Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Is under attack by an editor, who has removed nearly all material and changed the page beyond recognition. I have already had several run-ins with this editor on less interesting pages, could someone please help defend Bristol Cars? This editor (User:Fleetham) tends to target a page, gradually deleting nearly all the content and replacing it with broken up very tiny sections and masses of superscripts. An easy comparison between the original and Fleetham's new version is here: Talk:Bristol Cars#Removal of content ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have had a similar incident with Fleetham regarding the Tata Nano article, which can be viewed on my discussion page. I don;t b elieve that his intentions are to damage the page or remove useful content, just make pages "less messy". However I do agree with you that the edits are destructive though. --Pineapple Fez 00:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I know that he considers his versions an improvement. But I have asked him probably nearly a hundred times by now to stop the wholesale deletion of content, and he keeps doing the exact same thing over and over again.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest this is raised at WP:ANI if it is a continual problem with an editor who refuses to accept consensus is against him. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The usage of Grand Theft Auto is under discussion, see Talk:Grand Theft Auto (series). 64.229.100.45 (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

An editor has requested a move of the Corvette article. Discussion is on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a brief conversation on this topic nearly two years ago, with which I wasn't involved: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 19#Mitsubishi Jeep. I do feel that it is time to reconsider the decisions made then. I had reluctantly accepted the idea of placing the Mitsubishi Jeep on the Jeep CJ page, but lately content on the Mitsubishi Jeep has been deleted by other editors since it doesn't belong there in their eyes. I don't really disagree with them, and would like to write a decent article on the Mitsu Jeep. But, doing this within the Jeep CJ article seems problematic.

As for the arguments about why the car shouldn't get its own article, I say that the situation with the Henry J is not analogous - the Henry J was only built for three years and with no real changes for Japan. The Mitsubishi Jeep took on a life all its own, with myriad developments separating it from the American originator (different wheelbases, bodys, facelifts, engines). Could we at least leave content at Mitsubishi Jeep for a little time, while I (and others) build up content?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I am open to persuasion, I am not sure that an extended production run (relative to the US version) is reason enough for a split. As the Mitsubishi version ran for so long (decades), it is only natural that it deviated away from the original. There are plenty of articles with similar circumstances than remain merged, such as Ford Festiva (with the Kia Pride and Saipa derivatives), the Daewoo LeMans (with the still-in-production Uzbek(istan) models) and the Suzuki Ignis (with the first generation Chevrolet Cruze). OSX (talk • contributions) 08:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd apply the good old weight test. If enough unique material for the Mitsubishi models can be gathered that is truly different to the US version, then by all means fill in the Mitsubishi Jeep and leave a short summary in the Jeep CJ article. But to delete Mitsubishi stuff from the CJ article without transferring it somewhere else is just plain wrong.  Stepho  (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I decided to just go to work on a "Mitsubishi Jeep" subsection on the Jeep CJ page, and so far no one has had any further issues, so I guess we'll wait and see where things end up. I think that there's plenty of material, likely enough to give the Mitsu iterations undue weight on the CJ page. The entire page is currently only 31,042 bytes, so there is plenty of room to grow.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't already commented either way at Talk:Corvette on a proposal to turn Corvette into a redirect to Chevrolet Corvette, or you have commented and you were not aware that the discussion drags on and on, then you may wish to do so. Shem (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Barnstarbob is exhibiting ownership behaviour at Chevrolet Vega. Myself and User:842U have been trying to improve the article which was horribly biased but Barnstarbob persists in whitewashing criticism and pushing his own point of view (and his own blogs & videos). I would appreciate the involvement of some more project members - regardless of your opinion - so that some consensus can be reached on the way the article should look. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

