Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

New Stubcategories

Just wanted to inform everyone that additional stubcategories have been created. Some of these are subcategories of auto-stubs, and here is the list:

  • {{auto-part-stub}} for any parts and components, as well as technologies
  • {{auto-org-stub}} for any auto related organizations, such as museums and others, but not manufacturers
  • {{auto-corp-stub}} for any manufacturer of autos, parts or accessories
  • {{truck-stub}} for trucks

I've sorted most of the auto stubs, and have reduced them from about 1400 to about 175, most of which are related either to racing, magazines or people. Shouldn't be any need to create more subcategories, but if so, feel free to give me a little nod on my talkpage. Bjelleklang - talk 23:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

New template

Hi everyone, I just created this template you can use on your user page. Enjoy! --ApolloBoy 02:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

New article -- former automotive manufacturing plants

Hi, I have created the article List of former automotive manufacturing plants. Would like to submit it for consideration for the community to help expand, especially with regard to the many historic facilities not listed. Thanks! Autoplant 01:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox?

As someone who just stumbled on this project, I'm very surprised that there is not a standardized infobox given the maturity of the project and number of contributors. I know that there has been talk over at Layouts, but it seems very inactive. I truly dislike to criticize, but coming to a consensus about the info would make a number of very good articles even better and should be a higher priority. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at the artciles of Lincoln models they feature a standardnized infobox that is now also used for all Cadillacs. Gerdbrendel 22:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Added Erskine

I've added in Erskine (automobile) to Wikipedia and would appreciate any additions to the article to help make it stronger Stude62 02:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mitsubishi 380

Is this extra page needed, or should it be a sub-entry under Mitsubishi Galant? The car looks about the same as the Galant, although it is highly modified and does mean the difference between the life and death of Mitsubishi Australia.

The differences between Galant and 380 are fewer than between the 1984 Galant and the 1985 Magna, which had a widened platform. The 380 is on the PS platform, some of its changes will be incorporated into other Galants, and is arguably not that much more different from the original than the Taiwanese Galant Grunder, which at least has some unique sheetmetal up front.

To me, Galant v. 380 is the same difference as between a Ford Cortina made in the UK and one in Australia—and historically, we have dealt with the latter as part of the main article.

Mitsubishi marketing has convinced local journalists that this is a unique car for Australians—a fact that instils a level of pride. I can understand this, as the issue of local production is a big deal Down Under. I'm asking fellow editors from around the world if they see it objectively the same way, or if antipodean editors are being swayed unwittingly. Stombs 04:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The articles should probably be merged just like the article on the Ford Granada where both European and American versions (two entriely different models in this case) are merged into one article. It makes the most sense and creates more unity among car articles-something that needs desperate imporvement. Gerdbrendel 10:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Engine Spec lisitings

I have recently been confronted with the issues as to how the different types of engines should be listed in car articles. At first I tried lisiting them in the table at the top of the page but in some models such as the Lincoln Town Car or Cadillac Seville this led to monstrous tables that literally disfigured the article. In ordered to solve the problem I created little "blue boxes" as I call them for articles concerning cars that have too many engines in order for them to be listed in a page. You can see an example on the Lincoln Mark ir Lincoln Continental pages. On these pages the blue boxes provided an alternative to listing the engines inside the table and to the ununified approach of lisitng engine specs within the article. Any suggestions let me know, Thank you. Gerdbrendel 05:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The blue boxes looks nice to me. There are lots of engine listings on Toyota Corolla as well, maybe they could need some blue boxes. Or maybe boxes in three different colors... --Boivie 09:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Good Idea, A color system-easy to remember- lightblue for U.S., green for European, and red for Japanese engines. Thanks Gerdbrendel 10:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Vehicle Engineering

I just published an article Vehicle Engineering. I am fairly new at this (only my 2nd article), so I would appreciate some editing, help, etc on this. Helpful links, catagory referencing, etc, would be helpful.

Another area I would like some help with is, I can not find many references to the term Vehicle Engineering. It is not a widely used term outside the auto industry. All modern auto companies use a Vehicle Engineer, or that function. I would like to add legitimacy to this if anyone could find an web reference to VEHICLE ENGINEERING. Thanks.

I have also discovered many articles that either need to be written, or need some "automotive" editing. I will review this, and publish these at a later time. I will use this as my to-do-list, and if anyone wants to jump in and help, be my guest.

Also, I recommend the book I listed as a reference for anyone interested in the modern workings of a auto. Note, I have no affiliation with the book, just thought it was a great read, and reference to some of the things I have written here. See www.haynes.co.uk for details. --Drussel3 14:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a list of "TO DO's" I have come across from writing the article Vehicle Engineering. Feel free to work on any of them. I hope to eventually get to them, but you know how time gets.

Add stubs of the following, and link from the Vehicle Engineering article.

  • NVH
  • Performance (Auto) - I have lots of ideas here. I think I will tackle this next.
  • Shift Quality (Auto) - maybe?? may want to add details in the automatic transmission page in reference to this
  • auto industry - this could be a neat article. It could be a segue to many other links. Referencing modern manufatures, old manufatures. It could introduce a timeline, or other historical references. This should not repeat the automobile article.
  • car audio - I couldn't find any reference to car audio, radios. this could be a big task. History of AM to Stereo, to cassettes, to modern. Different audio systems, speaker placement...

Add automotive references. Many of these articles don't need to be new, just a section related to automotive on existing articles.

  • Safety engineering - link to the vehicle crash, etc. expand auto info. Vehicle crash picture would be cool.
  • Vehicle Dynamics - this article only contains links. Could use a written protion to it.
  • Category:Components

Articles needing help.

  • Category:Automotive_engineering - not much here. Could use some help.
  • Category:Automotive_engineers - could use some expanding, any names to add anyone??
  • List_of_automobile_manufacturers - would be nice to start with a list of modern manufactures. There couldn't be too many could there?
  • Emissions: There are various articles, that possible could be condensed into (1). could use some management here. Emission_standard , Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy , European_emission_standards , Category:Emission_standards , Fuel_efficiency ,
  • Auto_part - alot of "parts" missing. Maybe condense with Category:Automotive_accessories I see the word "Accessories" to be add on parts after the vehicle is sold, improved radio, floor mats, trailer hitch. Maybe just wording.

Model Years/Production Years

I've been quite annoyed with people (mostly non-users) on the Honda Civic page changing the production dates to (in this case) non-sensical ones with new models starting on the year after they were first introduced in Japan - confusingly making the latest generation Civic only start production in "2006" even though it has been on sale in Japan since last September - which prior to 3 days ago was technically saying a car that is in production isn't actually in production! Anyway, I came across this, but it seems to be biased towards the US market. It appears in Japan that new models of cars can be released at any time of the year ([1]). I don't know exactly about Europe - never really thought about what time of the year new cars come out...--Zilog Jones 16:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't have "model years" in Europe. Cars can be released any time of the year in the US too, but in their first year they always start as next year's model. My guess it's because cars have to be homologated every year they're in retail, so, for example, the new Honda Civic, although offered for sale in the US in the last two months of 2005, it has to be a 2006 MY because the 2005 MY was the previous generation. But model years are in my opinion completely inappropriate outside a North American context and I feel production years should always be used. Pc13 18:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
In Europe you do have model years. Even says so in the model year article. Model years are assigned by the manufacturer, and are (usually) incorporated into your vehicle's VIN. Model years aren't set based on year of production or sale, rather to identify the production batch. It's understood that intial production of "2006 Civics" began in autumn, calendar year 2005, and that "2005 Civic" production halted in the spring-summer of calendar year 2005. It's universally adopted by all automobile manufacturers worldwide, and is the way in which they identify their vehicles internally. --93JC 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I've never heard about it before, and it's quite confusing to people who, like me, aren't aware how the industry works with conventions like this. Also, regarding the template like on the Honda Civic page, it says "production" and nothing about model years, so surely it should be refering to the actual years the cars were in production for?
Actually, I propose we use months (like with the Honda timeline thing I linked above), where known, to avoid such confusion and abiguity. If we say put "Sep 2005" as the start date for the new Civic then we would know production started in 2005 and it is a 2006 model. --Zilog Jones 23:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The VIN number includes the year of assembly, not a "model year". The reference in the model year is incomplete - that use of model years is only for taxation purposes, as cars sold (let me reiterate, not assembled, sold) in the last three months of a year are exempt from paying the automotive circulation tax referent to that year. Pc13 09:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. The VIN indicates model year. It says nothing of actual calendar year assembly date. My own vehicle was finished assembly in September of 1992, was initially bought and registered in October 1992, but it is a 1993 model. --93JC 19:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with 93JC, and I would rather mention the production date in the article, instead of on the table. --ApolloBoy 01:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be a lot of inconsistencies between using model years and actual production years on the Wikipedia, especially regarding non-US cars, and I'm not sure where some of the dates are coming from. If you look at Japanese Wikipedia articles, e.g. [2], [3], [4], they all consistantly use actual production years with months where known, and no mention of "model years". I have never seen model years used in any Japanese article when refering to Japanese or European cars (like this place, for example - I dunno about the US cars listed there). Also as I live in a country were registrations are fixed on a particular vehicle (i.e they are not owner-based) and they are registered by year - meaning for example an AE100 series Toyota Corolla built in 1991 will be registered as 1991 (contrary to the so-called 1992 "model year" according to the English Wikipedia, even though it appears the car went into production in June 1991) - model years seem infinitely more confusing and wrong to me. I'm sure people living in the UK and anywhere else with year-based number plates would agree that production years should be used. --Zilog Jones 11:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether the Japanese wikipedians use a clear, concise system of identification or not makes no difference to me, as I don't understand a word of Japanese anyway. I live in a country where our vehicle registration is not intimately entwined with our vehicles, and as such we use model years to identify a vehicle's age, not its registration. Using calendar years is infinitely more confusing to me and anyone else living outside countries where production date is emphasized. --93JC 19:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, from what I've seen and experienced, use of model years is not common outside North America (including other countries that don't use calendar years for registrations), so I do not think they should be used with vehicles from outside the region. Global Auto Index seems to use production dates for Japanese and European cars, and Histomobile just seems to be a bit of a mess regarding dates. This seems to be apparent with a lot of Wikipedia articles as it stands already (North American cars can still use model years) - the "model year" issue and confusion only seems occur with articles on Japanese cars that are sold in North America. So I propose using actual production years for non-US cars as standard convention - and that production starting months be shown where known to avoid possible confusion. I should probably try and start a poll for this here. --Zilog Jones 21:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The point made by 93JC also applies to Europe. In Germany we do not identify our vehicles by production year but just like in the U.S. by model year. In Germany my car was manufactured in October 1996 but was sold as a 1997 Nissan Primera (Infiniti G20 in U.S.). The use of calender years would confuse any German. Gerdbrendel 21:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Those cute little numbers Dekra puts on the license plates refer to month of registration. Your car is a 1997 model because you bought it in 1997. If you had bought it in 1996, it would have been a 1996 model. And if you had bought in 1998, it would have been a 1998 model, in spite of having been built to 1996 speficication. Our model years are for registration and taxation purpose only. We do not refer to model years in Europe when talking about cars in general, because a car that existed in 1996 and 1998 may not have any significant difference. The motoring press and car enthusiasts refer to generations (Corolla Mk.VII and Mk.VIII, Astra F or Astra G, M3 E36 or E46) or, if needed, to restylings. I once saw a Renault 9 with a 1991 license plate - but the car stopped being sold in Europe in 1989, so it couldn't have been a "1991 MY", as it was leftover stock. But its owner would refer to it as a 1991 car, because that's the year it was registered in. Pc13 23:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the license plate. I bought the car in November 1996 and it had a 1997 written in big numbers on the windshield at Dirkes Nissan in Efrstadt, Germany. Look at the German web-site of a car-manufacturer in about seven to nine months and you will see 2007's being advertised. The new 2006 Mercedes S-Class has been sold in Germany since mid 2005. Gerdbrendel 00:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
That's more a marketing ploy than anything else, and is only really applied to new models or facelifts. They do that here too but I don't consider them the years the cars were out, and certainly don't consider their years as the years of production, which they obviously aren't. I prefer to use real years as I'm not trying to sell these cars and trying to make them seem newer than they actually are - I'm just trying to accurately record when the cars went on the market or went into production. And if using the real Gregorian calender for that purpose is wrong, I don't know what's right. --Zilog Jones 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course its a merketing ploy, but such a successesful one. People have gotten used to calling an S-class produced and sold in 1998 a 1999 S-class that anything else could be confusing. Gerdbrendel 00:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to move this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Production_dates. --Zilog Jones 22:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Namplate designations

