a HTML comment in explaining it in more detail).  Stepho  (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Stepho, thank you. That is a good argument and the first so far that has responded to the actual reasons I've started this debate. We understand that since WP articles are, first and foremost, intended to be friendly to their intended audience, and their intended audience is those with automotive interest (if not gearheads, at least enthusiasts or persons with interest in cars in general). So the potential readers in our "intended audience" (since this is an automotive-related article) are:

  • a reader who already knows the codes "AW11" and "SW20"
  • a reader who knows a little about MR2s but does not know the chassis codes associated with the generations, or
  • readers who are car-guys but are not necessarily familiar at all with the Toyota chassis code scheme (say, a BMW enthusiast who knows about cars in general and especially BMWs but doesn't know anything about Toyota chassis codes).

My argument is that the inclusion of the "W10" code confuses the first (leading to anon edits), doesn't educate the second (at best), and more importantly does not add anything to the article for the third.

The distinction between generations of MR2 is completely clear at the first glance. The differences are immediately obvious. The second reader may be confused because he/she quite possibly has heard the terms "AW11" or "SW20" before but has to read into the text of the article to determine which one is which (instead of it being immediately obvious). So it contributes nothing for the first two readers. Now what does the third enthusiast need to know the "W10" code for? Are we writing the MR2 article so that people who read it can understand articles about other Toyotas better? No. We're writing the MR2 article for people who want to learn about MR2s. That is the point I'm trying to make. If we are going to include something that we've all agreed will confuse lots of readers, we need to have a specific point which is more important than the confusion, and the "W10" chassis codes just do not have real importance since they are not used anywhere outside of WP and are not useful for literally anything except for, once the reader has read lots of other Toyota articles, understanding how Toyota codes their chassis'. This is one priority of many for the editors who are writing all of the Toyota vehicle articles, but it should be omitted where it causes confusion in the singular articles. That is practically WP:IAR written in different words.

It is not a specific WP principle, but those familiar with user interface design and the principle of least surprise would agree that terminology should be used that will cause the reader the least amount of confusion when delivering information. The "W10" may be understood by someone with working knowledge of Toyota naming schemes, but the article is not written for those with a working knowledge of Toyota naming schemes, it is written for those who want to learn about MR2s. This information is still pertinent to the article and to the encyclopedia as a whole and thus should be included in the article, but my argument is just to leave it out of the headers. Those who are specifically looking for Toyota chassis codes will still be able to find it quickly and not be confused.

I would totally agree with you if we were talking about a normal information system, say a database or something along those lines, where maintaining the accuracy and organization of data that's been collected is just as important as the data itself (I also work in a related field). But WP is not an information collection like you describe; not only is it supposed to be reader-friendly but it is also editable by anyone, and for those reasons it's entirely different. WP articles are supposed to be, first and foremost, as friendly as possible to the intended audience. I've laid it out as clear as it can be that the section titles as they are now do not accomplish that, and you've also listed out the reasons. It's not our job as editors to confuse people in order to force them to learn something -- or at least not something that is useless information (which "W10" most definitely is). OSX is most certainly taking WP:IAR out of context if he/she thinks it is just a random essay (WP:PILLARS). IAR is the whole reason for this debate -- ignoring a rule that is keeping a WP article from being better than it is.

I'm fine with leaving the "W10" codes in the text of the article, but it will always confuse readers if it's left in the section header where it immediately stands out as erroneous to anyone familiar with the vehicle. I propose that we change the headers to "First Generation, 1984-1989" and add an explanation of the "W10" and "AW11" codes in the first paragraph of the article, which will accomplish our goal with the least amount of confusion, and not differ greatly from the accepted and implemented convention. If there is a WP policy I've missed that says that encyclopedic consistency must be maintained at any cost to individual articles, please point me in that direction; I have not been able to find it. Thank you again for taking the time to put that into words and contribute to the debate. Bdc101 (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[]

To get this debate over with, if, after my last argument, you and OSX still insist on keeping the "W10", then I propose we change it to "First Generation (W10, 1984-1989) as discussed, include a bit in the first paragraph explaining it, and leave it at that. We do not have a consensus either way (of five commenters, we have two for, two against, and Mr Choppers, who seems to be solidly on the fence) so I suppose that would be an acceptable compromise. Bdc101 (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I guess I am on the fence, but I think I'll slip a foot down on one side. I lean slightly towards including the chassis codes, because while the article is indeed about the MR2 it doesn't hurt if a reader does learn something about Toyotas in general. BTW, it's nice to see a civilized discussion carried out in well-written, complete sentences. If I have been absent it's mainly because I am currently embroiled in a running three-month argument with a particularly uncooperative editor who doesn't think others deserving of similar niceties, see Talk:Share taxi for an example of this user's style of arguing.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[]

The titles for each version of the car should be have the AW11 and SW20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[]

I have reverted an edit by Stepho which removed the preceding anonymous comment. Is it WP:AUTO policy to prevent anon editors from contributing to a discussion? Bdc101 (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[]

No, you're absolutely right. Bad Stepho, Bad! I find it hard to respond to the argument though, as no reasoning is offered.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[]
Oops, my mistake. I was only looking at the history differences and mistakenly thought anon was editing the real project convention to support his edit on the MR2 article. Apologies.  Stepho  (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[]

Requested Move

Hi, there's a discussion at Toyota Vitz to Move it to Toyota Yaris. Please participate anyone who knows more about the Project's conventions than me (most people) or just wants to air their opinion. Thanks Jenova20 11:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Metric horsepower

I have made the following adjustment.


Power figures should usually be written in metric form with the imperial conversion in parentheses. Metric measurements should be expressed in [[kilowatts]] (kW) or [[pferdestärke]] (PS) for older vehicles.


Power figures should usually be written in metric form with the imperial conversion in parentheses. SI measurements should be expressed in [[kilowatts]] (kW). Metric horsepower ([[pferdestärke]], PS) may be included for older vehicles.