•sigh• This is far from new. Have a look at the archive. Looks like it might be time to give Bob a smack. :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Then please weigh in at WP:ANI and/or WP:ANEW where his behaviour is being discussed. Perhaps some evidence would add value. Having said that, the article has now been protected for two weeks with a recommendation to start an RFC to get the content disputes with bob settled. I haven't done this before but am keen to get started. Right now 842U and me versus bob seems like a recipe for not settling anything, but if others get involved then perhaps we can get proper consensus and an article for the project to be proud of. Anyone keen to help? --Biker Biker (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am also willing to help - admittedly, I love awkward, unsuccessful, and downright bad cars. But unlike Bob (it seems), I am willing to accept their flaws while also avoiding insulting other editors. Hopefully, while curbing Bob's excesses, 842U and Biker Biker will be happy to tackle Chevrolet Vega in an endeared and loving fashion. And I will be happy to help in such an endeavour.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has been fully-protected again following some disruptive behaviour by Barnstarbob. So now he has moved onto the article's quality rating. I had originally posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment requesting a reassessment, but then went ahead anyway and did the reassessment myself, something that 842U (talk · contribs) agreed with (see Talk:Chevrolet_Vega#Reassessment_for_Wikiproject_Automobiles for my reasons and 842U's comment). However, Bob now disagrees with this and thinks that the article's quality should be higher (see Talk:Chevrolet_Vega#Chevrolet_Vega_Article_Rating). Given his ownership behaviour (WP:OWN) I really don't think that he is best placed to assess the article's quality, and perhaps my involvement means I shouldn't be doing it either. So can some other member(s) of this project take a look and provide a correct assessment for the article? --Biker Biker (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Also I would like your opinion on Automobile propulsion technologies. I already tried the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion but one editor removed the tag without much explanation. This article repeats a lot of the content in Alternative fuel vehicle. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting question about how we should sort info like this. If you bring it to AfD I might say delete, but you will have to phrase your rational carefully as it seems like a valid topic at first glance. The issue is that it is really just Alternative fuel vehicles plus gasoline and diesel. On the other hand an argument could be made that we should merge/redirect Alternative fuel vehicle into the Automobile propulsion technologies as it is just a subset of propulsion types. I would be interested to hear what others think. --Daniel 22:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, I fully agree with you, it is indeed AFV + gas + diesel. One key difference among the two articles is notability, AFV is quite notable and quite in vogue nowadays (as a proxiy a Google " " search returns 2.1 million hits). In contrast, the propulsion technology article was tagged more than a year ago as an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it (actually just one, Automobile). Also note that there is already a short article (more of a list) called Vehicle propulsion.--Mariordo (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeing Jeep Honcho is only a trim package (!) of the Jeep Gladiator, I nominate the Honcho article be merged into Gladiator, & have tagged both accordingly. Comment is welcome. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No comment necessary: go ahead and merge at will.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"No comment necessary" Fair enough. I invite somebody to do it, 'cause I've only tried once & managed to badly screw it up... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Great chance to learn a new skill :) Cut and paste the content from Jeep Honcho into Jeep Gladiator (possibly as a new section). Then make Jeep Honcho redirect to Jeep Gladiator by making the content of Jeep Honcho look like

#redirect [[Jeep Gladiator]]

Simple. "Live long and may the force be with you"...er...something like that.  Stepho  (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Too simple? I did that once, & was told not to, 'cause it didn't preserve the history... No? Or did I just miss a step? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC) (BTW, it's "Live long & prosper."; the correct r, "Peace & long life." ;p )

Cut and paste is wrong for renaming/moving/swapping articles but for merging one article into another its the only way. Go for it. "Will someone, please, shut that hatch" (trekker from way back but sometimes we get to annoy both trekkers and star wars boys at the same time :)  Stepho  (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair 'nuf. OT, that's from David's "Tribbles", my fave episode. :D :D (Which was just on cable here, let's see, day before yesterday. :D ) And it's "close that door". (Yes, it should've been "hatch". Same as the actors should've been coached on how to pronounce "Klingon" before they rolled film. :/) No wonder Shat looked harried, tho: it took them 37 takes to get it. 8o 8o 8o TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC) (Tho wouldn't beaming them into Koloth's engine room be technically an act of war? 8o ;p )

And done. Thx for the help, Stepho. LL&P. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand any of this here jibber jabber, but I am glad to see the merge done with.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes us trekkies and trekkers make us much sense as Justin Beiber fans. :)  Stepho  (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the article Solar-charged vehicle is a classical example of original research through WP:Synthesis and a candidate for deletion. Nevertheless, I would like to hear the opinion from editors of this Wikiproject before moving forward with a formal AfD request. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete. A quick glance at the cited web pages doesn't show any sign of support for the broad claims, & Ed Begley & Alexandra Paul don't consitute mass market appeal. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is to let you know that I already proceeded with the AfD nomination. If any editor is interested in participating go toWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar-charged vehicle.--Mariordo (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have created the {{Cd}} template to display the subscripted 'd' and to optionally provide a link:

• {{Cd|0.20}} gives Cd=0.20 (no link)
• {{Cd|link=yes|0.20}} gives Cd=0.20 (linking to Drag coefficient)
• {{Cd|link=car|0.20}} gives Cd=0.20 (linking to Automobile drag coefficient)

Does this seem useful? Any suggestions?  Stepho  (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Where the figures are available & gets added, this will make it much easier. Thx! (Let's see, where did I put the WoA volume with the C_d numbers... ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Stepho-wrs for creating this template!! Would it be possible to make it italicised (C_d) as in the drag coefficient article and other publications? Thanks again! SynergyStar (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

YIt took a bit longer than planned to do it (sheer laziness) but the C is now italicised.  Stepho  talk  00:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again Stepho-wrs!! SynergyStar (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just nominated the {{Vehicle modification}} navbox for deletion. In the interests of fairness I would invite the members of this project to add their comments to the deletion discussion - Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 26 - perhaps you see a strong reason why it should be kept. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the actual template need somekind of deletion tag... I cant see none -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I'll sort that. Damn that twinkle tool not working properly with Safari. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Toyota launched today the Prius Alpha in Japan (see my initial edit at Toyota Prius#Toyota Prius Family. The naming is confusing since this is actually the same vehicle as the Toyota Prius v. Before expanding on this hybrid, should we rename the Prius v article? Is OK to call the section the main Prius article "Prius Family"? What is the convention the project uses in this cases? I will wait before further editing to hear from the regulars.--Mariordo (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mario, Alpha is the appropriate name if there is no "common name" in the vaguely defined English-speaking markets. Prius v is confirmed to be the North American name and will probably be adopted elsewhere as well. The contention is the European market Prius+ which seems to be the same car except with the availability (or standard fitment) of seven seats. Considering the Prius+ is a production-ready concept, is it safe to assume this will be the retail name in Europe? If it is, then Alpha would be the correct title as there is no common name and disputes between Europe and North America would arise over which name is better/more important/et cetera. If you are confident that this is the case, then please perform the page move as it can easily be undone if otherwise is the case. Also, does anyone know why Toyota in the United States has two Prius V models: a trim level of the regular Prius (along with the I, II, III, IV) and then and an identically named wagon version?

The "Prius Family" section on the main Prius page is fine, but a picture would be good. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Because I went shopping and test drive one I know. The so called Prius V (from I, II, ...) is a trim full of electronic toys priced at more than US$30 K (the I is just above 20K), but it just the regular third generation. The Prius "v" is the new version, but is a wagon as called here or minivan in Europe I guess. For the time being I will just copy the same edit in the Toyota Prius v article, and wait a bit for more news during the weekend to make sure (I don't want to risk missinformation such this week's false claim of all 2014 Prius being plug-in hybrids.--Mariordo (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Knowing Toyota, it will be called the 'Priusα' in Japan and something completely different in other markets. My money would be on Toyota calling the 5-seater 'Prius v' and the 7-seater the 'Prius +' in western markets but this is just crystal ball gazing. I'd hold off on renaming the article until we get a western market release (2011, 2012, 2030?). Of course, redirects for various forms of 'Toyota Priusα' (Toyota Japan uses the alpha symbol ('α') without a space), 'Toyota Prius α', 'Toyota Prius Alpha' and maybe even 'Toyota Prius wagon' are appropriate. Or maybe just lump the thing in the main Prius article as just a wagon derivative - just like we do with almost any other car.  Stepho  (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Update: for any editors interested in participating in the rename discussion, a formal proposal is being discussed at the Prius v talk page here.--Mariordo (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are there no articles about Chevrolets pre-1950? There's no timeline or articles for specific cars whatsoever. On the German Wikipedia there are articles for various pre-1950 Chevrolets like the Master and Stylemaster. But there's absolutely nothing on the English Wikipedia. Strikes me as very odd, especially considering that Chevrolets are American cars, and pre-1950 Fords get plenty of attention. I mean, there were 2 million Chevrolet Masters sold and there's hardly even a mention of its existence here on the English Wikipedia. It's not in any lists of Chevrolet cars nor is it in any timelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.125.209 (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an opening for some budding editors. Though I do note there are some articles... such as Chevrolet Series 490, Chevrolet Series C Classic Six, Chevrolet Deluxe, Chevrolet Fleetline and Chevrolet Styleline. I'll start the ball rolling with the Chevrolet Standard Six. Warren (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