I have noticed that the Mercedes-Benz pages, especially the S-Class site, as well as the Mercedes-Benz roadcar timeline feature addriviations which I make out to be platforms. I strongly beleive that these addriviation should be replaced with the actual model names such S430 or CL500 since the other abbriviations are unrecognizable to non MB-fans who probably make up the majority of Wikipedia visitors. Gerdbrendel 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The "model names" you speak of mainly refer to the engine size. There would be no point in having a page on the CL500 alone as it is just the 5-litre model of the Mercedes CL class, which as you can see already has a page and is already in the timeline. The chassis codes like W123, W124, etc. are used in the timeline as they only refer to those specific generations of cars - this is the same convention used as with many other car timelines (see BMW for example), unless the same classes of cars go under many name changes. And there are dedicated pages for significant models, such as the 300SL. What more could you ask for? --Zilog Jones 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand you wouldn't have page on CL500 but only on the CL-class- that's why there is a S-Class article. I was asking for Generation such as instead of saying W126 you'd say SE/SEL/SEC. I had this idea because when I looked up 300SD, I looked for Mercedes-Benz SD, but was redirected to a site for W140. But due to the complexity of these model names, I see your point. I guess the chassis code is the best alternative since saying SD/SE/SEL/SEC is bit long. Gerdbrendel 00:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the thing about trying to categorise Mercedes models is that they didn't really have any standard classes until the C-Class in 1994 as far as I know, though "190" seemed to be used throughout its predecessor. --Zilog Jones 09:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm no Mercedes expert, but isn't the SE, SEL and SEC names used for several generations of the S-class? I think the current structure is good. With oned common page for the entrire S-class, and one page for each generation. Even if the names of the generations are not commonly known, it's easy to find them on the S-class page. --Boivie 09:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Quote from Mercedes-Benz S-Class: "Even though the S-class was not offically introduced as a class until 1991, the S designation had been used on several high-end Mercedes-Benz models starting in 1959."
Quote from Mercedes-Benz E-Class#W124: "The 'E-Class' name first appeared with the W124, launched in 1986. Though earlier gasoline models bore the "E" designator, the entire line was officially "the E-Class" now."
Mercedes has had a kind of strange numbering system in the 80s. The C-class predecessor was called 190, regardless of engine size. While the others got their number from the engine size, and an S if it was part of the S-class. --Boivie 09:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Split Tahoe/Yukon Page

Hi -its me again, I'm proposing a New GMC Yukon Page. Considering the recent 2007 Model year design changes and the Denali trim the Yukon has really become a model in its own right. Nearly half of the current Tahoe/Yukon page is filled with Yukon and Yukon Denali information that does not relate to the Chevy Tahoe. It has also been really difficult to describe the recent design changes for both the Yukon and Tahoe in the same article. Just like the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis have their own articles so should the Yukon and the Tahoe. Gerdbrendel 02:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Not nearly half, it's just a section that serves the purpose of describing the differences between Tahoe and Yukon. Technically, they are identical, so I don't quite see the purpose of having two different pages. Pc13 16:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Australian cars - Valiant articles /also Ford Performance Vehicles merged

Reading the discussion on this page I see there is a fair breadth of opinion. I have been working on Valiant (automobile) that now has a focus on the Chrysler Australia Valiant range and created a Valiant Charger article, IMHO a noteworthy car. However there is a longer article on the Plymouth Valiant. Some editors may want to merge these articles. But, from an Australian perspective, and the later model Valiants were Australian. The main article should probably have been Valiant (automobile). These articles are currently at Category:Transport in Australia, there is no clearly more appropriate category at present - suggestions Paul foord 13:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a merge is necessary. If I understand you correctly, the Plymouth Valiant and the Valiant Charger had different names, were manufactured in different countries, and had some notable differences in the later models. No, the way you structured it looks fine to me. Valiant should in my opinion have its own category, if it was used as brandname for several models. --Boivie 14:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I for one would not like to see the articles merged because the US Valiant and the Ausi Valiant are not the same cars - after their initial rollout, all they seemed share is the name Valiant. They are two different approaches, target markets and different enough they should not be merged. Stude62 16:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Um, why is the focus on the Chrysler Australia page on the Vailant and the Charger? Chrysler Australia was more than just the Vailant. Where's the Centura? Where are the Euro Chryslers that were sold in Australia? There's a lot that is lacking. -Daniel Blanchette 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Valvetrain configuration merger

I'd like to merge the content from Overhead cam, Single overhead cam, Double overhead cam, Pushrod engine, Camless, OHV, Flathead engine and F-Head Engine into a single article about valvetrain configurations/layouts/whatever else you want to call it. They're all small (for the most part stubs) and contain overlapping information. I think it would be easier for the audience to refer to one comprehensive article on the subject rather than a half-dozen stubs. At the very least Single overhead cam and Double overhead cam should be incorporated into Overhead cam. Thoughts? Objections? Endorsements? --93JC 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm really no mechanic but the cam articles should most definetely be merged since this would easy navigation and increase user-friendliness, beasied Overhead and Single cam are stubs. Gerdbrendel 19:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Valvetrain configurations could be a list though, with overhead cam (incorporating both SOHC and DOHC), overhead valve (incorporating pushrod, OHV, flathead and f-head) and camless (much more rare type) as the main articles. Pc13 19:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Like drivetrain, I think valvetrain should be an overview/list of the components, rather than merging them all down into one. And yes, valvetrain is definitely one that needs to be created. --Interiot 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Done! --93JC 21:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Diesel particulate filter

I just found out there are articles for DPF, Particle filter (automotive) and Diesel Particulate Filter. These should all be merged. Does anyone with a greater understanding of engineering want to tackle it? Pc13 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The less glamourous side of Autos on WP: need help on "Rice" articles

Hi, just wanted to see if I could drum up some assistance on a few fringe automobile pages.

and, to a lesser extent,

and many related articles are trendy, cultural topics that currently attract a lot of vandalism, over-enthusiastic IP editors and lots of POV commentary. There seems to be a fairly low amount of traffic on these articles from established, policy-savvy editors.

I don't really like editing these articles, but even these loosely-related topics reflect on the quality of automotive information on WP, many of them link to more mainstream automotive articles, and some of the least reliable auto information ends up on these pages. Not to mention the POV, vandalism and copyright issues.

Anyway, I'm not begging anyone to come put out a fire, or back me up in some argument or dispute; I just think if these articles were on a few more watchlists, the general quality of this corner of WP could improve a lot. Thanks!
Fox1 (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten LaSalle/ Edsel Article needs proofing

I've rewritten the LaSalle article and the Edsel articles

I undertook the rewrite on LaSalle because:

  • The article wasn't as all inclusive as it should have been, and failed to explain how the LaSalle came into being and what the role of Harley Earl was, and how the LaSalle propelled Earl to a GM Vice Presidency.
  • The article made a statement to the effect that the LaSalle was closer aligned with Oldsmobile. While 1934-1938 LaSalles were very closely related to Olds, the 1927-1933 and 1939-1940 were not and I found the initial statement to imply that the LaSalle was a gussied up Olds, which it was not.
  • Broadened the illustrations which before seemed to feature numerous images of a mid-1930s LaSalle to include historical PR shots of the 1927 endurance test LaSalle and a 1927 lobby sales poster for Cadillac dealers.
  • Provided more concrete information on the two GM Motorama show cars; clarified the relationship to the Buick Riviera model.
  • I sourced the article through the Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1805-1942 3rd Edition, by Kimes/Clark. Anyone is free to check my facts through that work as they see fit.

Regarding my work on the Edsel article:

  • While the article did discuss the history of the Edsel it did not address the role of Robert McNamara in the Edsel's demise as part of his plan to strengthen Ford sales. This was included in a sub paragraph that dicussed the lack of internal support of the make within Ford's Executive structure.
  • Clarified role of Eisenhower recession.
  • Documented how Edsel's price structure confused the public and how the price points put all versions of the car (save top line Citation) in direct conflict with Ford and Mercury (documented through a price comparison chart).
  • Included illustrations for 1960 Edsel, and Edsel Comet project.
  • Restructed some text to better highlight how numerous factors worked against the Edsel.

As usual, my writing needs a keen and sharp eye for proofing. Still I think that some of the contributions helped to make the articles stronger than they were before. Stude62 16:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

new information for Yulon automotive page

The Following additional information on "Yulon GM Motors", Taiwan as of 25 Oct 2005:

After four months of operations in Taiwan, Yulon GM Motors Co (裕隆通用) is now gearing up to increase its visibility by setting up more flagship showrooms according to company executives.

It will establish three more showrooms by the first quarter of next year to bring its total to six, said Charles Yu (游文杰), brand manager for Yulon GM's Cadillac lineup.

Each of the showrooms, which offer VIP services such as bar lounges and private cubicles, will cost the company around NT$50 million (US$1.48 million), he said.

"As we have just kicked off our operations, we aim to expand in the local market by offering unique services to our clients," he said.

Set up in July 2005, Yulon GM Motors is a joint venture between Yulon Motor, the nation's third-biggest carmaker, and General Motors, the world's largest automaker. Yulon Motor holds a 51 percent stake and GM has the rest.

Yulon GM Motors introduced its third Cadillac model, the Cadillac STS, on 24 October 2005. The STS sedans come in 3.6 liter and 4.6 liter models, with price tags that start at NT$2.48 million.

The firm has been selling about 50 of the luxury Cadillacs a month with its previous models, and plans to sell 100 STS models by the end of the year, Yu said.

Yulon GM Motors has set a sales target of 500 Cadillacs for 2006, said chief executive officer Pan Fu-jen (潘扶仁).

"Buyers of the luxury sedans are not worried about rising gasoline prices; brand, identity and performance of these vehicles are far more important," Yu said.


JOINT VENTURE LAUNCHED General Motors and Yulon Motor have officially launched a joint venture established for the sale and distribution of GM vehicles in Taiwan. The venture, known as Yulon GM Motors Co. Ltd., will import Cadillac, Buick, and Opel vehicles – and by the end of next year it will also begin handling Buick vehicles that Yulon will assemble locally.

The joint venture's capital is NT$2 billion (US$62.5 million), with Yulon Motor holding a 51% equity stake and GM the remainder. A large nationwide network of showrooms and service centers is in the works, and Yulon Motor also plans to establish an engineering center to adapt Buick designs for the local market.


In addition to the Yulon GM Motors website at http://www.e-gm.com.tw

a website has also been established for Opel Taiwan at http://www.opel.com.tw

Automobile portal

Is one already in the works?It seems that on the transport page a (train) and (aircraft) portal are already link.An automobile portal might be a good idea,it would pull some attention to the project and give a nice overview.

I can't help to notice that although this project has a lot of participants that the aircraft project 'seems' more organized.--Technosphere83 20:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Bovie just noted on the main page that there's Portal:Cars. Looks like it got started a month ago, and isn't very active yet. --Interiot 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Need a quick review of throttle body

I wrote throttle body without really knowing what I'm talking about, so anybody who has a modicrum of understanding about it, if you could take a look and point out any glaringly obvious mistakes, that'd be great. --Interiot 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Scope of this WikiProject?

Does the scope of this project cover things like auto magazines, car trade shows, auto racing, auto biographies, driving techniques, etc? It looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobile construction is inactive, but even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't cover the bulk of these. But things like /Templates seems to be exclusively focuesed on makes and models of cars. Can I add {{Piston engine configurations}} to that?

It seems like most of the topics are being talked about on this page, so can we go ahead and add all the relevant stub types to the main page, that are listed at the top of Category:Automobile stubs? And otherwise add more resources that reflect a broader scope? --Interiot 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Stub questions

My vote for the next stub to be created is {{auto-bio-stub}}, as that seems to be the largest group currently in Category:Automobile stubs. Though it would probably only have 50-75 entries now, so maybe it can wait.