Metric horsepower in not compatible with SI so should not be used in place of kilowatts. Its use as an additional unit seems okay to me but unless this is the source unit I'm not sure what the point would be. JIMp talk·cont 01:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[]

The problem here is that even kW is now official SI unit, many car manufaturers still publish numbers using metric horsepower, so unless we dont accpet both, we then have no figures at all... -->Typ932 T·C 16:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[]
See also this discussion. Something really needs to be done about PS, but I don't know enough about the unit to guide any convention for its use.
However, to me it seems pointless to quote an engine producing 100 PS (99 hp) when there is only one unit of difference in the conversion. I am not quite understanding the issue with 100 PS (74 kW). OSX (talkcontributions) 03:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[]
kW is the unit officially used by all countries. It may not be the first choice of the common man in places like the US but it is at least understood. HP and PS are both older units that are not universally understood. If the source material uses HP or PS, then it seems reasonable to display that value with a kW conversion (preferably with metric first via {{convert|...|disp=flip}} but that's another discussion). Countries that understand PS usually don't understand HP and vice-versa, so PS/HP conversions are pointless - especially since HP and PS are within 98% of each other (as OSX pointed out). Three way conversions showing kW, HP and PS are similarly unnecessary and also too verbose for comfortable reading.  Stepho  talk  03:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Conversions are not pointless, readers dont know that PS and hp are within 98% and because we have here (editors use hp wrongly) lots of wrong ways to impress horsepower it makes very clear what hp we are talking about, the three way conversion is even more important, this is global wikipedia with readers from all over the globe. These conversions makes very clear if there is errors, especially bhp is very,very often used wrongly, without conversion its very hard to see if there is error, it also prevents using "own" wrong conversions which are just written -->Typ932 T·C 03:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[]
PS is no longer officially used by Germany and Japan—both now use kilowatts. If we are going to be all things to everyone we might as well start including kg·m for torque figures, km per litre figures (in addition to L / 100 km) for fuel consumption, metres per second for acceleration, and the various Burmese units of measurement. I can't see the point in doing this. Wikipedia does not try to be all things to everyone. The base unit should be the kilowatt, with horsepower or brake horsepower in parentheses. In the case of American cars along with older British and Australian ones, horsepower or brake horsepower should be listed first with kilowatts afterwards.
Issues with the conversion that may apply if a user converts the source unit incorrectly is not reason enough to make such conversions unreadably large by including every single unit that may be of relevance. It should theoretically be possible to modify {{convert}} to handle a PS figure as the source figure but to then output only the kilowatt and horsepower conversions. OSX (talkcontributions) 04:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Then we could also stop using inches,miles, foots, yards aswell we are not using them here. This is totally same claim -->Typ932 T·C 16:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[]
They are not unreadable -->Typ932 T·C 16:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Fair enough to say that many readers don't know that HP and PS are within 98% of each other. But to the best of my knowledge, readers from all countries can understand kW - even if they wouldn't choose that unit themselves. That makes kW the universal unit. As a mark of good scholarship, we also display the units as they were given in the source reference (typically brochures, magazines and books, which usually follow traditional units used when the car was new). And finally, as a courtesy , we also display the units traditional in the country the vehicle's home market.
Eg. I have many Japanese brochures of older Toyotas in Japan, many for models not sold elsewhere. Nearly all of them give power as PS. Naturally I convert these to kW for WP. And I would also show the original source value to make it possible to verify my work. But what would be the value of converting them to HP? Some readers still think in terms of HP (including myself) but we can still understand the kW value.  Stepho  talk  04:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[]
kW is not officially in use eveywhere, Ill bet than many people doesnt know that unit at all. Especially older people. I really dont see here any poroblem using these conversions, they are not that hard to read, we have here much more problematic areas like fuel consumption figures. -->Typ932 T·C 16:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[]
The kilowatt is officially used in the overwhelming majority of countries. Wikipedia does not bend over backwards because a handful of places use something else, especially if they are not English-speaking countries. For those who use PS, is the hp figure is almost identical: 100 hp (100 PS) and 100 PS (99 hp). OSX (talkcontributions) 09:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Are you sure Wikipedia is country oriented not language? I have always though this is wikipedia for english speakers not US/UK country wikipedia. -->Typ932 T·C 12:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[]
500 hp (510 PS) and 500 PS (490 hp) can you see the difference? -->Typ932 T·C 12:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Unless the source gives PS, I'd say we shouldn't bother with it at all. If the source does have PS, what do we do? Of course we should convert to kW but how about hp? Do we give PS or hide it. There is no nice simple way of using {{convert}} to take x PS and give y kW (z hp) (hiding the x PS) ... not yet ... but we could work on it. JIMp talk·cont 05:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Japan has its own JIS horsepower, this is not included in any conversion template? -->Typ932 T·C 16:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[]
There is no JIS hp template as yet, no. Can we get a number (i.e. a number of watts) for it? JIMp talk·cont 02:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[]
For Japan, I have only seen JIS PS (aka metric horsepower, used extensively in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s for cars I care about) and JIS kW (used for new cars). Is there a JIS hp that we should know about or is it just another name for PS? Remember that Japan was allied to Germany in WWII and took on a lot of German conventions.  Stepho  talk  04:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[]
I dont know any JIS PS, PS is german word.. its JIS standard measured horsepower (compare to DIN measured horsepower in Europe), I dont know how its called in Japan. Anyway its probably the same -->Typ932 T·C 20:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[]
In Japan they use '馬力', which literally translates as 'horse power' (as Jimp said below). Here is an example: 1960 Toyota brochure . They also use PS, which is the German abbreviation of the German phrase for 'horse power', possibly derived from their German association during WWII. Here is an example: 1972 Toyota Celica brochure] . Sometimes they also use HP, although I strongly suspect the figures are really PS. Here is an example: Toyota FA5 truck brochure page 1(馬力) and page6 (HP).  Stepho  talk  04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[]
JIS hp is theoritically same as DIN but its in most cases actually lower than DIN hp, I think there is no direct conversion for that. But is not same as DIN, its lower and should be mentioned in the context what standard is used on japanese cars power figures. I think this is not in use anymore.-->Typ932 T·C 12:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[]
It's called "馬力" ("bariki") in Japanese but this is a direct translation of "horsepower". If it's case-by-case, what hope would we have of converting it? JIMp talk·cont 21:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Here's an answer. Use {{convert|100|PS|kW hp|abbr=on|disp=output only}} to give "74 kW; 99 hp". Note that it's a bit awkward but leaving the abbr=on out is not going to spell "kilowatts" out for you but give you a semicolon instead of brackets (i.e. "74 kW; 99 hp" is what you'll get) ... sorry about that. JIMp talk·cont 00:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[]

I find it helps to list the options to consider:

  1. Display hp everywhere (using Jimp's '|disp=output only' technique for kW, PS) and nothing else. Welcome to 1932.
  2. Display kW everywhere (using Jimp's '|disp=output only' technique for PS, hp) and nothing else. The old timers will freak out.
  3. Display only the unit found in the reference. Articles will be a mixed bag of units and may use units unknown to you.
  4. Display kW and hp everywhere (using Jimp's '|disp=output only' technique for PS). Great for old timers in the US but tough for old timers in Germany and Japan.
  5. Display kW and the source unit. Old timers in the US will complain about articles for older German and Japanese cars.
  6. Display kW, hp and the source unit (if different). Eveybody can read their favourite unit but it's verbose for everybody.  Stepho  talk  04:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks Stepho, that is a clear list and my favoured option is the last one i.e. including kW HP and the unit given in the source. It is interesting that this discussion has made no mention of BHP which is a largely outdated measure but still appropriate for a large number of older British and American vehicles. So that last option makes sense whether the source unit is BHP, PS, or Hamsterpower. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Just to add that Japanese companies still use PS. As an example, this was in an email from Subaru - distributed just this afternoon. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[]
This is something which has bothered me for some time. Here are my points, in no order of importance:
  • Using "PS" for metric hp is the root of the problem. I don't know when it was decided to use the German term for what is simply a horsepower. Labelling it "PS" is rather arbitrary (why the preference for German?), as the metric horsepower "was adopted throughout continental Europe with designations equivalent to the English horsepower" (from Pferdestärke)- in Sweden we call it "hk" (hästkraft), the Dutch call it "pk" (paardenkracht), Italians/French/Portuguese call it "cv". The various Slavic iterations all begin with a "K" (konjska or similar), and the Finns call it "hv" (hevosvoima). In Esperanto the metric hp is called ĈP. The Basque call it ZP (for zaldi-potentzia), while they use "HP" for the imperial hp. - but all of these local hp's do translate literally to "horsepower", and all refer to 735.49875 W. The easiest would be just calling the metric unit "mhp" or something, since most of these troubles seem to derive from many being unfamiliar with PS.
  • Switching the outputs and hiding the input will only lead to further arguments. For instance, a number of Japanese luxury and sports cars of the nineties all claimed 280 PS since there was an agreement not to build any cars with more, and if these were all changed to read 276 hp I assure you there would be concerns (and it is close to being incorrect). Kei cars are by law restricted to 64 PS - how would it be an improvement to convert this to 63 bhp? The first BMW 750i clearly claimed 300 metric horsepower because it sounded impressive (at that time). 296 hp has much less impact. The 200 PS Audi Quattro, 300 PS Porsche 930, 450 PS Porsche 959 would all look mighty strange in bhp or kilowatts only.
  • I believe that the unit used at the time of production, in the car's homeland, should be used first and foremost. It also carries the advantage of matching most sources. Doing the triple conversion is only really necessary for those few cars which have been sold in all markets where the various units are in use.
  • We must also remember that the English language Wikipedia is actually the most international of all Wikipedias, so preferring a unit of relevance only to those who are born in the UK and US (and Canada?) is not optional.
  • Using kW as the only output is also problematic. In November 1964 the Mitsubishi Minica received an update which increased power from 17 to 18 PS. If we were to write that power increased from 13 to 13 kW it might look pretty silly. Not to mention the following harangue: "In November 1964 power increased from 17 PS (13 kW; 17 hp) to 18 PS (13 kW; 18 hp)."
Sorry about the long answer. I propose primarily using the main unit for each car (hp for US and older UK or Australian built cars, PS for all older European cars and nearly all the rest of the world) with kW as a supplementary unit in a parenthesis. When kW is the original unit then please convert into hp. I rarely see any point in using all three units and certainly don't want to convert bhp into PS ever. In the same way that I would refer to a fifties US car as being of 364 cu in (6.0 L), even though I myself am of strong metric preference, I demand respect for the original units used! But again, the main problem is the decision to use a German abbreviation for the metric horsepower.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Fair points.

  • No, using the German "PS" (... petasiemens ...) doesn't make a great deal of sense but what's the alternative if we can't find an English abbreviation? We could make our own up (I'm not too keen on that) or we could write "metric horsepower" out in full (which is a little tedious).
  • I'm in the pro-metric camp and would be happy to see the end of horsepower (including metric horsepower), in fact I would be happy to see the US and imperial systems abondoned completely but that's me. If the Americans and the British (maybe Canadians too) use these dated units, we ought to accomodate them. They are English speakers too & this is the English encyclopedia.
  • I appreciate the value of including the source units. Generally I think this is best (I can think of some exceptions but they don't pertain to this discussion).
  • When describing a defined or specified value (such as in the Mitsubishi Minica example above) I think it's fair to convert to a greater precision than indicated by the numbers we start with so "In November 1964 power increased from 17 to-[convert: unknown unit]." But, no, "In November 1964 power increased from 12.5 to 13.2 kilowatts (16.8–17.8 hp)." would still not do because the significance of these numbers is completely lost in the conversion.