None of those pages seem to be linked to in any Chevy timelines (or lists of cars), at least until now. So it makes sense that I couldn't find them.173.167.125.209 (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and this also true for most older Chevy trucks. Trying to upload a few pictures I found on Flickr, I couldn't even find enough information here to identify the trucks in question. Someone must find this interesting - maybe something Vegavairbob could engage in to get his mind of less satisfying issues? (not trying to be snide, genuinely trying to keep him around)  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In general, should we have a separate page for modified vehicles involved in motorsport or just a section in the existing article? This relates to the Ford Focus RS WRC and the discussion at Talk:Ford Focus RS WRC. Examples of articles utilising a sections are: BMW M3, Lexus IS, Nissan GT-R, and Toyota Celica.

To me it just means another article that needs to be maintained when a simple section would be suffice in all but the most detailed cases. It seems this project is at the risk of being taken over by niche interest groups all demanding articles catered especially for their interests only. That is, special pages for the racing/high-performance/green version of a car because they're simply not interested in knowing about the "lesser" donor vehicle. An encyclopaedia should be telling the whole storing and not catering to fringe interest groups. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The weight test applies. If there is a large amount of motorsport material for that car then make a separate article. Otherwise use a section (or nothing at all if not particularly notable).  Stepho  talk  09:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be undertaken on a case by case basis. Personally I think the separate Ford Focus RS WRC article should stay separate. In general, I think if the racing version is notable (presumably having either some success or lots of participation) then it is worthy of its own article, the other extreme is that we merge all the cars based on Ford's C1 platform for example, which is, of course, absurd! There should then be a brief summary on the main (eg Ford Focus) article that points to the motorsport article. However, this is just my personal view, I'm unsure as to whether there is really a Wikipedia precedent for this. ARDawson (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

...and I'd argue that a precedent can't be set for exactly the reasons you identify. Where enough material exists a page can be written, not everything on Wikipedia needs a rule. Pyrope 13:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that in general they should be kept separate because quite often these racing cars bear no relation to their namesake. A great example is the Metro 6R4 (a car I once owned) which bore a visual similarity the god-awful Austin Metro, yet it shared no parts. However I notice that the 6R4 is contained within the main car's article - a truly bizarre decision IMO. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Just started the article Bottle jack. I could use some support as others are attempting to delete the image and merge it to Jack (device). Thanks Zabanio (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless you know differently, I can't see how an article on bottle jacks is likely to develop much further than it has already, I think its a sensible merge! Mighty Antar (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Antar, Jack (device) covers the topic well enough and Bottle jack should just redirect to it. But thank you for your well intended work anyway.  Stepho  talk  05:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the merits of a separate article, especially as a variety of different types of jacks are already covered on the Jack article. The "see also: Bottle jack" strikes me as a bit odd, when there's a strand jack section just above. ARDawson (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am putting this here because it seems like the most appropriate place to get approval before I make (possibly) major changes. If I am mistaken, please direct me.

Both the Focus North America and International pages are out of date, aside from being terribly mismanaged. The 2012 North American Focuses are NOW ON THE ROADS, I see them almost every day. I am going to modify the International page with a proper infobox, as the Focus is now unified across all markets, and perhaps NA specs within its own subsection under the Mk3 heading, if I have the time. The 3rd gen section of the NA page should simply redirect to the international page, as the model is no longer specific to NA. Riotrub (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I was apparently mistaken, there is already an infobox on the international page. Riotrub (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to bring and support the proposal OSX recently made here:

With respect to the mess that is the myriad of Ford Focus articles, you mentioned that you may be open to a reorganisation of these articles into a neater compilation. That is, a "Ford Focus" parent article, with:

• Ford Focus (first generation)
• Ford Focus (second generation, Europe)
• Ford Focus (second generation, North America)
• Ford Focus (third generation)