About Category:Automotive organization stubs, that doesn't seem to be used very much. I'm not quite sure what should go in there. Should auto magazines go in there? Can auto shows go in there? Both seem to have a lot of representation in {{auto-stub}} currently. --Interiot 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Does it seem like a good idea to create /Requested Images? There are a bunch of articles that are begging for at least one image, and some of them are really pretty easy. The really super-obvious ones that are currently on my list are Hood (vehicle), Odometer, Redline, and Contact patch and Roll center/Unsprung weight needing illustrations, but there are many articles that would be helped a little by at least having a single picture. --Interiot 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic idea. Go for it! hadley 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Pontiac article

If someone can spare the time, can you take a look at the Pontiac article. I think its bogged down in cliches and lingo to the point where information seems to be taking a back seat to jargon and POV statements. I was wondering if anyone got that feeling. Stude62 17:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, the first paragraph reads like an advertisment from the manufacturer. I have issued a "POV" tag. Gerdbrendel 19:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice to get a reality check now and then. Stude62 22:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've divided Nash Ambassador from AMC Ambassador

I've broken off the Nash Ambassador content off of the AMC Ambassador article, and placed it into an article of its own. Stude62 15:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Of the articles I often read from, the best would probably be Ford Cortina and Toyota Corolla. But if they're good enough for your classes, I don't know. The featured car articles are Ford Mustang, Volkswagen Type 2, De Lorean DMC-12 and Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9. --Boivie 07:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The suggested example articles of this project, Ford Mondeo and Lincoln Town Car looks good as well. --Boivie 10:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I will add them to this table when I have time. :) Gflores Talk 00:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. Reviewing these was a pleasure, allowing me to reminisce about old Cortinas from childhood! I notice that the non-FA articles all look to be good except for one thing - unlike the FAs (at least recent ones) they don't have a good no. of refs, hence they are held back as B-Class. I would think that if you use as source material the manufacturer's model website, a book or two, and some technical magazines (ones that give technical facts rather than consumer reviews, etc.), the four articles you mention would all be A-Class, and could easily be nudged into FACs. Please feel free to add to/update this table. Many thanks, Walkerma 18:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ford Taurus is listed as a good article. --Boivie 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I Added the references to the Town Car article and after reviewing the wiki grading guidelines have come to the conclusion that it now truly is an A-Class article. Signaturebrendel 02:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles of Similar Vehicles

Recently, there has been much debate over whether to have separate or combined articles for similar vehicles, such as Chrysler minivans, or the GM minivans (Chevrolet Venture. Currently, there are inconsistencies in what has been done. For example, the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, and Lincoln Zephyr all have their own articles as does the Dodge Caravan, Chrysler Town and Country, and Plymouth Voyager. However, there have been proposals to merge the GM and Chrysler minivan articles, and some articles, such as Chevrolet Tahoe already contain information on two or more simlar vehicles. We need to make a final and clear decision on this topic now, so we don't start arguing forever while all the articles, combined or merged, degrade in quality. Please respond here with your feedback and whether you support separate or merged articles for similar vehicles, like those shown as examples above. Airline 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • As of the time of this message, I've sent messages regarding this discussion to all listed project participants. If you know anyone else who is not listed as a member of the project but has an opinion on the topic, please encourage them to participate in this discussion. Airline 23:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I support generally support seperate articles. It can be very difficult to mention all the details of two vehicles in one article (Lincoln Zephyr and MKZ for example are best kept seperate). I also previously proposed to seperate the Yukon from the Tahoe since there are some differences to justify such seperation. So, while my vote is to keep these articles seperate, I may agree with other editors that in some cases a merger is best. I think such a decision depends on how many attributes exactely the vehicles have in common; in history, technology, and looks. Gerdbrendel 04:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I incline to think separate articles work best--this structure has the best chance of delivering exactly the information the reader is looking for. Related articles can easily be interlinked and organized into categories, after all--that's the power of the wiki. RivGuySC 06:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping articles "For example the GM and Chrysler minivans" sepatate articles. They are related but there are very noticeable differences on the interior and exterior of these cars. Through certain experiences I've come to know that most similar cars articles do better with their own separate articles. Bavaria 23:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps it we don't have to have a single strict standard? Currently Mitsubishi 3000GT is covered in the same article with the Dodge Stealth... I don't have a strong preferance either way, and could see arguments for keeping it that way or splitting it up. Some vehicles are more closely related than others, some less, right? So keep things flexible, and evaluate articles on an individual basis? --Interiot 00:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do we have to decide this for all articles, rather than let articles under the purview of this project evolve as seems natural? On a wiki, there's never such a thing as deciding an issue "once and for all", anyway. Short of edicts from Jimbo or something like that. New people always come along, balances shift, things get tried and discarded or adopted.
That said, I'll put down my opinion anyway! Which is, that it depends on how evolved and complete the article is. If there's presently little information available, best to merge and keep it all in one place, with redirects from other names. Better one stub than three sub-stubs. Once things get a bit more fleshed out, one article may start to seem a bit too full. In which case, at that point, break out into multiple articles. It might be still a good idea to keep aspects in common at one of the articles and refer to it from the others. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 00:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I for one think that each model should have it own article. There are only two cases that I can think of where merging like cars makes sense would be in the Rambler and the Neon situation where both Nash and later Hudson sold the exact same car (Rambler), same model name, save for their "script" on the fenders and gas caps. The Dodge Neon, Plymouth Neon is another example of the exact same car (no trim variation, etc.). BUT I also do not think that we should be co-mixing content on various nameplates that are shared (ex. Plymouth Valiant (US) v. Chrysler Valiant(AUS)) throughout the world because each model deserves its own write up. Stude62 00:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I say split the Yukon and Tahoe up, while all the other articles are fine. the GM "Dustbuster" articles should stay seperate, along with the Chrysler Minivan one, as I combined them toghter and the feedback was disaterous. (Really, all of them redirected to Dodge Caravan, so I just moved the Caravan article), but they are fine, but like I said, split the Tahoe and Yukon up. --Karrmann

Yes, I agree. I petitioned for this before, split the Yukon and Tahoe articles. Yes there are very closely related but there are enough differences between the two to jsutify a split. A quater of the article is about the Denali alone! Just like the Yukon and the Suburban have different articles, so should the Yukon and the Tahoe. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 02:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I mostly agree with Matthew Brown here. With small amount of information, merging articles is okey. But when there is lots of information, splitting articles is probably better. But that is only if there are enough specific information about each model. It's no good splitting articles, and having mostly the same information in all/both articles. --Boivie 07:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it best to keep separate articles for similar vehicles because they are separate products.--Lihourj 11:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Airline asked for comments here, this is what I wrote when Bavaria asked before... I can't say I know much about these minivans (we don't have many, if any, in England) but my preference would be a single master page covering background details on the type, with seperate pages for each model which only highlight differences. Given the amount of detail available on this type, maintaining it on three or four pages is a waste of effort.

Failing that you could decide on which model is the most prevelant or definitive, create an extensive article on that, and create short pages on the other models showing only the differences. A third option would be shifting the bulk of the detail to a page such as GM U platform.

Either way, you can take this as a vote to merge any and all repeated information.

Another example of the rebadging issue is the Ford Galaxy, Volkswagen Sharan and SEAT Alhambra. akaDruid 13:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the articles should be separated or merged depending on the facts related to the vehicle they are describing. I support separated articles because even if some vehicles are built on the same platform and have almost identical appearance, they may have a different history, be equipped with different engines, have different features etc. An example of such case is the one with the Chrysler minivans, the American-market Dodge Caravan and the European-market Chrysler Voyager. However, I support merged articles for visually and mechanically identical vehicles sold under different badges such as most of the modern Opel and Vauxhall vehicles. I also support merged articles for visually identical vehicles with minor mechanical differences such as the European-market Chevrolet Lacetti and the American-market Suzuki Reno.
MH-Micky 15:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I prefer to think of cars as a lineage for the sake of Wikipedia. MH-Micky expresses my viewpoint the best. The Chevrolet Lacetti and Suzuki Reno cases should be under the original home-market name—namely the Daewoo Lacetti as the Chevy and Suzuki do not have a lineage separate from the original Daewoo. You could say they are spawned from it. However, the Rover 400 should be separate from the Honda Concerto, even if they share a base, for two reasons: (a) there is a lineage from the earlier 1983 Rover 200 to the 1990 Rover 400; (b) there was a separate Rover 416i in the mid-1980s, sold only in Australia; (c) Wikipedia is likely to receive a search for the Rover separately from the Honda. Generally, a case-by-case examination should apply, though my must-have is that the home market information should serve as the basis. For instance, the United States is behind many countries on getting the VW Golf V; the model year splits should refer to the German case first, and, if appropriate, the US case separately. —Stombs 12:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This just needs to be decided on a case-to-case basis. You need to look at exactly how similar the cars are, whether what differences there are are actually important enough to merit another article, if it's a brand-engineering stunt or a joint venture between two or more separate automakers, where each one is sold, if facelifts and engine ranges and whatnot are overseen by the same people, etc. The North American GM badge-engineered ranges, like the minivans in question, could definitely be merged together. However others, such as the Citroen ZX and the Citroen Elysee (a Chinese version which is obviously sold in a completely separate market under different leadership and which has many significantly different parts) should definitely be separate. The cars of the numerous Fiat subsidiaries (Lada, Seat) should also definitely have their own article, as the other makers just generally take the Fiat mechanicals and do their own thing with them, quite unlike the linked badge-engineering ventures of the American automakers. Most American clones (such as the GM minivans) should probably be all in the one article. Identical Vauxhall/Opels should be too. Very involved joint ventures with separate companies (Fiat Ulysse/Citroen something/Peugeot 806) could have their own though, whereas others (Mitsubishi Carisma/Volvo S40) definitely shouldn't. It's a very gray area. *cough* --Jamieli 18:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I cast my vote for separate articles for all of the reasons listed above. Jagvar 19:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It's probably best to let articles grow organically over time, and not force them apart unless necessary. If there's an auto manufacturer in North Korea who produce three kinds of cars, but everything merged together will only be 5 sentences long, then it's best to merge. If there's a car that has a coupe version, a station wagon version, and a supercharged version, and there's 5 total sentences, then merge them all into one article. If each variant takes up 40 sentences, and are featured article candidates, then it's clearly best to have a separate article for coupe, stationwagon, and supercharged. There's no need to have a hard rule that says they must always be apart or always be merged, and there's no problem with splitting and merging articles as articles change over time. --Interiot 19:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Airline and fellow editors, perhaps I can summarize. I have two concerns: (a) organization; (b) what an uninformed reader would seek. Separate articles seem to be the way to go and I sense most editors prefer this.

  • (a) One exception, however, is detailed below and following. For organizational purposes, cars should be thought of in lineages. The Buick Excelle, Suzuki Reno, Holden Viva and Chevrolet Lacetti should not have separate entries, at least not yet, because their lineages cannot be separated from that of the home-market Daewoo Lacetti. At best, these are badge-engineered versions of the same car. Yes, you could argue that the GM vans are the same case, but I point to the Oldsmobile Silhouette and Pontiac Trans Sport, which had a life before the emergence of the Chevrolet Venture and Opel Sintra—the lineage argument applies here, too.
  • (b) It's true that separate articles could be an organizational nightmare, but as you know, these nameplates have a funny way of resurfacing, and we need to be prepared with what a reader might seek—after all, they come here not knowing everything and it's our job to present the information. We need to be able trace the re-emergence of nameplates in Wikipedia for those readers. History has shown us that nameplates have a funny way of disappearing and reappearing—e.g. the Honda Jazz was a rebadged Isuzu SUV before it was a supermini. In such a case, the first Honda Jazz, which was just a badge-engineered Isuzu MU, deserves its own page. Being prepared for these developments means that we should go for separate articles. —Stombs 12:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To me, there are cases when similar vehicles should be grouped together and when they should not be. If you're talking about a car that is eactly the same, just a different badge (e.g. General Motors Astra), then yes group them together. However, if the cars are distinctly different from each other (like how the USDM Ford Escort and the EUDM Ford Escort are entirely different vehicles), then I say separate them. Just my two cents. -Daniel Blanchette 20:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe Stombs (talk · contribs) and Jamieli (talk · contribs) summed it up quite nicely. The question of nameplate lineage and involved joint-ventures should be the primary motivation for a split or merged article, more than simple badge engineering. A case in point is the recent announcement of a new Ford Galaxy MPV for the European market, unrelated to the previous VW Sharan-based model. Pc13 16:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with PC13. The prime goal for naming an article must be clarity and ease of use for the user. If an article can be found and read and the information digested, I don't care if it's called the Foofmobile 3000. However, we should have general standards to help people understand what to type in to find a given article. Thus, we use "Make Model" for most automobiles. Note that most conventions state that we should not use a completely fake name (like General Motors Astra) since there never was a car called that, but should instead use a common name and redirects.
Some specifics: I can't comprehend splitting the 2006 Lincoln Zephyr from the Lincoln MKZ and leaving the former with an entirely unrelated model from decades before. The Zephyr and MKZ are the same car!!! I also cannot see splitting Chevrolet Silverado from GMC Sierra, and other similar badge engineering exploits. --SFoskett 16:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Lincoln Zephyr and Lincoln MKZ are not split. There is just a little mention under "Lincoln Zephyr" so people who look up the 2006 Zephyr can find some information which tells then why they should visit the 2007 Lincoln MKZ article. Since the car was called the Zephyr I think the little mention on the bottom there is just fine, besides its very user friendly. Signaturebrendel 17:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Airline! Thanks for the hint, but I'm quite undecided. There are pros and cons and I think it depends on the models. E.g. for the Neon I would expect one article for all brands it's been marketed under, since the marketing focuses more on the name Neon as brand. With very similar cars as the triple Citroën C1, Peugeot 107 and Toyota Aygo or Volkswagen Sharan and Ford Galaxy (sorry, I'm European, so you get mostly European examples from me ;-), one single article may make sense, but I don't see it as necessarity, especially since the new, upcoming Galaxy won't have anything in common with Volkswagen's family vans at all, so a separate article would make more sense. And for (today) technically similar but optical completely different cars like Volkswagen Golf, Audi A3, Seat Leon, and Skoda Octavia should go definitely into different articles, not only because formerly they were completely different cars. So in general, I think separate articles are ok, if they already exist, since either the cars' history or future may be different cars --XTaran | Talk 11:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't read all of this discussion yet so I'm probably repeating some of you, but I think it depends really on (i) how similar the cars are, and (ii) how much is currently written on the car. I'd much prefer one moderately-sized article on several very similar cars than several small stubs - if more detail is written on one of the variants, then separation into dedicated articles should be made. Cars that are identical outside of rebadging (e.g. most Opels, Vauxhalls and some Holdens from the last 25 years or so) should not be given different articles. If spec's vary greatly or different parts are used (IIRC some Rover 200/400s used their own engines, not Honda's - or did they ever use Honda engines?), then I'd think they're worthy of separate articles. --Zilog Jones 00:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This is messy because there are times when two manufacturers will be badge-engineering the same exact car under different names. Or there will be a common 'platform' between dissimilar looking & sounding cars (like the Scion family Ax, Bx, etc) which in reality are the same car - but would not be percieved as such by our readership. Then, there may be a zillion nearly-identical cars that you'd like to roll into the same article because one is just an evolution of another (eg the Mini). There are also cars from quite obscure manufacturers that barely have enough information between them all to make up an article (Check out 'Bond' for example). There is also a historical imperitive where you may want to tell a story of one car evolving from another by telling the story from the perspective of a manufacturer. I don't think there can be a hard rule. I'd vote to clean up egregious messes as and when we find them and otherwise let things evolve as they need to. SteveBaker 03:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to expand on one point made above: we do have quite a few platform pages. They can be a good place to merge all the information common among various models, yet keep the separate model pages. Typically, a car page will include a link to its platform page (if it exists) in the first paragraph anyway, and we can make it clear that there is more data to be found there. Other than that, I also support the "separate pages except in certain cases" policy. Rlobkovsky 17:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Automobile Ownership