JIMp talk·cont 23:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Actually, I am quite happy that the term 'PS' is commonly used instead of 'hp'. Otherwise we would have problems like we have with gallons (imperial or US) where we don't know which one is which. At least with PS it is very clear that we are talking about metric horsepower. Some countries might want to use 'cv' (French for horsepower) and that is also fine because it is also unambiguous. Likewise for similar abbreviations. Other than that, I am in agreement with Mr Choppers:
  • always show kW
  • always show HP or PS/cv when the reference source uses it,
  • optionally show HP or PS/cv when period literature about the vehicle would probably have used it (eg hp for old US/UK cars, use PS for old German/Japanese cars, use cv for old French cars, etc)
  • never translate hp to PS/cv or vice-versa. Never more than one traditional unit and kW.
  • order of units should be consistent within the article but is otherwise not defined
kW are smaller units than both hp and PS/cv. So it is reasonable to go to one more digit of precision to show very small differences in the input (ie 1 or 2 PS) as long as the original units keep their original precision: 17 to-[convert: unknown unit] or 17 to-[convert: unknown unit] is fine. Larger differences should round up: 170 to-[convert: unknown unit]  Stepho  talk  04:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[]
I'm quite happy not to bother converting PS to hp. JIMp talk·cont 05:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[]
I agree with all of Stepho's points, with some reservations toward the use of decimal points. Could someone sum this up succinctly for the Conventions page? Also, there are a very few occasions when I could see using all three units, but I think those will become readily apparent on their own.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Kilowats as original units doesnt need decimal accuracy, no car factory claims such figures if Im right. But the whole question about this horsepower I see no problem with current system, why we need to change working system. This is very very problematic area, because so many standards, the way car factories or magazines publishes power data, the case when certain car is sold both Europe and USA (or even UK). If you look for example Jeep Grand Cherokee it has models sold only in Europe and when you put that data to specification table, it would be very hard to compare models between continents without proper conversions. The problem also comes when certain editor is from USA and he/she is using US data for European car, it would only have hp figures and nobody in Europe doesnt know hp figures. Car people wants to know the exact figures and not around figures. So I dont see any problem with this current system. So lets not sum anything to conventions before consensus is reached, I think this needs more discussion -->Typ932 T·C 12:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]
This is more about defining the standards closer, rather than changing them. Listing three units has never been recommended, AFAIK, and still remains undesirable. If we have a table that lists either hp or PS but always kW (which is unchanging), then comparison is not a problem. Using US sources for European cars is problematic, unless it regards the car as sold in the US - in which case differing regulations would most likely give it a different output in any case. In many cases the sources themselves get the units entangled, as for instance Auto Katalog which has steadfastly used the same conversion rate for both PS and hp.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]
the problem is that kilowats arent so widely used yet, so its not enough even all car factories dont publish figures with kilowats yet, whats the problem to have more than two figures? I dont see it making any harm. The US source for European car is valid also for British bhp source for European would also help if we could have here editors from all continents to say their opinions. We need more conversation about this thing before we chanhe something. -->Typ932 T·C 18:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]
I can live with kW with hp or PS (i.e. two units). I still can't see the point in listing both PS and hp when they are within one percent of each other. I think it would be a tough ask to expect North American readers to accept PS and kW though. OSX (talkcontributions) 10:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Brand/Make/Marque again

Several months ago, at the end of a lengthy iteration of a recurring discussion about the words "brand", "make", and "marque", I proposed a convention on the subject. This received no objection or comment, so last night I added the convention. OSX (talk · contribs) objects and reverted. So, it looks like we'll need to have another iteration of the discussion. To that end, I am un-archiving the pertinent parts of the latest discussion for further kickaround.

Well, that's just it: once a convention is in place, supporting reversion of changes that contravene the convention becomes as simple as pointing to the convention—thus eliminating the "need" or basis for protracted quarrels like the one in the section immediately below this one. So:

Proposed convention

I propose the following convention be adopted:

Scheinwerfermann T·C16:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose: "brand" is a valid term, as is "mark" "make" and "marque". OSX (talkcontributions) 07:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[]
Um…"Mark"? No. —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[]
Unintentional error. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[]
First off, apologies for not commenting on the proposal when it was first made - I guess we were all wrapped up in the argument just below it. However, I believe the major outcome of the discussion was that marque is a perfectable acceptable alternative to brand, that its usage was more common in British media but that it was also used occasionally in American media. Which seemed to leave the choice of using marque or brand up to the article writers.  Stepho  talk  23:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[]
Well said. The discussion only seemed to substantiate that "marque" is okay, not that "brand" is not. Scheinwerfermann, can you please explain why "brand" should not be used? Based on my understanding of the term it is entirely valid. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[]

WP:ENGVAR for European Cars

Most of the articles I have seen show UK spelling for European cars. I certainly understand it for British cars, but I'm not sure why for vehicles from non-English speaking countries such as Italy and Germany and I cannot find that convention in the MoS or under WP:WPAC. The MoS basically indicates that whatever variation was used when the article originated should be used throughout. Without a specific guideline that states European cars should use UK spelling (or not) there can be confusion with WP:ENGVAR. If there is such a guideline, can someone point me to it? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[]

Most European cars are sold in the UK but not in the USA, so it's easier to find sources for them with British spelling. --Pc13 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[]
WP:ENGVAR pretty much covers it but to summarise:
  1. If the article has strong ties to an English speaking country then use that form of English - eg Jaguar should be british English, Ford Mustang should be American English, Ford Cortina should use British English.
  2. If the article does not have strong ties to an English speaking country (eg Germany or Japan) then use whatever form the article has historically used and only change under consensus. Inconsistencies can be rectified to go with the dominant form.  Stepho  talk  21:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[]
I do remember that User:Teutonic Tamer (aka IP tagged a lot of Audi article talk pages with the {{British English}} template during his tenure, whether it was appropriate or not. For example, he did so here at Audi A8, which is correct because the earliest versions of the page use the "litre" spelling.[1] However, he also did so here at Audi A4, although that article began using the "liter" spelling.[2] It was a case of parochial ownership on his part, but unless someone is OCD enough to check every article he edited, then they're likely to stay as-is.
I've no knowledge if other articles are similarly affected. However, if such templates were removed from talk pages I wouldn't have a problem. --DeLarge (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[]
I did wonder why all the Audi articles were British English. Interesting. As for everything else, it seems like other have already pointed out that we go with standard Wikipedia practice. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[]

To make things fair: why not use UK spelling for European cars and US spelling for Asian cars (unless there is a compelling reason not to; for example, the Australian Toyota Aurion). I tend to find European companies preference UK spelling as the UK is a European country. Likewise, Asian companies tend to use US spelling. This is just my personal observation and seems to me like a fair and reasonable basis to resolve the issue. OSX (talkcontributions) 12:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[]

Asian manufacturers certainly don't use US spelling when selling in Australia. I think the original rules are the fairest. Vehicles that have their strongest following in certain countries tend to be written by people in that country anyway - eg Toyota Tacoma (US), Toyota Aurion (Aussie) and Toyota Kijang (Indonesia). Vehicles that are truly world cars can take pot luck.  Stepho  talk  13:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[]
That doesn't stop the arguments though. At least if we have something like the above, then the fights will stop. And of course the Australian distributors are going to use the local language, but take a look at what goes into global press releases.
Here are the latest press releases for several Asian and European manufacturers (in all cases to keep things consistent, I indiscriminately picked the latest applicable press release from the global website. For example, some press release did not use the words "color", "liter", "organize", et cetera, so I simply choose the next press release down the list that does.
OSX (talkcontributions) 01:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[]

RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles

The needs to be a rewrite of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions information page's Trivia and popular culture sections (WP:WPACT). This info page is used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling, in addition to the automobiles project. The advice on handling trivia or popular culture (i.e. media references, appearances in movies, TV, books, or influence on things other than the vehicle itself, such as clothing styles or slang) has two problems, as outlined below. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[]

(You don't need to read all of this to comment. The gist all all at the top. The rest is supporting arguments and extra detail for those with the time and inclination.) The two problems with WP:WPACT are:

1. It fails to make a clear enough distinction between the problem of having a trivia/pop culture/miscellaneous section in an article, and the completely different question of whether to exclude of pop culture references entirely from an article. The solution is to split WP:WPACT into two parts to avoid misconceptions.