Wikipedia (in my opinion) is in need of an article discussing autmobile ownership and such issues as insurance, registration, autmobile maintaince, license and etc. Since this is the automobile project i come to you. Thank you for reading and hope i made a useful suggestion. Tutmosis 02:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's indeed a good idea. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now, but I really think its a good idea. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Here are some related articles. --Rj 07:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a dismbugation page named Car Ownership from which all the articles above link. Signaturebrendel 07:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I've just created a disambugation page for Automboile ownership with redirects from car ownership etc... The disambig features links to most of the articles above. If you know other subjects that are part of car ownership, please add them! Thanks. Signaturebrendel 22:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think their should be a main article not a disambig since this article would cover many topics. Thanks Tutmosis 02:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Started an actual article 'Automobile ownership' please expand or share opinion regarding its proposed deletion. Tutmosis 16:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Example Article

I personally think that the Ford Taurus should be the example article, since it is just a smudge from featured status. --Karrmann

V12 and W12 Merger

Hi, Samstayton has recently proposed a merger between W12 and V12 engines since they are very similar. Considering the extend to which mergers were discussed above, this is an example of two pages that should be merged. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 17:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This merge breaks the precedent set with previous engine pages, in which each engine type has a separate page. Moreover, V12 and W12 were merged and moved to 12 Cylinder Engines without seeking consensus in a way that destroyed the page history for W12. Flat-12 and Straight-12 were not merged, making the name 12 Cylinder Engines inaccurate, and I would oppose merging Flat-12 and Straight-12 into one big 12 cylinder page as well. Wikipedia is not paper, and it doesn't help to have fewer articles. Links between the various 12 cylinder engine pages are adequate in order to relate the topics but keep them separate. W12 engines are quite different from V12s and should not be lumped together. They are far more different than a Crown Vic and a Grand Marquis. TomTheHand 17:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, if they are than meybe there should be two articles, but neither of them should be called just "12 Cylinder Engine" (that name includes everything). I agree if they are different split 'em, but name one "V12" and the other "W12" so the difference is clear. Maybe the article "12 Cylinder engine" should be made into a disambugation page linking the V12 and W12 article- as you said the name is incorrect. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 17:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see the rationale for this merger (and I consider myself a Mergist). The engine configuration articles are clearly defined, most pages link directly to them, and the number of cylinders itself is less important than the layout they are associated with. I propose Samstayton's edits in this area to be reverted ASAP. Pc13 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There WERE two separate articles, titled V12 and W12. "12 Cylinder Engine" was created by Samstayton as part of the merge. TomTheHand 18:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The articles are separated now, with 12 cylinder engine being created as a new disambig. While I don't know that the disambig page is necessarily needed, it doesn't hurt anything. Otherwise, I too fully support the articles remaining split up, per all of the reasons you guys have articulated. --Interiot 19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the way it is right now is just prefect. The disambig is there so people who type in 12 Cylinder engine, and don't really now that much about the subject, can see that there is more than one kind and chose which one they would like to reasearch. It makes it more user firendly, that's all. Signaturebrendel 21:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I mean, there are other options, like refactoring Template:Piston engine configurations a bit, to 1) make it narrower so it could fit on the upper-right of articles, and/or 2) align the rows so that some relationships between the rows are visible (most obviously, I guess, would be lining up all "12"s in the same column, though other relationships might potentially be illustrated... on the other hand, I think the relationships between layouts are rather complicated, and it's much better to simply list/link them in each article's text). --Interiot 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Posting the template at the top of each page is actually a very good idea, but still what happens to the user who just types in 12 Cylinder engine. I think the articles on vehicle marques can serve as good example. Many articles on car companies both list the vehicles made by that manufacturer (and thereby also serve as a bisambig) and feature a template. Its just like you said, a disambig doesn't do any harm and might help a few users, so I say let's just keep the disambig. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 22:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


I proposed merger because I thought about the future. According to my vision, future of wikipedia is bright and it will greatly expand. We will have to consolidate related pages into one. The section on W12 is not very big and cannot get very big because only one manufacturer is involved.

Also, niche topics like flat 16 and V16 etc can also be consolidated on a single page.

Wherever there is a possibility of future expansion we should keep it as a single page, but whereever we know there wont be substantial expansion, we must consolidate. I very strongly doubt if piston engines especially V16 and above can be expanded. So it makes sense to consolidate them. Having 2 lines and 4 lines of dribble on just one page is a very bad idea. Samstayton 10:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Signing up

How do I sign up to become one of the editors on this automobile project? Samstayton 10:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you already have your name on the project page - nothing more do but go wild editing articles! akaDruid 21:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Chevrolet model listings, how much is too much?

I've noticed on the Chevrolet page that there have been a number of informational edits regarding what replaced specific vehicles and which vehicle were replaced by the list entry. While I understand that lists need to provide basic information about the entry is on the list (ie why is the item listed) shouldn't the hyperlink to the article contain information about what precedes and what follows something?

I normally wouldn't pose the question, but given the length of the list, it gets a bit overwhelming... Stude62 21:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Minimum Image Standards

Do we, as a project, have minimum image standards regarding automobiles?

I'm asking because I just spent a couple hours removing a number of images that were untagged, of poor composition, and very poor quality, all of which were uploaded by one user today. In almost every instance, the cars were encrusted with road dirt and salt; some were covered in snow, while others were hidden by portions of people, or snow drifts. While I can appreciate that they were most likely uploaded and added to auto articles with the best of intentions, the images didn't cut it with me.

To me, the image standards should be simple:

1) That the image enhance the article in which its placed by featuring the subject of the article.
2) That the car be the center of the images composition.
3) That the caption clearly identify the vehicle.
4) Where possible either the use of promotional images and/or original photography should be used.
5) That images of complete cars in manufacturer condition (they have all their parts, aren't missing wheel covers, etc.) should be used whenever possible.
6) That quality of image always is more important the quantity of images included.
7) Drive-by images (i.e. pictures of car parked in private driveways, etc.) that display private home addresses or license plates should be avoided.

Any thoughts?

Stude62 20:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think free images (preferably uploaded to commons) should be prefered before "fair use" images. --Boivie 21:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above, of course, but if the question comes down to undeniably crappy free images vs. fair use images vs. no images at all, I'd prefer one of the latter two than the first. Having no image is better than having a poor-quality image, IMHO. I'm in 100% agreement with everything Stude62 suggested above. --BRossow 21:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course high quality pictures should be prefered. But even a bad picture could still help the reader in some ways. I definately think it's better with a bad picture, than no picture at all. --Boivie 22:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree generally. People shouldn't remove images willy-nilly without a good explanation, but I think most of your removals were probably justified. Not to point fingers, but this image would be a good example of things to avoid. --Interiot 23:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with all the guidelines Stude62 mentioned above but disagree with #7. There are some pictures of cars taken in private driveways that look very good (see GMC Denali. Yes, these pictures are in the minoruty but nevertheless the phrase should be revised to: "Drive-by images (i.e. pictures of car parked in private driveways, etc.) that display private home addresses or license plates should be avoided, unless they are of high quality." Otherwise I am fully in support of the guidelines proposed above. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Now the picture that Brendel used is a great example of a good drive-way shot. I guess I should have been clearer in what I mean by drive-by - something like this Image:Early 2000's Honda Odyssey.jpg (The irony of the sign wasn't lost me).
But I would also like to ad that it takes a lot to push me to nominate an image for deletion as I did on this image Image:Chevrolet Malibu Sedan (Current).jpg. Stude62 14:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
That Malibu picture is useless. But all other examples here of bad pictures could still give the reader an impression of what the car looks like, and should, in my opinion, only be deleted when better pictures are available. --Boivie 14:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
But some photos, even if they do give an impression of what the car looks like, look ridiculous and horrendously unprofessional, undermining the whole article. For example, the Bonneville one posted earlier, or a similar snow-covered one a very persistent person kept adding to the Renault Megane article. And I'd love to meet the person who took these monstrosities: Image:Fiat Cinquecento Sporting.jpg and Image:Fiat Cinquecento Abarth.jpg. I mean, how hard is it to...y'know....stand back to get the whole car in shot? Or not sit cross-legged on the ground to take the photo? --Jamieli 14:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Just like many wikipedia articles looks ridiculous and horrendously unprofessional. But they don't get deleted. The get a stub-template, and gets fixed whenever possible. I also think bad photos should be changed to good as quick as possible. But as long as they give the reader some useful information, they should not be deleted. --Boivie 22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the images from the articles because they were sub par, period. I also reverted some pages because the user replaced high quality images with their "snap shots", what motovated them to do this, I do not know. The ones that I felt did provide a service were only marginally good. But I do not want the casual browser to think that adding those types of images is acceptable, or wanted. There are enough images floating around from catalogs, etc. that we should be able to plug the gaps. But this isn't exclusive to one contributor, but the shear volume of the upload, and the size of the images at that, were overwhelming. Stude62 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a new project subpage on photos. I like those suggested guidelines in general except for number 4. We need to be clear that free images are always preferred to non-free unless the quality is ridiculously bad. As for number 7, I've been thinking of this quite a bit. Sometimes it's necessary to take a picture of a privately-owned car, especially for a rare model that you happen to see, but it should generally be frowned upon. I've been taking shots at some local used car dealers (with permission) and only uploading private cars if they're special (see Image:Buick Reatta.jpg for an example!) Another thing to add is that pictures should be uploaded to the commons instead of here and that they have copyright tags and categories. --SFoskett 17:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, all photos should be legally taken, of course. In the US, it's legal to take pictures of private property, as long as you're standing on public property when you take the picture (eg. taking a picture from the street), or, of course, if you have permission to take the picture while standing on private property. License plates, if any, should be blurred out of respect. Beyond that though, I don't think private-property images should be discouraged. --Interiot 18:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of legality, I feel it is bad form to take a photo of a stranger's car. Not that I haven't done it and would not do it, I just think we should suggest against it in general. See Take_Me_Higher (talk · contribs) for an example. Speaking of that user, I'd like to include some of the comments from his talk page in our guidelines.
I'm putting together an image convention section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. --SFoskett 17:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say that should be left up to the individual. While it should be recognized that it's sometimes viewed as socially intrusive, avid photographers often take photos that put them in awkward situations [5] [6], and I personally think that people should be encouraged to get over it and take more photographs, not encourged to take less. --Interiot 22:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes people should be encouraged to take more photographs, yet it is to place photographs of certain quality in our articles in order to give our articles more authority and a professional encycolpdic apperance. Yes, of course there will be exceptions to the guidelines for minimum photo standards, but those can be decided on the appropriate discussion page. I think it is important to have at least some guideline but which to decide whether or not to delete a picture in an article or guidelines people can use when they go out there to take a photograph of a car. Thanks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Wikiproject: Automobiles UserBox

I would like to request for a userbox to made for Wikiproject: Autmobiles for use on userpages. I know there is already a template, but having a userbox would be awesome as well. I myself much prefer userboxes. If somebody could whip one up that would be great, because unfortunatly I'm a beginner at HTML. Thank you for your help.

Good idea. When If have a little more time I'll do one, but somebody is probably going to beat me to it. Signaturebrendel 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Meh, userboxes. Whichever, here's a possibility... --Interiot 00:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sportcar sergio luiz ara 01.svgI'm a member of WikiProject Automobiles.





I'm still wrestling with the pictures used in the automotive stubs as being out of sync with the times. The "brass era stub" has generic car that looks too new for the era that the stub represents, etc. Car we put those up for consideration, or does that get addressed in another forum? Stude62 15:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it could be discussed here. Do you know any picture that would be better? It's difficult (but shouldn't be impossible) to find pictures that looks good when they are that small. --Boivie 16:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a variety of pics (a sedan, sports car, SUV, etc...) to fit the taste of the user. Signaturebrendel 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
2000LincolnTownCar.jpgThis user is a member of WikiProject Automobiles.




Moved De Soto to DeSoto

I've always been bothered by the listings for DeSoto being under De Soto, and I moved the main article today. My reasons for doing this are:

  • The National DeSoto Club uses the DeSoto spelling.
  • The Standard catalog of cars series uses DeSoto as well.
  • Collectible Automobile also the non-spaced version.
  • Chrysler specs and advertisements of the 1940s and 1950s for the car also use the non-spaced version in most cases.

Hope that this doesn't trample on any toes or hurts feelings, but to me, it just makes sense to have the article in step with those who follow the marque. Stude62 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A quick google test shows that the car brand is much more often written DeSoto or Desoto than it is written De Soto, so I support the move. --Boivie 12:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for verification. Just a quick note, I really started tearing into my old ad archive today and there is a half-space between the two parts of the name in headline text, but its not a full one. So I have spent the day counting pica's. I need a life. Stude62 00:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should just be left at DeSoto due to the fact that most publications use this writing. That half a space is just a little ad trick, not affecting the actual writing of the name. Signaturebrendel 01:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you made the change and I support it. Good job. Jagvar 23:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hidden headlights

A list has been started on this page of all vehicles with hidden lights. It's an eccentric idea, but it may be interesting to see how far it can be taken. Contributions are invited, particularly from those with knowledge of non-US models. RivGuySC 00:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Cool. Should there be a mention of the four most common ways that headlights are deployed? Most were fixed in place and hidden behind doors that either flipped up, dropped down or slid sideways (the Camero had this set up in 1969 I think). The second form is the drop down deployment where the headlights are affixed to cradle that drops down in front of a recessed grille when in use. The pop up housing and the rotating housing as well. Just an idea. Stude62 01:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Good idea! Have at it. I don't know of any vehicle except the late 60's Rivieras that used the drop-down style, so if there are more, I'd love to know about them. I also think we should address electric vs. vacuum activation, but I don't feel I have enough info on that yet. RivGuySC 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

List of automotive flops

I just stumbled over List of automotive flops and I am asking members of the project to review it for its unsupported claims and POV wording.

While I agree with some of the POV's stated on the page, the content lacks the suitable proof and/or sites to make this "List" valid as a piece of reference that I could feel is reliable enough for Wikipedia.

Also, what are the criteria for determing what a flop is? To me an automotive flop is a car that at least meets some of the following criteria:

1) Consumers have failed to embrace it (ex. Chrysler Airflow);
2) And/or the automotive press fails to embrace it (ex. Yugo);
3) And/or Government regulators or consumer groups question its safety or behaviors that can lead an unsafe condition (ex. Suzuki Samurai);
4) And/or its existence has cost its producer either profit, its brand identity, or its reputation (ex. Edsel);
5) And/or is pulled from the market (or its future development plans are dropped (ex. Cadillac V8-6-4 engine);
6) And/or its development and lack of return leads to closing of, or weak partner merge into a larger concern (ex. Hudson Jet).

And there is a big difference between poorly built cars with design flaws that sell well enough or have enough cache to make the manufacturer happy, and cars for which the names enter into the lexicon as a replacement for the word flop.

Again, thoughts, like other things off the top of one own head, tend to be a lot like dandruff - small and flakey. Stude62 15:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can make a list of flops without violating NPOV. Nor could we do it without doing original research. The subjectivity of it in-and-of-itself is not encyclopedic whatsoever. --93JC 16:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it can be done, if the flop is documented by quanitative facts - how much money did Ford loose on Edsel, how many cars under the projected sales of the Hudson Jet actually sold, etc. It could be done, but as it is now its just way too subjective. Stude62 17:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
If you changed the vague word 'flop' to something more concrete like 'Cars that were unprofitable' or 'Cars that were cancelled within the first year of production' or 'Cars that sold less than 10,000'...something you can objectively measure. The trouble is that these definitions may not get you the list you were hoping for. eg The first version of the Prius was unprofitable because it was deliberately sold at a loss to build a market and to get experience with the technology. We wouldn't put such an astoundingly successful car onto a 'flop' page - but it would belong on an 'unprofitable' page. If you went with low sales, you'd get practically every Supercar in existance - and those aren't "flops" either. So to get the list you want - you'll have to phrase the conditions carefully to both come up with an objective measurement - and yet somehow encapsulate what you mean by a flop. If you can't come up with such a coherent measure then that tells you that the very concept of a 'flop' might be entirely subjective. The Edsel was a notorious 'flop' - yet it's a famous car - fantastically collectible - and generally worth a fortune nowadays. SteveBaker 02:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I Agree it can be done, but there needs to be some measurement of what a flop is otherwise its total NPOV. I think we have to go with "most unprofitable cars" or at least that being our guideline here. I think the profit a vehicles has earned or not earned in addition to the expectations the manufacturer had would be sufficient guidelines to keep the article. Thanks Signaturebrendel 03:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we're on the right track in looking for an objective measure rather than a subjective one. But I don't think profitability captures the essence of this list. Would you be happy to see the innovative, effective and highly popular Prius on the list? (The Prius has been sold at a loss for several years). How about the Mini - which was a cult icon car - sold over 5 million vehicles, voted car of the century - the most popular British car in history, etc, etc - but made a loss for it's manufacturer for most of it's life. Neither the Mini nor the Prius made a profit - neither could remotely be called 'flops'! So yeah - we can make another hard-to-maintain list - but will it be interesting? I don't think that the profit the car made for it's manufacturer is a good criteria for 'floppiness'. A car that made a loss merely because the manufacturer decided it was more important to make the car sell than to make a profit isn't the kind of thing we're trying to capture here. I would suggest perhaps 'Cars whose production run was prematurely terminated' or something. That would capture the Edsel and the DeLorian...although it's still a bit tricky to adjudicate. SteveBaker 15:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good idea "Cars whose production run was prematurely terminated." I think looking at the gap between the expectation a manufacturer had for the car, compared to its actual market preformance is just about the best defenition of a flop. I think sales numbers might also help- the difference between how many cars the marque expected to sell, and how many were actually sold. You're right, the Prius and Mini certainly don't belong on a list next to the Edsel as they were not marketing flops. Signaturebrendel 17:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem with actual sales versus projected sales is that those numbers are gonna be hard (or perhaps impossible) to find. Picking the Mini (which is a subject I've deeply researched over many years), we know the actual sales (5.3 million) - but I've never seen a figure for how many the manufacturer expected to make. If that number is hard to find for a success - imagine how much harder it'll be to find for a flop...following a flop, everyone is covering themselves to avoid getting fired/sued - that information (which would be confidential even for a success) will be the first thing going into the shredder! However, in most cases it's pretty obvious when a production run is cut short. For the Edsel, this is easy to prove. For the DeLorian it's a bit harder - arguably the car might have become a success if the founder of the company hadn't been so spectacularly busted. But as criteria go, it's relatively provable and probably fits everyone's idea of a 'flop'. SteveBaker 17:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right the data as to how many sales were expected is quite difficult if not impossible to find, whereas a prematurely ended production span is quite easy to prove. So, the production span is probably the best measurement of a sales flop. Signaturebrendel 23:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

An Urgent Request for Further Opinion

Fellow Wikipedians of the Wikiproject Automobile, my name is Zouf. I am a recent addition to your wikiproject, and I've had a lot of fun so far. However, I've come across a problem. If everyone would please look at the page Luxury vehicles, they will notice that there has been quite a debate over the validity and the context of the article. In the discussion page you will find a clearly outlined debate/ argument by myself followed by a few haphazard answers from User:Samstayton. Sam has proven to be quite the impediment in improving this article, as he has not read my argument and has been so flustered that he is replacing typos in his mass reverts. He is adding faulty info, ladies and gentlemen, and i have repeatedly disproved it. User:Gerdbrendel disagrees with my stance on luxury vehicles, but we have had intelligent and coherent discussions to talk about it. Rather than editting my mass-edit, Sam is simply reverting to an older and disproved form of it. he will not stand to see any future edits from me.
Sam is also the person who decided to combine the V12 and W12 articles with consensus... just in case you needed to be reminded of his editting past. I am trying to keep this in a professional sense, but Sam is attacking claims of validity such as Merriam and Webster. I have even used some of the sources he has supported against him. If you need to read the entire argument just go to Talk:Luxury vehicles. I cant stand the way he is not reading what my actual edits are.
This is clear, as he is reverting typos. I don't want to go to an administrator just yet, so will someone please review my argument and help to calm Sam's mass attack on my article or just entice him to read my edits?
I would be extremely appreciative if someone would provide their opinion in this case. Thank you to all who do this in advance. (N.B. it would be best to list your opinion on the talk page of luxury vehicles, so that the argument stays in one place) Zouf 20:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Sam" has other issues. He has repeatedly "vandalized" the Ford Motor Company article with non NPOV fluff - the likes of:
  • Nevertheless, Ford is still the greatest auto-manfacturer and Toyota will never be able to match Ford's iconic status. Ford is still ahead of Toyota in global revenues. (twice - on 2 March at 19:32 and again on 4 March at 16:34)
  • Ford is better automotive company and has more market share than most Japanese companies except Toyota. No Japanese company can match Ford. (8 March at 21:04)
It is almost as if there is more than one person logging in and posing as "Sam" and occasionally vandalizing articles under his moniker. It is very soft-core vandalism - not especially mean - but shows a considerable lack of maturity on occasion. Those are my observations at least. --T-dot 23:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to look ofensive but is this really the right venue for discussing another user. I guess its a good place to meet other wikipedians, but wouldn't a user discussion page be more apropriate. But I guess Zouf is right, the luxo car discussion page is the best place for this discussion. Signaturebrendel 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I've seen some of Sam's edits, and I have already reported him to the admins. --ApolloBoy 02:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Defunct automobile manufacturers

Out of the 25 countries that have an appearance in Category:Automobile manufacturers by country, four are singled out to also have a defunct category as well (Britain, France, Italy and the US). The defunct category seems to have been widely ignored by editors but recently someone has moved a lot of the British companies listed under the general country heading into defunct. This got me thinking. What is a defunct auto company? With some (most?) it is obvious, they closed for whatever reason years ago and are extremely unlikely to re-appear. Others are more problematical. Take an example, MG. They are not at the moment making cars because the company has been sold but there is every intention that production will restart in 2007 under new ownership. This is surely not defunct. I have moved it back to the general category. What about companies that are still in business in other fields, that used to make cars but no longer do? They are not a defunct company but not a current car maker either. Then there is someone like Oldsmobile, which appears as both defunct and in the standard category. Can anyone be certain that GM will never using the name again.

My inclination is to dump the Defunct category, it brings up too many problems. Malcolma 12:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I Agree the term Defunct itself is somewhat POV. Past Auto manufacturers is better since if a car brand is truly "defunct" it does not exsist any more. There is no objective measurement for defunct other than the mere fact that a company has ceased to exsist. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure the categorization of 'defunct' is in good faith, but perhaps it should be something more accurate and less POV, like "companies which no longer manufacture automobiles" or something to that effect. Which doesn't describe the status of the company at all, but describes their status directly regarding the production of automobiles, which is the info we're really trying to get at. -Dawson 05:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Against:That is exactly what I meant. The term "Defunt" is to POV as opposed to "Companies whose production of cars has ceased" would be a much better and more objective term. Thanks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Against: I would argue that not only does "good faith" not apply to the word "defunct", but that the word is also NPOV in as far as it applies to companies listed under the heading if in fact they are no longer in business.

  • The American Heritage Dictionary (AHD) defines DEFUNCT as: "Having ceased to exist or live" if the company is no longer in existence as a going concern (ie, it no longer produces automobiles as it once did), then according to AHD, it is defunct.
  • Defunct is used throughout Wikipedia in lists to define those organization which no longer exist, for example Defunct NFL teams and List of defunct airlines .
  • To me, making the decision that a word takes on an implied negative meaning is a POV action, whereas the word and its meaning simply need to have correct usage.
  • The only POV value judgement that I see is whether or not these companies are defunct as far as being automakers, and the test is fairly easy: Does the brand name of the Automobile exist, and is it activly being produced? If one can answer no to both, ("Hudson" for example), then the company is defunct; that it has a legacy tie to Jeep, via AMC, and Jeep division of Chrysler doesn't make it viable, that is just a historical reference.