2. The statement that properly-sourced pop culture references should be "strictly limited" does not have wide consensus on Wikipedia, and in fact WP:CONPOL does not provide any policy support for a strict rule such as "fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle." It should instead say:

The question of what to keep or delete must be decided by consensus, and there is no hard and fast rule applicable to every case. Some reasons that tend to favor keeping pop culture references include, but are not limited to:

  • The reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle.
  • The vehicle manufacturer has acknowledged the existence of the reference.
  • Reliable sources that don't generally cover the vehicle or industry have pointed out the reference.
  • A real-world event occurred because of the reference.

If reliable, independent sources give significant attention to a pop culture reference for these reasons, or for others, then it is likely some mention of the reference is justified. If there are no third party sources about the vehicle's role in the work, other than the movie or TV show itself, this usually indicates it is not worthy of mention, and it might also be considered original research. Do not give undue weight to obscure pop culture references, and follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Summary style in giving coverage of appearances in movies, books or other media that have their own articles. The policy WP:NNC says that Wikipedia's Notability criteria are not relevant to article content.

First problem: sectioning vs exclusion

WP:WPACT should be split into two parts. The first need only refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and briefly state that miscellaneous sections are discouraged, and the material should be moved into more appropriate sections of the article. However, it also says "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." and "If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." In other words, MOS:TRIVIA tells you to reorganize the article, but not to delete anything.

Lists of cruft can be a great evil. But WP:V largely addresses that problem. Merging trivia and pop culture into the rest of the article, or creating section headings that don't invite adding more examples, takes care of the rest. And in the end, Wikipedia articles must be maintained by somebody. They don't maintain themselves.

Second problem

The question of when to delete pop culture references, or move them to another article is distinct from the issue of where to put things within an article. Just as MOS:TRIVIA isn't sufficient to justify deletion, it should be highlighted here that Wikipedia:Notability doesn't address article content either. As explained in WP:NNC, "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article"

The part of WP:CONPOL that is most relevant here is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK tell us that articles should not go overboard with technical statistics, and engineering data about vehicles. It's one thing to identify a vehicle by the wheelbase, number of cylinders or displacement, but clearly things like spark plug gap and valve lash belong in a repair manual, not an encyclopedia.

The problem here is that there are no polices or guidelines to lend support to strict rules of deletion such as WP:WPACT. There are a couple essays: Wikipedia:Handling trivia and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, which I used for some of my suggested rewrite above.

With regard to whether well-sourced pop culture references must be moved to the article about the movie, book, TV show, etc., this contradicts Wikipedia:Summary style. The summary style guideline suggest "summarizing main points and going into more detail on particular points (sub-topics) in separate articles." You don't erase all mention of the pop culture article. You summarize the relationship between them, and let the reader drill down for more details by clicking on the link to the movie or book, or whatever.

Well sourced is the real key here. If sources exist which discuss a media appearance of a vehicle then that goes a long way toward justifying some mention, even if only very briefly. In cases where no third party sources whatsoever exist, it isn't even a question of pop culture or trivia. Wikipedia:Verifiability tells us how to handle that. The only thing to add is that if the only source that identifies a vehicle is the movie or book itself, and there is no third party source, then that is very likely original research.

Examples: Featured Articles

All from Featured Articles, "considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer". These examples would all fail WP:WPACT because they can't be shown to have affected a "tangible aspect" of the subject:

Other examples

These articles are each flawed in their own way, but Wikipedia policy generally supports keeping the pop culture references, in spite of the fact that an overly strict reading of the current WP:WPACT would say to delete them.

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Threaded discussion

Established in January 2005, WP:WPAC is now in its eighth year of Wikipedia usage, which is a substantial enough length of time for any initial potential problems to have been identified and rectified by the many contributions by Wikipedians that it already supports. WP:WPACT clearly has identifiable, useful and long-standing criteria usage. (Slight and possible crossover between information on established Wikipedia namespaces is already well-known and does not justify deletion or removal, especially of long established criteria.)

(Note: There is an absence of full disclosure in the initial proposal here in that it is not mentioned that the proposing editor is already involved in a dispute that involves WP:PACT and which is covered in depth here BMW R1100GS discussion (reopened) and here Talk. Please remain mindful of and conversant with WP:GAME, WP:GAMETYPE.)
Rivercard (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[]

If the 'venerable' WP:WPACT policy was all that, how come it hasn't been promoted to a policy or a guideline? It's not even an essay. After all this time! But seriously, here's three real reasons why age is of no relevance...
  1. WP:CCC
  2. WP:INN
WP:WPACT has only been stinking up the place since 2008, not 2005, after a brief discussion that involved all of three editors. The main topic was "laundry lists" of Top Gear appearances. There was no discussion at all of WP:CONPOL -- merely the presence of trivia sections, as cruft magnets. There remains no Wikipedia policy justification for automatic deletion of content, only suggestions on how best to organize that content.

And by the way, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please delete the personal attack. If I was trying to game the system, I would hardly have gone out of my way to invite you to the discussion and make everyone aware of what was going on.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I generally support Dennis Bratland's proposal to codify the rather hard to parse WP:WPACT. Can we work on this one which I have a concern about: "vehicle manufacturer has acknowledged the existence of the reference." This could be read to support inclusion of TV and film product placements into Wikipedia articles, which is not what we want. Brianhe (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Perhaps it should say, "The manufacturer acknowledges the references, and we are certain the reference was not product placement. Conversely, product placements and other deliberate marketing generally only merit mention in articles if sources with proven independence gave significant coverage." Or just delete that one, per WP:BEANS.

That's one of the ones I cribbed from the essay WP:IPCEXAMPLES, which originally said "Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?"