When you start working with the definition instead of the word itself, to me, you're making things more complicated than they need be. Words have meanings, why not just use the word and not apologoize for it? Stude62 13:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The problem with several of these kinds of discussions is that Company, Subsidiary, Manufacturer, Marque, Factory, Brand and Model names all become horribly confused and twisted over time. Take the British "Austin" for example. They started out as a company - then became a part of BMC and became a brand name of a larger company (as with Jeep and Chrysler) - the name was used as a Brand for a while after. So did Austin become defunct because they ceased to be an independently traded company - or was it when their name ceased to be used - or maybe when their original factory was closed? What about companies that completely and utterly die - but then are resurrected in name only (as may be the case with Rover)? It seems that before we can talk about defunct manufacturers, we first need to define what we mean by a manufacturer - because any question as to whether they are defunct or not is secondary to the question of whether the thing you are talking about can be classed as a manufacturer in the first place. SteveBaker 05:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I my opinion whether or not cars are sold under a brand's name decides wether or not the marque is "defunct" or still up and running. For example, Eagle ceased to exsist. Obviously its parent company Chrysler is still around, but the name Eagle has been retire and the brand Eagle is there "defunct." The same holds true for Plymouth and Oldsmobile, both marques were retired by their parent companies and are there for defunct. Austin became "defunct" since there were no longer any vehicles sold under the Austin name. Once the name of brand disappears from the market the marque will become "defunct," unless there are confirmed plans to revive the marque in the near future. Thanks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Input on moving Metropolitan

I've been working on Hudson automobiles (had a dickens of a time finding a decent grille badge with the Hudson logo on it) and it got me thinking about the Metropolitan. Currently the car is listed under Nash Metropolitan, the name under which it was sold in the United States. Because the car was sold under four/five different brands during its model run, would it be better to list the car as the Metropolitan (automobile) (which is available as you can tell by the red link) ? Here are my thoughts:

  • The car was developed with authorization by Nash.
  • Early versions were sold under the NKI label (Nash Kelvinator International) before converting to a Nash identity.
  • Some Metropolitans were badged as Hudson’s according to several sources I have found, including publications from AMC.
  • The car was sold as a Rambler and again, going back the AMC sources, some were sold as AMC vehicles (and AMC, not Rambler, issued the press materials on the car)

Before placing a comment on the Nash Metropolitan page, I thought that an informal discussion would be of help. Stude62 22:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


It's best known as a Nash and most were sold as Nashes. It's just fine the way it is. --93JC 04:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Useboxes

Several weeks ago another editor suggested there be new userbox for the Wiki Auto Prject which fits the userbox tables used on many user boxes. This my version of such a user box. The text is "Wiki Auto Project."

Thanks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Prices in infobox?

On the discussion page for the auto infobox the question of whether or not prices should be mentioned in the infobox was raised. While I was originally against the idea, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I think prices should be mentioned in the Generation infobox instead of the main infobox though. The prices would not be converted into today's dollar; users can do so themselves if they whish. According to this idea, we'd mention the price in our gen infoboxes alongside the dimesions, etc... Any thoughts? Thanks. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this working well. We would all have to agree to adopt the pricing from one specific market, in one specific currency, for it to serve any (comparative) purpose, which just ain't gonna happen. --93JC 04:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should ever agree to one specific market (cars vary in popularity across markets, for instance), but it might be possible to mention different prices in different markets. As a rough analogy, song singles list the highest chart positions in different markets. Such lists will never be complete (singles often only list US and UK chart positions), and car prices are even more difficult (dealers don't sell for a consistent price within one market, let alone over time, or across markets), so rough price ranges would have to be given. Still, I think this could be useful information to present. And even with rough figures, it might be more objective than saying "X is a high-end luxury car" vs "Y is a entry-level luxury car". --Interiot 04:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes were are talking rough figures of course. We'd use the MSRP for this, so say for a Naviagtor it would say "$49 - $60k." But yes what currency should they be listed in? For models sold in the US only that's an easy one, we'd just have to go to the manufacturer's web-site but what in a case such as the S-Class. The prices in Euros, Punds and Dollars are easy to find for the current model but we'd technically also have to include yen, swiss francs, etc... So, we could just list pricing as it becomes available. If we only have prices in Euros and Dollars then we only list them; that's the de facto principle we're currently using, so it might work here... Any more thoughts? Thanks for your input. Signaturebrendel 04:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There is real value in having the price - even if VERY approximate. If you were looking for a fast street car - then you might see the Arial Atom and the Ferrari Enzo - see similar performance figures - and never realise that you can buy half a dozen Atoms for the price of an Enzo. It's a very relevent figure. However, you have the problems of:

  • Choice of currency? Dollars, Euros, whatever local currency?
  • The date that the price was valid (My classic Mini cost $800 when new in 1963 - my modern MINI cost $26,000 when new in 2005 - how can you possibly compare those prices?)
  • With what options. (A modern MINI can cost anywhere from $16,000 to $48,000 depending on model and options).
  • In what market? Many cars cost more in some countries than others for reasons of competitiveness. There was a huge advantage back in the 1990's for people in UK to buy cars in France or Germany and ship them to UK simply because of market differentials. In 2005, a MINI Cooper cost $3,000 more in California than it does in Texas.
  • Are we talking 'street price' or 'sticker price'. Some cars are typically sold below sticker - often as low as the dealer price (I bought my wife's Mazda at dealer price). Others (such as the 'Saturn') are only allowed to be sold at exactly the 'sticker price' (recommended retail price) - and others (like the MINI in California) at thousands of dollars OVER sticker due to limited supply.
  • Would there be an undue burden to keep the prices up to date? There are hundreds of cars on the market today. Most have Wiki entries - who will keep those prices up to date?
  • Do you only have 'when new' prices - or (especially for rare classic cars) the value that they are actually worth right now?
  • Prices are hard to find for obscure vehicles or 'supercars'.
  • Some vehicles are habitually sold for thousands more than they are 'worth' with a 'cash back' marketting trick that brings them back to a reasonable price but lets the manufacturer act as a money lender. What about when there is one price for a zero interest rate loan and a different price for the cash back deal?
  • What about lease prices? Some cars that keep their value well are relatively cheap to lease compared to buying them. Others that fall apart in the first two years of ownership are expensive to lease and cheaper to buy. How do we encapsulate that?

Before we have price information, I'd like to see:

  • Top speed.
  • 0-60mph and 1/4 mile times.
  • EPA gas consumption figures.

SteveBaker 05:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You make some excellent points. Yes, prices change over time, that's why they should only be included in the generation table. For example a Lincoln Mark V in the late 1970's cost about $16k, so the generation table for the Mark V would show that price; the Mark VIII in 1998 (at the end of production) cost $38k, so the generation infobox would show that figure; if we don't know the price we don't included. Yes, most cars are sold below MSRP, but it still gives you an idea of what kind of pricing we're talking about. Car magazines frequently use the MSRP since its most objective number and it does give a rough idea of what a car will cost. Also, yes, the prices are when new, since that is the medium used by the media to determine a vehicle's class, or at least one of the main determining factors for it. FYI: I did include the EPA gas consumption figures in the generation infobox; see Lincoln Town Car as an example for EPA figures in action. Thanks for your ideas, I really appreciate the input, the more the better. Signaturebrendel 06:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Price information could be useful sometimes, but I have to agree with most of StevenBakers concerns. For example currency. There are hundreds of currencies in use across the world. And the exchange rates fluctuate. Not many remeber the value of a US$ in the 70s. I think including price information in the infobox can create lots of problems. --Boivie 07:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Then there is the matter of tax. Are you going to quote a price with all the taxes or without and then for which country. Its a nice idea to include prices but I think it comes under the heading of "too hard". Malcolma 10:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're right the price information would never be complete since, in some, models that are sold world wide (i.e. MB S-Class) we are sure to exclude some currencies. As for the concern in regards to inflation for the US Dollar, poeple can go to the inflation calculator and figure out that $16k in 1977 are $52$ today. But exchange rates remain a problem; a 1999 BMW 7-Series cost 113,000 Deutsche Mark, what are 113,000 Marks in todays dollars? I suppose for current models you would just quote the price listed on the manufacturer's web-site(s). Signaturebrendel 14:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, people can use an inflation calculator and a currency convertor - but they can also go to some other web site to look up the price of the car. The question is: What will they typically do - and what will they assume we mean when we put 'Price: $20,000'? Will they assume we mean current price? Price in the UK? Germany? USA (and in which state - because price differences of 15% are perfectly possible from one state to another)? Will they realise that this number is 1990 prices for a 1990 car? Will they realise that the article hasn't been edited for two years? Yes, they could correct for those things with some effort - the question is will they do that or will they simply come away with bad information? SteveBaker 14:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I life in California and I can realte to the difference in pricing in between states. We'd use the price range given on the manufacturers web-site. For example if you go to mbusa.com you'll find a general price range for an S-Class. Then prices from all available countries in their currency would be added. But I guess my first instinct was right after all; there are just to many difficulties with mentioning prices in the genereation tables. Thanks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that prices may be tricky to handle in the infobox, though I'm not sure it's out of the question. I'm interested because price appears to be one of the most important attributes of a vehicle: "The survey, which queried people researching new cars on NADAguides.com, a leading vehicle information Web site, finds that overall purchase price is the most important factor to people shopping for a new car (46 percent), followed by make and model (31 percent). Safety and performance come in a distant third, tied at 7 percent." [7]

Some of SteveBaker's concerns may be addressable:

United States currently has the largest economy and a well-recognized currency, so using the US dollar/US market could make sense. Analogously, the "net worth" figure in Wikipedia articles about billionaires use US dollars for both Americans and non-Americans. I don't live in the US but I don't mind this approach. Or we could all use Euro. Practically speaking, isn't the majority of English Wikipedia users from the US anyway? For cars, using a non-US currency would only be necessary if a model was not available in the US.

It is interesting to know that a Mini cost $800 in 1963 because such specific data of old consumer prices is often not readily available. Assuming a reference (such as the <ref> format) is provided for each figure, a range of retail prices can be informative, such as $16,000 - $48,000 USD. (More on this below)

Using the retail price/MSRP as opposed to the street price would be more standarized. If there's a large discrepancy between street price and MSRP, this can be mentioned elsewhere in the article.

'Would there be an undue burden to keep the prices up to date?' An entry which reads, say, "1963: $800-$1000 USD" should not change much over time (this particular range only needs to be updated if someone found a lower or higher MSRP for 1963.) The next line may read "1964: $900-$1100", and so on, until the next generation starts, switching over to a new infobox (more on the format below).

'When-new' retail prices only? Sounds more consistent that way. The value of rare classic cars can be discussed elsewhere in the article or in the notes.

The price would be an optional field, so any price that can not be found would simply not show up on the infobox, or we can put "unknown". For rare cars, maybe we could have more leeway on the type of pricing information that is allowed.

'Cash back/lease prices/marketing tricks' -- we can provide the official purchase-price MSRP figures in general but also mention any special cases in the notes, using sources from the manufacturer.

'Other web sites have price information' -- wouldn't Wikipedia be more helpful if the relevant information (adequately standarized) can be found here as well? As for 'Price: $20,000', I agree that this would be unclear and volatile. How about a format like this instead:

MSRP (US): 2006 model: $20,0001 - $25,0002 USD.
Footnotes <eg. near the bottom of the article>
^1 Source[URL 1]. Hatchback/V6/No optional features/blah-blah. MSRP in Nebraska/ZIP xxxxx, pre-tax, price in effect as at Mar 27, 2006. Information accessed Mar 27, 2006.
^2 Source[URL 2]. Sedan/V8/Premium package/etc. MSRP in New York/ZIP xxxxx, pre-tax, price in effect as at Feb 1, 2006. Information accessed Feb 1, 2006.

It might need some aesthetic adjustment in the infobox, but that's a secondary issue.

One concern of this approach is that it may eventually generate a lot of references: 2/model year, say 5 years/generation, 3 generations -> 30 footnotes max. The number of notes can be lowered if we use just one note per year. Or we could have a broad price range for a whole generation, eg: MSRP (US): $20,000 (2000 minimum) - $30,000 (2006 maximum). Shawnc 15:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

These are some very good suggestions. We would put the price in the generation box not the main infobox, that way there is no esthetic problem. For example a 1977 Lincoln Mark V had an MSRO of roughly $16k, so it would state that in the generation infobox. A Lincoln Mark VIII had an MSRP of $38k, so it would state that in the infobox. Yes price is very important and while considering to only mention prices in US Dollars or Euros, there is still the issue of geography. For example the MSRP for many Mercedes-Benz models is lower in Germany than in the US. Which do we list? Thanks for the input. Regards, Signaturebrendel 15:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with much of what Shawnc says - but we need to look at the numbers. Do we quote prices in UK or in US or in Outer Mongolia? Just converting the currency isn't enough. Even allowing for that, manufacturers charge what the market will stand - and things like emissions regulations, different 'base model' configurations and fuel composition may cause the sticker price may be different in one country than in another - or even in one state versus the other within the USA. Many cars have quite different engines in one country than in another - even for the exact same model. The 'MINI One' has a 1.6 liter engine in every country in the world except in Portugal where it has a 1.4 liter unit! Capturing those differences is going to be almost impossible.
These differences are not small. Let's look at a real world example. Suppose someone in UK looks up the price of a base model MINI (in UK pounds), converts that to dollars and puts it in the Infobox. Now someone in California who is looking for a cheap car turns to Wikipedia for help. You tell us price is the number one thing they look for...and we'd have all the prices right here at their fingertipes - so that's not an unreasonable use of Wikipedia. This person looks at the MINI article (sorry to keep talking only about MINI's - but it's what I know well). and see a base price of $13,000 (for the base UK model - measured in UKpounds and converted to USdollars according to your proposed policy) - but the version which costs that much in the UK only has Air Conditioning as an option. But the 'base' US version has A/C (you can't buy it without that here in the USA). The price of a MINI with A/C in the UK (converted to dollars again) is around $15,000 (from memory) - but the car sells for more in the USA - and they have higher dealership and shipping costs than in the UK - so the US 'base' model has a sticker price of $17,000. But you can't buy a MINI for sticker price in California - the dealerships are adding $3,000 to that 'because they can'. So Wiki says the car costs $13,000 - but our hypothetical Californian is going to have to pay a minimum of $20,000!
That's at least a 54% error without taking into account out of date exchange rates, inflation, etc due to the Wiki page not being kept up to date! I don't know whether the MINI is typical - perhaps not - but it's likely that there are other cars that will be more seriously wrong.
You might argue that the price point originally stated should be backed up by a formal Reference - and that our hypothetical Californian can check that reference if he cares to...but the odds are good that even if he did, he'd come to the same (wildly

incorrect) conclusion as the original Wiki author. The best advice we could give this hypothetical reader is: "Ignore the number we give here - go look on Cars.com".