It's probably relevant to consider Steve McQueen#In music. Out of the numerous song references to McQueen, the only one he his known to have been aware of and commented about was the Rolling Stones' "Star Star". So the current version of Steve McQueen has no more In music section, and doesn't mention any of the songs that namecheck him except that one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Inviting the relevant contributing editors to further contribute to a discussion or dispute does not mean someone has 'gone out of their way' - it is merely standard Wikipedia practice and etiquette to do just that. Just as I also did with you when the noticeboard discussion was reopened. (I just didn't expect praise or recognition for it.)

The sudden reversal on the usefullness and efficacy of WP:PACT would carry more weight if you hadn't used it yourself in the past.

Re: so-called 'personal attacks' - please see the relevant discussion you opened here - Request to delete personal attacks else topic ban - and please note that the other editors who have read your accuation against me do not agree with your case and, in fact, seem to share my view that code violation warnings are being used to inhibit debate. Thank you.
Rivercard (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Would you please try to find an appropriate venue to post your complaints about other editors. Nobody else here is interested in anything except the topic at hand. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[]
Regarding the repeated complaints about my having cited WP:WPACT in the past, first, editors are allowed to change their minds. It happens. Even if my opinions had completely reversed here, what of it? We're here to discuss the merits of the topic, not the character of other people. Even if I am a bad, bad man indeed, it is of no relevance to to whether or not WP:WPACT is useful and correct.

Second, the reason for the need to change this policy now is that now is the first time I have ever seen it applied to delete cited, broadly sourced cultural information from articles. In the past few years, when I and others have cited WP:WPACT, it was to remove trivia sections from articles, and to delete poorly sourced original research, typically that an editor spotted a model of vehicle in a movie and casually added it to the bottom of an article without citing an independent source that said the pop culture reference mattered. So yes, WP:WPACT, has been wrong all this time, but there was no need to waste time fixing it because it wasn't being applied in a way that contradicts Wikipedia's content policies. Now that is happening and so something must be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Bratland (talkcontribs) 15:58, 6 April 2012

This is too complicated/long text to read, but I dont see any problems how we are dealing with trivia sections. -->Typ932 T·C 16:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[]
Here it is in a nutshell: If WP:WPACT is blindly enforced as written, Brough Superior_SS100#T. E. Lawrence would have to be deleted, since no tangible aspect of the SS100 was affected. That outcome would contradict policy, so WP:WPACT needs to change to better conform with policy. The real goal -- fighting cruf -- can still be achieved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[]
Is this really the case? Unless I am mistaken, George Brough publicized Lawrence's use of Brough Superior motorcycles, so Lawrence probably did influence the sales of the motorcycle, which WP:WPACT would find acceptable. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[]
No, it says "...strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle." Because one editor thinks it probably influenced sales fails WP:WPACT; it must be a proven fact that it influenced sales. It's a very rigid standard. You need proof that sales went up, and proof that they went up because of Lawrence and not a hundred other reasons. It's impossible to meet this standard. It's one example of how the automobile conventions don't just supplement policy, they are drastically at odds with policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[]
The fact that Lawrence was used in the marketing of the motorcycle should be notable. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]
I think the consensus in general is that cultural references are not necessarily trivia, but part of the basic information about a subject,and part of the central coverage of an encyclopedia. They can sometimes be integrated, they can sometimes go into a separate section, they can sometimes form an article of their own: all three ways can be acceptable, and none of them should be ruled out conclusively. I think that this topic area is probably one where good sourcing is morel likely to avaialable for this sort of material than most other areas, so it would be particularly important to have the material, Where it goes is secondary. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[]
So do you see any need for the automotive articles to have specialized trivia/pop culture conventions? Or are MOS:TRIVIA and WP:V sufficient? Just getting rid of WP:WPACT is an elegant solution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I was invited here as a random selection by RfCbot. I am seeing a couple of problems here.
    1. A good RfC establishes agreed-on facts and then describes as neutrally as possible what the options are, not just one side. Here, it appears that we are being asked to respond to one editor's description of a problem and a proposal without, as far as I can tell, much service to opposing views.
    2. In my view, RfC's are for collecting input from a wider community beyond the original discussion's participants. RfC's where every contribution is answered by one or more of those participants suggests to me that there are issues with ownership and listening.
    I'm not inclined to become involved much past these observations. It's possible I am missing critical elements, since I just dropped in from outside, but whatever the merits of the proposal, I consider the process to be flawed. Jojalozzo 15:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Aventador, supercar category

The Aventador is not just any sports car. It is very exotic, it looks like a car from 2017 (not 2012), it goes from 0-100 kh/h (0-60 mph) in 2.9 seconds, and it can go ≈350 km/h (217 mph). yeah, there should be a "supercar" category for the Aventador, Reventon, and others. Jawadreventon (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[]

While I have been trying to maintain the consensus of the term "sports car", I think the term "supercar" should be allowed if used by a reliable source. Categorizing an MG TC with a 0-60 time of 23 seconds to, as noted above, a Lamborghini with a time of 2.9 seconds, does not seem appropriate. Where that fine line between a mere sports car and a supercar is, I don't know. That's why the references would be so important. 72Dino (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[]
"Supercar" is just an adjective, and if it's sourced, use it, and attribute it to the source, but don't treat it like a class or category the same as coupe or sedan or luxury touring car.

A "supercar" of 50 years ago is no longer a "supercar" because by today's standards it's now slow. Yet it is verifiable that somebody called it a supercar. The first motorcycle called a "superbike" was the Honda CB750, which today would be a rather boring sport bike, or a middling "standard". It's like calling a 12x CD-ROM drive "super fast". At one time, to somebody, it probably was pretty super.

It's great to quote what words that experts used to describe a product, including "supercar" or hyper or ultra or just "cool", but superlatives based on how impressed contemporaries were with the performance performance shouldn't be treated the same as categories or classes.

A class which is rare, or exotic, or limited production, or costs more than most people earn in a lifetime, or is otherwise out of the range of normal cars makes sense, but that isn't about 0-60 times and top speeds. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[]

WikiProject Motorcycling conventions

Re: [3][4][5] My take on the WikiProject Motorcycling conventions is that WikiProject Motorcycling just takes advantage of the existence of applicable conventions from WikiProject Automobiles in a passive way. That is, we don't expect the WikiProject Automobiles project to have to worry about motorcycles when making their conventions, and WikiProject Motorcycling isn't strictly obligated to follow all WP:WPAC conventions. In other words, WikiProject Motorcycling is just being (wisely) lazy by not re-inventing the wheel.