Whilst I agree that stating prices would be a useful guide for people - giving prices that could quite easily be off by 50% or more isn't useful - it's the opposite of useful - it's downright misleading! So I think we should leave pricing the experts like 'cars.com' who can deliver localised information and update it on a regular basis. SteveBaker 21:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

'Do we quote prices in UK or in US or in Outer Mongolia?' - We can use only the United States MSRP for cars which are available in the US. For standarization, "US MSRP" is stated, and only US-model information is used. If a model is not available in the US, we could use the local currency of the manufacturer's country, but still retain the same citation format as the one used for the US models. For clarity, in infoboxes where prices have been entered, we can add a complementary remark like "USD prices refer to US model MSRP only" or "Euro prices refer to Germany model only", etc. If a country has a unique configuration for a model, that will be covered in the article but not in the infobox. Also, Template:Infobox Company often uses US dollars for foreign companies traded on the US exchanges. Ditto for the aforementioned "net worth" figure of individuals, so this one-country style of standarization has been acceptable in other cases.

'The sticker price is different in one country than in another' - That is the reason to stick to one market, such as the largest market, the US market. As we would not capture international price differences in the infobox, that issue would not arise. Differences between states and configurations are covered by the lower and upper price range, as discussed above. A citation would be provided for both the minimum and maximum figure. Consequently, it will become increasingly more difficult for anyone to find an even lower or higher US-specific MSRP price for a specific US model year (as opposed to the street price or used prices which are volatile over time).

While the range of prices may be large for a model year depending on various factors, resulting in a range like $13,000-20,000, it'd still generally illustrate where the price segment is. A 53% difference is insignificant compared to, say, a 5,000% difference, something not captured at all by the current infobox -- for instance, if I lived in the UK and looked up the article for a model I knew nothing about, then saw "US MSRP: 1970 model year: $1,000-$2,000 USD. 2006 model year: $10,000-20,000 USD" in the Infobox, I would instantly realize that it is a more affordable vehicle than a 'supercar' whose infobox states, in turn, "US MSRP: 2006 model year: $0.80 - $1.00 million USD". This is an extreme example, but there is still a non-trivial difference between more typical prices such as $15,000-$20,000 vs. $50,000-$70,000, which should be revealed.

The infobox is certainly not only intended for car shoppers. The approximate retail prices for a model year can effectively and objectively convey a vehicle's intended market segment, more so than a subjective statement such as "luxury car". Shawnc 06:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Okay, that would work, just use one currency and state the price range of all markets. Another option would be to state the car's pricing in its "homecountry" (where applicable) and the US. So for the S-Class we would include German Euro pricing and US dollar pricing. For an American market only model such as the Lincoln Navigator we would just use US dollars and for a Mini perhaps both British figures in pounds and US figures in dollars. I used the S-Class and Navigator as an example: For the S-Class it would state:

  • $64,970 to $127,950 USD (57,800E to 123,900E)

For the Lincoln Naigator, a US only model it would state:

  • $51,000 to $64,000 USD

Any suggestions? Thanks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

well, I got the "price bug" when editing the Prosche 959; the sources I read cite the price as having been $230,000 at the time (even though that is probably not precise and may have changed a bit over time). for whatever reason, this appeared significant; perhaps because one of the points of the car was that it was a state of the art techno-wonder supercar. so that's where I'm coming from, more than market-pricing for shoppers, although I imagine they would be interested in prices for their own reasons. Gzuckier 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm still very unhappy about this proposal. Stating prices only in the USA is crazy - it gives a huge price advantage to American made cars - which are cheaper (compared to their competitors) in the US than overseas. Wikipedia is not supposed to be US-centric - in fact that's a bias that we should strive to oppose. Using the 'native' market is similarly useless to someone who actually wants to compare the prices of two cars where they live. When we're putting these MASSIVE uncertainty ranges on prices - they become so vague as to be useless. A range of $13,000 to $20,000 for the 'base' model and maybe $13,000 to $45,000 for the actual price range with options, etc...that's useless information. What possible value is it? And that's assuming that contributors of car articles understand the rules well enough to apply them correctly - which they won't. Bad information is worse by far than no information - if we give bad information, people won't know it's misleading - or they will know it is and Wikipedia's reputation will suffer. I would actually prefer a vague term like 'cheap', 'mid-price', 'luxury', 'supercar' - which we can define clearly in one place - or better still, let's just not do it. Wikipedia doesn't include the prices for other things that are price-sensitive purchases - video game consoles for example - why cars? What other Wiki projects include prices in their info-boxes? We aren't in the business of doing commercial advertising - and this comes perilously close to that. SteveBaker 18:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we have accurately isolated the problem concerning the lisiting of a vehicle's price range in the generation infobox. It seems that we can either use the information from one market and be "US-centric" or have (in the case of some cars) an extremely long list of price ranges in the generation infobox. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The proposed usage is for the infobox only. We could still have international pricing information in the articles. The use of USD would naturally be less suitable for other editions of Wikipedia, but assuming that American users represent the majority of English Wikipedia users, the USD would seem to be a representative currency.
"Stating US prices gives a price advantage to American made cars" - I'm not sure this is true in general. Consider that in 2001, the 10 cheapest vehicles on sale in the United States were as follows:[8]
1. Kia Rio
2. Hyundai Accent
3. Daewoo Lanos
4. Suzuki Swift
5. Toyota Echo
6. Saturn S-Series
7. Kia Sephia
8. Kia Spectra
9. Isuzu Hombre
10. Daewoo Nubira
Only 1 out of 10 was an American-branded car.
"A range of $13,000 to $45,000 is not useful" - First, I would be interested to hear some examples of this, as I believe that most lower-priced vehicles would not be priced at several multiples over their base price. For the 2006 sedans on sale in the US for under $15,000, this page lists 18 models, all but one had an upper ceiling of under $20,000; the other one was a hybrid variant which maxed out at under $24,000 with options. In the $25K-$35k sedan segment, one vehicle out of 41 maxed out at $56,390 with options, but its base model is at $30,900, so the maximum multiple between the basic model and the fully loaded one is, in this exceptional case, less than 2.
Secondly, any range can be helpful in the sense that it illustrates the absolute limits of a vehicle's pricing. I find terms such as "mid-price" to be naturally less objective than a range of sourced MSRPs. Even if the range is very large, it would show that a manufacturer is able to market an instance of a model which is somehow very special. If I saw, say, "$50,000-$200,0001" in the infobox, I would be interested to know what the highly expensive model was like -- I would click on the footnote symbol beside it to read:
^1 MSRP $200,000 USD: Special 2006 edition, covered with fake diamonds, only 1000 made. The second most expensive model is XYZ which had an MSRP of $80,000 with all options.
If the footnotes are clearly linked, the reader should understand it. If the editor did not add sufficient references, we can add the tag "[citation needed]", then remove the price altogether after some time if it remains unsourced and seems questionable.
"Using the 'native' market is useless to someone who wants to compare the prices of two cars where they live." - If a car is not available in the reader's country then it is not applicable. If it is available, there may be differences to various degrees due to exchange rates and other factors, but the information would reveal the manufacturer's pricing strategy in its home country. If editors wish to add the price in other countries and currencies, they could also do so in the article.
If we should not include prices in Wikipedia articles about video game consoles, should we edit or blank the first section in Xbox 360 entitled "Retail configurations and pricing", which includes retail prices from 13 countries? I think the primarily reason pricing information is missing from older consoles is not because prices are inappropriate or undesirable, but because such information is more obscure. Shawnc 02:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add that I have not yet encountered objections to Template:Infobox Celebrity's use of Forbes' US-dollar figures for the net worth of non-Americans. The net worth changes all the time, too, but other editors seem ok with that. If the use of USD is considered non-problematic for non-American people, it should also be alright to use the USD for non-American vehicles, considering the US automotive industry is still the largest in the world. Shawnc 03:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This argument is getting pointless. At this point you will never convince me - and I'll never convince you. Answering point by point and arguing the minutia is a waste of time because at this stage we're never going to agree. SteveBaker 04:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
It's fine if you feel that prices can not be used effectively in the Infobox. Still, if readers would like to read about prices, I think it is possible to work out a format of presentation. The Infobox appears to be the most visible and the most standarized area to put a piece of important information. However, I wouldn't mind seeing it elsewhere in the article or not at all, if that's what others want. To me, I don't just want to read about the price tag because I'm looking to buy the car today in my own city. Instead, I'd be interested to know, say, what was the base retail price of a Mini in UK in 1959? To me, such information is useful for historic purposes alone (and to that end we could use only the native currency, like the GBP in this case), but this sort of thing is mostly missing on Wikipedia. It would be nice to incorporate and standarize this information somehow, even if certain figures are a bit fuzzy. Shawnc 06:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I asked the posters at Supercars.net for feedback on whether they'd want to see car prices in Wikipedia articles. All but one posters expressed an interest in reading about prices/MSRP. No objection was raised regarding having old retail prices of vehicles from the past, tidbits which are said to be interesting. One Australian poster suggested using USD as a standard, while another Australian poster complained about the comparatively higher level of taxation in that country (but did not object to the use of USD on Wikipedia). A poster in Netherlands mentioned that while there will be international differences in pricing, it'd be nice to have US prices as reference. Nonetheless it was suggested that prices from multiple countries should ideally be available, which would clutter the Infobox, and that a dedicated section in each article on international prices may be a better option. The discussion can be found here.

Overall, the majority of readers on that site appear interested in seeing car prices in Wikipedia articles. Based on this, as long as the prices are available somewhere in the article, I would be ok with not having prices in the Infobox. Shawnc 14:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, for some vehicles the prices are mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. You can see the Lincoln Town Car or Lincoln LS article and it will state the general price range for each at the end of the first paragraph. I do have to agree with SteveBaker that for some vehicles which are sold internationaly mentioning the price in the infobox would be just about to complicated due to varying prices and the value of currency. But one could use the lowest price for which a vehicle is interationally availble and the highest available MSRP of the vehicle to make up its "international price range" which would then be mentioned US dollars, otherwise the mention in the first paragraph as in the Lincoln Town Car article might just be enough. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 15:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know what are your plans regarding Euro-models. Prices in Europe change from country to country to different taxation policies. And what interest in there in knowing the price in US dollars for the Citroën C3 1.1 SX? You should also take into account that emerging markets in Southeast Asian and South American countries have similar models to either Europe or North America, but prices on some models are lower than in their country of origin due to the use of lower-quality materials, less kit and less technologically developed (read older design) engines. Pc13 16:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Here the idea would be to state the lowest MSRP for the vehicle anywhere in the world and the highest MSRP anywhere in the world. So, if a vehicles is sold in China, stripped of some features, for $26k and the most expensive version of the car was sold in Norway for $47, than the price range would be $26k to $47k. But I think I have to agree that for certain models the list of prices might be extremely long as the only way to state their pricing accurately would be to state the vehicles price range in each market where it is sold. So, I think we should probably leave price ranges out of the infobox and mention prices in the article as appropriate. I think this issue is best discussed on a vehicle to vehicle bases. Creating a general guidline for mentioning price in all car articles seems to be just about impossible. Signaturebrendel 18:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The use of a price range would be more intuitive for prices using the same currency only, due to the issue of exchange rates. That is, a figure like "20-40k Euro in the EU" would be more understandable than "200k RMB (China) - 40k Euro (Norway)" since it is unclear what exchange rate is being used. I'd suggest using one range for each currency, along with remarks such as regional differences from other models.
The length of this information should not be too long initially, I suspect, since it's not always easy to get sourced retail prices in certain currencies. By the way, someone suggested to me that perhaps we could record detailed pricing information separately in some related Wiki-site or project, where raw data is deposited and size is not a problem, but I'm not sure what that medium would be. Shawnc 09:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Gallons, Miles-per-gallon

Incidentally, I looked at the Lincoln Town Car article - it's hardly a shining example. The unqualified 'mpg' and 'gal' units don't indicate whether US gallons or Imperial gallons are being talked about. IMHO, we should use liters everywhere because that's a solid unit with no room for misunderstandings (and the LTC article needs to use lowercase 'l' for liters not capital 'L'). The curb weight of the second generation should probably show 'lb' rather than inches(!) and all of the metric dimensions should really be in meters rather than millimeters. A UK reader will assume those numbers are British gallons and will come away with an even worse regard for the Lincoln's mpg figure than the apallingly bad number it really is! SteveBaker 14:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but the Town Car isn't the only article with these measurements- what you see their is our standard formatting. Up to know that's the standard formatting for generation infoboxes. You're right it should be stated what type of gallons are used. One thing though, metric fuel consumption (litres per 100km) which is a standard measurement is stated. I don't know if measurements should be meters since in Europe we also state car dimensions in millimeters. That's the nice thing about the metric system, its just a matter of where you put the decimal point (i.e. 5350mm = 5,350m). So I made some changes to make the Lincoln Town Car an example article by adopting a new formatting. FYI: As a European I am of the opinion to only use the metric system but I think some American visitors would find that data confusing. Signaturebrendel 15:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to have gas tank sizes in gallons and consumption figures let's at least use 'USgal' or 'ImpGal' and 'mpg(US)' or 'mpg(Imperial)' so we know which is which. On the Mini page, we've used British english everywhere because it's a British car. We wouldn't want to use 'mpg' and have that be US gallons because a British readership would assume the wrong units. The US readership might not even know that gallons are a different size in the UK - so if we were to use Imperial gallons then they would be getting the wrong information. The only way out of that is to either use only metric measurements in all infoboxes - or to absolutely always qualify mpg and gallon measures with which gallon we're talking about. SteveBaker 15:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I Added "(US)" behind the "gal." abbriviation to carlify that the non-metric tank measurement is given in American gallons; I also added "(US)" behing the mpg abbriviation. I think that should solve the problem. I'm German so I myself did not know that there are two different types of gallons- Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I think we can come to the conclusion that we always need specify the type of English measurement used. Signaturebrendel 16:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm British, I'm a scientist and I live in the USA...feel my pain! :-) FYI: An 'imperial' (UK) gallon is 4.546l and a US gallon is 3.785l so the UK gallon is almost exactly 20% bigger than the US gallon - it's a huge difference! SteveBaker 17:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
It's the pint that is really different. The US pint is 16 fluid ounces and the Imperial one 20 fluid ounces. As both systems have 8 pints in a gallon the end result is a different gallon. But this is getting a long way from prices.Malcolma 18:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so the pints are different (therefore also the gallons and quite a bit for that matter!); thus we need to state what type of gallons we mean. I don't think we should decide whether or not to use imerpial or American gallons by the same de facto sceme used to determine the lingo of an article. If an article is written in American English rule states to continue writing it in English; if it mostly written in British then the editors should continue in British English. At least that's what I read in the Wiki manual of style convention. I think we can use the same idea for our measurements:
  • If an article is mostly for an American audience, like the Lincoln Town Car we use American gallons and state that we are using them.
  • If it is mostly British such as the Mini; use Imperial gallons and state so.
  • Always state the metric values in addition
I think we can all agree on the above. As I said I revised the Lincoln Town Car article to include these conventions. Let me know if you have any suggestion, toherwise I think we managed to raise an important issue and find a good solution. Thanks, Signaturebrendel 22:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Edsel is up

The Template:Edsel now has a complete set of articles on its various full-model range from 1958-1960. I've listed written the articles all of the models - Edsel Citation, Edsel Corsair, Edsel Pacer, Edsel Ranger, Edsel Roundup, Edsel Villager and Edsel Bermuda. Of course they are far, far, far from perfect, but its a complete set and a start. If you get a chance, stop by, read through, edit, add, subtract, whatever. Stu Stude62 00:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Performance data

As per SteveBaker's suggestion, how about we add the following data to the generation infobox?

0-60mph time(s)
1/4 mile time(s)
Top speed

Shawnc 14:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

For American and British cars 0-60 mph time can be interesting. For most other cars 0-100 km/h time is more relevant. 60 mph is almost 100 km/h --Boivie 14:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It may be more difficult to find one number than the other (0-60mph vs 0-100km/h) for some cars. We could provide both (both being optional fields), or stick to either 0-60 mph or 0-100 km/h only. Shawnc 14:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we definitely should provide both. Also what is the relevance of this information for non-preformance cars such as a Lincoln Town Car, Cadillac DTS, Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, etc... If this information is added I think it ought to be added to the engine specification box than in the infobox. Does the Top Speed of a Rolls-Royce Silver Spur really belong in its infobox? I think we should consider adding the 0-60 mph (0-100km/h) and the top speed to the engine specification box. Concerning the 1/4 mile speed- what is the metric equivalent? Signaturebrendel 15:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Top speed of a Rolls Royce? Sounds interesting to me. It'd be optional anyway. Considering that the engine only contributes partly to the performance, I would separate the fields. 1/4 mile would be close to 0-400 meters in metric. Shawnc 15:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a seperate wiki table just for preformance. This "preformance table" would then be added on car articles where such information is relevant or available. Signaturebrendel 15:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If performance figures are given, either they should be fairly rough estimates, or better yet, sources should be cited. Even reputable sources differ on the altitude/ambient-temperature they test at, as well as whatever correction formulas the tester applies, and we may well end up citing multiple sources which quote slightly different performance figures. I guess I generally support making this optional though (eg. include as many or as few of 0-60mph or 0-100km/h figures as editors feel are necessary). --Interiot 06:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, sources should always be cited, along with remarks about the altitude, temperature, and so on, when applicable. We could use a range along with the sources, as in the suggested "price" format above. For instance:
0-60mph: 6.5 - 7.0s1
^1 Manufacturer: 6.5s. Dated Jan 1, 2006.[URL1] Magazine X: 7.0s, tested at altitude 200ft, temperature 70°F. Dated March 28, 2006.[URL2]
Shawnc 09:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Renault Alliance article to Renault (article)

Another Wikipedian has suggested that the Renault Alliance be merged into the Renault 9 article. Your input on the matter is important and the discussion is happening on the Renault Alliance talk page. Stude62 16:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Cadillac articles - fake infoboxes?

I wonder what's going on with the infoboxes on the Cadillac Coupe de Ville and Cadillac Eldorado articles? The headings look made-up to me, and the so-called "generations" don't really follow the actual changes in the cars. The edits are coming from IP addresses. Is this a particularly elaborate form of vandalism? RivGuySC 02:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert fodder! SteveBaker 02:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that might very well be the, shall I say, most "creative" form of vandalism I have come across in a long time. I edited both articles. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 03:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you probably should assume good intentions and guess that rather than vandalism, this was someone merely trying to make the artice more light-hearted - not understanding the gravitas that is expected of Wikipedia articles. SteveBaker 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes one should always assume good faith. Nonetheless the edits had to be reverted. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The same person just edited it again (under a different IP no less). I changed it again this time, and I have warned him. --ApolloBoy 02:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer Reviewers please.

My MINI (BMW) article has been in Peer review for a week now - with only one minor comment. Articles in peer review get cleaned off that list after two weeks - then I'm putting it up for Featured Article - but it REALLY needs some help to get there. Perhaps some of you expert WikiProject:Automobiles wikipedians would be so kind as to give it the once-over and report findings at: Wikipedia:Peer review/MINI (BMW)/archive1. Many thanks in advance. SteveBaker 11:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Porsche 911 page

Hi, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and thought I'd help tidy up the Porsche 911 entry. These are some concerns I have with it:

1, The entire range of air-cooled cars (from 1963 to 1996) is called MkI, while the subsequent water-cooled cars are called MkII. This is not correct terminology and is confusing. I removed the references, but they have reappeared.

2, There are a number of glaring errors (such as the 964 Turbo being offered in 4WD form). I've corrected some but, again, some have been reintroduced.

3, Much of the information is sketchy and fluffy, while a lot is missing.

4, Many of the models detailed already have their own pages, so there is duplication of information, making the page very long.

5, How far do you go? There have been around 60 variants to the 911 over the years (and that doesn't include, say, Targa and Cabriolet versions). I have information on them all, but is that required?

6, Ideally, I'd like to start again from scratch on the page, but is that correct etiquette?

Anyway, I'm happy to work on sorting this page out, but not if my efforts are undone. I also feel I'd need help with editing and formating correctly. As I said, I'm new to this, so any guidance is welcome.

Thanks

Philsy 12:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

1 and 2. Should be (and are?) dealt with at the article's discussion page. If noone is explaining why they reintroduce those things, remove them again.

3. If possible, try to straighten out sketchy and fluffy information. Add anything that is missing.

4. When there is a subpage, some brief information is enough in the main page.

5. The more (verifiable) information the better! If it's getting much, create more subpages.

6. Starting from scratch is generally not a good idea, and it conflicts with wikipedia policy. It's usually better to try to rearrange existing information.

Good luck! --Boivie 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable defence against someone who repeatedly puts back information that you believe to be false is to demand references. If you have references that you can quote that back up your point and your 'opponent' does not - then, yeah, keep removing the bad content. Eventually, they'll either give up or demand arbitration - which you'll win if you have solid references and they don't. Of course if they DO have solid references - and you don't - then you should gratiously admit defeat. But either way, explain your removals both in the Edit summary and' on the Talk page. Getting a dialog started between the various editors on the Talk page is very important for the future of the article. SteveBaker 15:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I've tried to start a dialogue with the person involved, but he's not responded. I don't want to get involved in a tit for tat situation where we change each other's copy for the sake of it, but it would be nice to see correct information there. Philsy 15:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's possible the person doesn't know about talk pages - not all new Wiki folk understand that. You might try sticking a polite message on their own Talk: page because the next time they log in, it pops up a banner telling them that they need to go look at it. SteveBaker 15:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did that, thanks. Philsy

New stub proposal, {{auto-bio-stub}}

Just an FYI... I proposed this new stub type at stub sorting proposals. A provisional list has 72 articles that could be included. --Interiot 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • YES! after doing hours of research on A.E. Barit of Hudson and James J. Nance of Packard (both of which which was like hunting the Holy Grail) I support this as well as a Category: Automotive related biography Stude62 23:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I can also add a few more bio's to your provisional list. SteveBaker 04:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Go for it. I might create the template a little early, just so I can start maintaining the list more directly. --Interiot 17:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: This seems to be a very useful category as there are quite a few stubs regarding the biography of important persosn in the automotive category. Signaturebrendel 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If there are support votes, it's probably better to note them on the stub sorting proposals page. Current proposal is for {{automobile-bio-stub}} Category:automotive people stubs, to avoid people thinking the original template could be used for autobiographies (ick). --Interiot 17:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Automotive Manufacturers Proving Grounds articles

Hi, I'm fairly new the Wiki community to which I found while working on a project. I added an article on the Ford Proving Grounds in Arizona after noticing that a small stub was put in for the General Motors Proving Grounds, just southwest of Phoenix. I was going to ask for some help to see about the creation and expansion of Durability Testing Area (Proving Grounds) documents for all manufacturers (or as many as we can provide data for). I have a small amount of data accumulated for Ford testing facilities and will look as getting as much as possible on the other manufacturers. Anyone want to help with the cause? LSX 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already done an article on Studebaker's proving grounds under its current name of Bendix Woods Stude62 23:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I have run into an issue I was going to create more articles for more Ford Proving Grounds, but now since APG is under Ford Proving Grounds I don’t know how to name the other Ford facilities. I can either rename the article to Arizona Proving Grounds (Ford) {something I don’t know how to do} or I can add all Ford Proving Grounds into the same article. What does everyone think? LSX 22:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You can rename an article using the 'move' tab at the top. You should probably then make a page with the original name that does a redirect to your new page and then do a 'Search' on the original name so you can fix up any other articles that point to this one. Before you do that though - you should probably discuss the move on the article's Talk page. SteveBaker 04:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SteveBaker. I created the talk back page on the Ford Proving Grounds article with the namce change request. Please feel free to take a look and give your opinion on the topic. Thanks Everyone LSX 05:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it depends on how much material there is for the Ford Proving Grounds. Since the article is relively small as of this moment it is probably best to keep the current title and add to the stub. As more and more data becomes available the Ford Proving Grounds article could be turned into a disambigation page linking to the article for each for the Ford Proving Grounds. Thanks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The official name of the place originally under the "Ford Proving Grounds" article banner is Arizona Proving Ground or "APG", in Yucca. But Ford acquired a second Arizona Proving Ground from Volvo, located northwest of Phoenix, referred to as "VAPG". In Michigan, there is a Michigan Proving Ground (MPG) in Romeo (north of Detroit), and Dearborn Proving Ground (DPG) which has since been renamed Dearborn Development Center (DDC). There was also a Florida Evaluation Center (FEC), and Ford operates a test facility in Thomas, Ontario and other locations up north for cold weather testing. Some of these test sites have been officially "closed" in terms of full time operations, but may still get some testing traffic as needs arise. I'll assemble some more details on the separate sites when I get a chance. --T-dot 09:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than set up separate pages with short articles on each of Ford's several Proving Ground - I recommend leaving the Title of this page as is, and adding separate sections for each named facility. I have started to restructure the main article to reflect that. --T-dot 11:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ford_Proving_Grounds"

Yes, that is probably the best thing to do; first extend the current stub with sections in regards to each test site and as the need arises (one sections becomes to long) another article can be created in regards to that particular facility. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)