I would resist the idea that the WP:WPAC is mandatory for WikiProject Motorcycling. In particular, I think WP:WPACT, if read literally, extends too far beyond WP:TRIVA and WP:CONPOL. Information or conventions pages "it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies", not contravene Policies and Guidelines. Also, designer Glynn Kerr has written several times that motorcycle designs are basically two-dimensional, while cars are three dimensional. Which just means that WP:CARPIX might be relaxed for motorcycles to allow side-views to be at least equally acceptable to a 3/4 view. These are kind of side issues; I don't mean to debate them here. They're just examples of how WikiProject Automobiles and Motorcycles might have different conventions.

If there's any disagreement over all this, why not just make a copy of WP:WPAC in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling namespace and then WikiProject Motorcycling can do what we want with it? WP:MC-MOS is a rough sketch of a separate set of motorcycling conventions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[]

Makes sense to me. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[]


Hello anoraks, please can you tell me where the policy/guideline/discussion occurs where 'we' have forbidden/discouraged/denigrated the use of comparisons with competitive products in articles? Case in point BMW N54. ta Greglocock (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[]

Use the search , there is lots of discussion about the subject, use similar, rivals, competitors search words. -->Typ932 T·C 13:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[]

You can't be a "respected editor" if you don't act like one (and follow the guidelines)

In a recent 2nd revert justification, Biker Biker wrote "Type932 is a respected editor. let's discuss on talk page." OK, I'm happy to discuss that.

In justifying reverting over 15 good faith edits in one shot, Typ932 wrote in his edit comment "havent seen any discussion about changes, also wrong data added" In WP discussion isn't required before making changes, so that isn't a valid revert reason. See WP:BOLD. Discussion before changes is the exception, not the rule at WP. None of the changes I made are about things currently under discussion on the talk page, so there was no need for me to "hold back" until we'd concluded a discussion. If discussion is so important, why didn't Typ932 initiate one? There's nothing on my talk page and nothing was noted here. Typ932 made no effort to describe what specifically was wrong. A "respected editor" engages people who are making good faith efforts, but might be, in the "respected editor's" opinion, goofing up. Typ932 didn't bother. Being "respected" must take up all his time!

Typ932 unselectively destroyed all the work of 15 good faith edits in one shot and that is a clear violation of WP:PRESERVE. Typ932's actions suggest that every single element of every single good faith edit was completely wrong. That's obviously very unlikely. If he was acting like a "respected editor," Typ932 would have followed the guidance given in WP:PRESERVE and simply changed the "wrong data", but instead he took the lazy way out and deleted everything. If Typ932 is going to claim "wrong data added" then he needs to simply update those few data points that are wrong, not revert everything. That's what a "respected editor" would do.

In a specific example of foolish disregard for WP:PRESERVE, many of the infobox parameters are completely undocumented, but Typ932 erased all of the new documentation that had been created. In addition to being an unjustifiable disregard for WP:PRESERVE, that was disrespectful of another editor's good faith efforts to contribute. A "respected editor" would not have callously disregarded the time and effort another editor put into creating new, useful and clearly needed content that fills an obvious hole in the document. A "respected editor" would have left the new material in place and simply updated the wording or data that wasn't quite right.

Biker Biker, since neither your nor Typ932 have taken the time to note here on the talk page or in the edit notes what specifically, if anything, is "wrong data" and because there is no justification at all for the wholesale reversion, I'm putting the page back to the way it was before Typ932's unjustifiable wholesale revert. If you or Typ932 believe that certain statements contain "wrong data", just change those few things. Please don't lazily revert all the good faith work that has been done, deleting helpful, clearly needed, non-controversial additions in the process. (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[]

I would be interest to hear Type932's opinion, but my own is that the changes were unnecessarily wordy. In my opinion less is more and the page should contain less content not more, i.e. it needs a really good copyedit to pare it down and make it simpler to read and understand. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[]


Is there any reason that we are supposed to spell out "gasoline" for all petrol engines in infoboxes? It looks strange to me to write what is, essentially, the unmarked category. That is to say, one would normally only need to spell out something which isn't the norm (like diesel or gasohol).  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[]

I see your point, but I think we should steer away from the assumption that an engine is gasoline-powered unless otherwise stated. It reminds me of "straight until proven gay".
While gasoline is the most popular, it does not have a monopoly on vehicle fuels and diesel does have significance presence in many markets. OSX (talkcontributions) 09:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[]
To a non-American user "gas" instead of gasoline could be confused with compressed natural gas if the proper term isn't used. Luckily on this side of the pond there is no double meaning for "petrol". Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[]

Infobox conventions (engine)

A few diligent editors (BaboneCar in particular) has been altering infoboxes everywhere, changing "turbo" to "t/c". I was going to change them all back as I believe it looks very strange, but then I noticed that the conventions state this to be the case. Trying to find a discussion about this I did some searching and cannot find anything. The most I can find is that my good friend OSX wrote it in in July 2010. Are there any preferences? I would prefer SC for supercharging and turbo for turbocharged versions, as I have never seen t/c used anywhere and it looks very strange to my eyes.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Most annoying is that Mr Babone starts some changing but dont finish his job, so he just starts something and doesnt do the same for all (same brand) articles. Hes not a very consistent in his editings. -->Typ932 T·C 19:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[]
"t/c" - Tox poisonous.svg
Please revert to "turbo" --Biker Biker (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[]
If I, an enthusiast, saw "t/c" then it would probably take me a minute or two to work out what it meant. "turbo" is far more common in the media and in casual speech for both enthusiasts and laymen, and is still short enough for infoboxes.  Stepho  talk  13:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[]
In my defence, t/c for turbocharged was intended to be inline with s/c for supercharged. The point was to keep it short for the infobox. So I invented my own abbreviation. OSX (talkcontributions) 10:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Timeline template

There are two practices related to the timelines that I'd like to add to the conventions.

First, should the timeline reflect production years or models years? I think using production years better reflects real life, but means that there will be overlapping years and, therefore, the timeline will take more vertical space.

The next is the notion of expanding the timeline into the future. Some editors expand the timelines based on reports, including some official news from manufacturers. However, I think that a timeline should only go as far as the current calendar year, or maybe reflect the most current model year.

Thoughts? heat_fan1 (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Most timelines follow the conventions we use for infobox production dates. Ie vehicles sold only in N.America can use model years but should mention that model years are being used. Everywhere else should use calendar years. Most timelines can be a bit crude for showing the transition years between generations but the Camry timeline done mostly by OSX shows the transitions well, even on narrow screens:
Some articles sometimes mention upcoming vehicles when the manufacturer gives advanced notice. I don't like this practice much but we didn't get a consensus to actually ban it. But I would only allow vehicles that are actually in production to be in a timeline, regardless of manufacturers giving advance notice.  Stepho  talk  08:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[]
I fully agree that we should only use in-production vehicles. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Commas in engine sizes

I have always been irked by having to use commas in engine sizes and engine speeds (4,719 cc and 6,000 rpm rather than 4719 and 6000). I was told somewhere, sometime, that the automobile project had been overridden by the WP community at large and had to bend to this style decision. However, after getting in an argument over this (while defending something I dislike) I discovered the following at Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Delimiting (grouping_of_digits): Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited (e.g. 1250 or 1,250). So for four-digit numbers, we DO NOT HAVE TO USE A DELIMITER. Unless there is any opposition I will enter this into our conventions, as I have almost never seen commas used in engine sizes outside of WP or indeed in any of my sources. The next issue is bringing the {{Convert}} template into line.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[]

  • Since few engines would ever use 5 digits, it only makes sense to never use them for 4 digit numbers. That is also allowed via WP:MOSNUM and this is why it is flexible, to allow not using them in situations exactly like this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Agreed, MOSNUM allows for both 1928 cc and 1,928 cc. In general, if MOSNUM allows for both then an article shoudl not be chnaged from one to the other without consensus. However, only one form should be used within an article and articles that have mixed usage should be changed to use whichever the article used most. But a problem occurs due heavy use of the {{convert}} template that always displays commas,e.g. 351 cu in (5,752 cc).  Stepho  talk  22:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[]
Re: {{convert}}. Currently the template always adds the comma. This will not remain the case. There were ways of getting around this but they were not optimal. We'll be working on a new solution. Jimp 06:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[]
Great. I am happy to be patient on this issue, as long as I know that things are quietly fermenting.  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[]
Mr Choppers, you are again absolutely right in your opinions and decisions. The matter has bothered me a number of times lately (chiefly the conversion - other conversions are wonky too), mustn't grumble. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[]
As far as I understand the objectives of wikipedia, it is here to make knowledge more widely available. Rules and guidelines are fine whee they facilitate the more important objectives, but they should not over-ride those objectives and should never themselves acquire the status of objectives, especially where little quasi-wars about guidelines discourage people from contributing the stuff that matters more. I can't remember whether I prefer 1.000, 1,000 or 1'000 for a thousand, so probably I tend to write 1000. I think that means I agree with Mr C and Eddaido here, and if the relevant template(s) can be persuaded to cooperate please do the necessary. But with all due respect to the appropriate quarters, I think we should have more important things to worry about. "Templates" that behave strangely, or conversion templates that round unexpectedly, are a whole bigger issue. And every time someone improves a template someone else comes along, unaware of the nuances of the improvement, and inadvertently misuses the improved template. A template in this context should be a solution, not a new problem I guess the answer for those of us (includes me) most challenged by these things is not to use a template unless you have taken time and trouble to understand it. Fully. Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[]
But it's not really about what's more important, it's about fixing obvious inconsistencies. Eric Corbett 23:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[]

This is becoming a storm in a teacup. Most readers won't even notice if some engine sizes are 1,958 cc and others are 1958 cc. We've asked the guys that maintain the {{convert}} template. They recognise the issue but tell us that it might be hard to fix (the template is tremendously complex and is always at the edge of the limited Wiki language can handle). Also be aware that the template doesn't contradict WP:MOSNUM, it's just that it doesn't allow every possible option. I'd let the template guys sit on it for a while. Even if no help arrives, I'm not going to lose any sleep over such a minor discrepancy – and that's coming from a guy who absolutely loves consistency.  Stepho  talk  00:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[]

  • I don't see a storm, I see some observations by people who see an application where the comma shouldn't be included and asking about it. Nothing more. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 01:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[]
    I don't understand the idea that asking for an update to the {tl|convert}} template is "a storm in a teacup". Nor do I understand why a rather simple amendment is made to look so difficult. I recall a rather similar issue some years ago when I asked for hyphenation for adjectival phrases, such as in "50-foot bridge", even when I offered the code to do it. Eric Corbett 01:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[]
There might have been a misunderstanding here. It sounded like some wanted to get rid of the 'convert' template altogether, which I think is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Apologies if I interpreted it wrong. Anyway, the 'convert' team are working on it, but it's not a simple issue for them to fix and it may take some time.  Stepho  talk  13:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[]
There's a software engineering principle that if a change looks simple to a user then it ought to be equally easy to implement. Eric Corbett 17:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[]
In the short term it may be better only to use the convert template in preview mode and then copy/paste the results into the article text after editing out the commas, but obviously fixing the template would be more convenient. I'm not aware of anyone who wants to get rid of {{convert}} though, and certainly I don't, as it's very useful. Eric Corbett 17:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[]
Adding an optional argument that would not add ANY commas would more than sufficient and I assume relatively easy. Tagging something like |nc inside the template perhaps. Obviously we don't want to get rid of the template, we want to improve its usability. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 10:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[]

I've added a parameter format set it to off to get rid of the commas.

{{convert|4719|cc|format=off}} → 4,719 cubic centimetres (288.0 cu in)*

Whether or not this will end up being the solution is still to be fleshed out but for now it should suffice. Jimp 12:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[]

  • Excellent. Thank you for your efforts. This should help to create some consistency across the auto articles, and I'm sure there are plenty of other applications that this will be useful. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[]

The problem is that it gets rid of all the commas (whereas MOSNUM wants us to keep them for 10,000 & up ... but still this function would have its use). We're still wrestling with figuring out the best way to get rid of commas for four-digit numbers only (there are fancy codings for that but I'm not convinced that we've got an ideal system up & running). Jimp 01:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[]

3/5-door VS 2/4-door

Hi all, I didn't see this discussed or mentioned in the conventions article and was wondering if hatchbacks and wagons should be referred to as 3-door and 5-Door or 2-door and 4-Door. I know currently most articles list as 3/5-door; but shouldn't SUVs and crossovers be listed the same way? Thanks! VX1NG (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[]

I prefer 2- and 5-door personally as it makes more sense. If you say "Suzuki 3-door" it is obvious to what the body style is, say "Suzuki 2-door" and I think coupe. OSX (talkcontributions) 22:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[]