This update is long due. And also, the Ford Focus Electric should be part of these family branches.--Mariordo (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I will wait another week. If no one has any objections, I will put all the content on the main Focus page as outlined by OSX. That's a great idea. riotrub Talk 23:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, and I would like to re-affirm my support for the reorganisation above, including the Ford Focus BEV content being moved to the appropriate generational article. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why wait? It's in line with what's done with other models in similar situations, such as the Honda Accord. IFCAR (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we really want to open the discussion again about merging the Focus Electric? The re-organization can be done keeping the Focus BEV separate, as was the consensus just three months ago. The main/mother and the appropriate generational article will have a short section/summary redirecting to the Ford Focus Electric. I really would not like to go back to the EV discussion again.--Mariordo (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering this discussion has been ongoing for over a week and there is full support from all editors, except for Mariordo's small objection, I've gone ahead with the reorganisation based on IFCAR's advice. I also took into account the previous Focus BEV discussion here. That discussion resulted in four opposing votes when the externally-canvased votes made on January 19, 2011 are removed (all new editors). In contrast, there were seven supporting votes, none of which were influenced by the external canvassing as they were all made by editors who were already participating in the various discussions before the canvassing started.

In summary, there were four opposing votes in the first discussion and no additional opposing votes in this discussion (only Mariordo who already voted previously). Along with the seven supporting votes last time around, we have gained a further two supporting votes, pushing that number up to nine (not including mine as I voted last time).

I also took into account that the contents of Ford Focus BEV easily fitted in the third generation article. As a result, we now have:

• Ford Focus

• Ford Focus (first generation)
• Ford Focus (second generation, Europe)
• Ford Focus (second generation, North America)
• Ford Focus (third generation)

Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 07:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my friend, but if you want to merge the Focus BEV you need to open a merge discussion for that particular issue, tag such discussion in the corresponding page to let interested users participate, and what you are doing now is blatantly bypassing the result of a formal discussion that resulted in keeping the article, so please follow proper procedure and please justified what has changed in terms of notability during the last 3 months to justify a new discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits by OSX have made the history and development of the Focus much easier to understand. I see that the Focus BEV and Focus Electric are both included in the relevant sections so don't see a problem. A very pragmatic and sensible edit. Warren (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the issue was formally discussed here and the result was keep so moving/merging the article is disrespectful of that decision. A new discussion needs to be opened first and follow the rules of such discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: As for those who do not go into details, the Focus BEV content was actually split in two separate articles:

• One part is here: Ford Focus (second generation, Europe)#Focus BEV
• The other one here: Ford Focus (third generation)#Focus Electric

I do not see how the split makes it easier to understand to the 2000+ readers per month the BEV article had when they now need to look to two different places, and the redirect points just to one of them. Very sensible indeed.--Mariordo (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks good the way it is now. It is a big improvement on the way it was and including the electric version's details makes total sense. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The re-organization of the Focus articles is fine, except that we have got rid of the Focus Electric article, against the result of the merge discussion. The whole reorganization could have been done without touching the BEV article. Johnfos (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly that is root of the problem. I indeed supported the reorganization (see the beginning of the thread) and also made clear that there was no need to move/merge/get rid of the BEV article, but instead be part of the family of Focus articles. OSX disregarded the results of a closed discussion, make his personal interpretation of such closed discussion, and unnecessarily got rid of the Focus Electric article.--Mariordo (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mario, I believe it was you who closed the discussion here, and while doing so counted votes gained via the external canvassing at Autoblog Green. Votes gained by external websites are not counted because they undermine the consensus building process—a façade of ignorance does not change this. As mentioned above, there were four legitimate users in favour of retaining a stand-alone Focus Electric article and seven against it. This discussion brought three further users wishing to create a combined article, yet no additional votes from the opposite side. Therefore we have four versus ten and a mandate to merge. Thank you, OSX (talk • contributions) 09:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OSX your comment is really weird, because you could have contested my closing, which you did not, and actually you thank me for closing the merging discussions in my talk here. Anyway, once a formal discussion is closed you can always question the result but you need to open a new discussion, which you did not.

Second, your blanking and further redirecting of Ford Focus RS WRC was contested for not following procedure (not by me), and now you engage in edit waring. The consensus to reorganize the Focus articles was just that, not a blank check to go around blanking, merging and moving articles, and if such was your intention, then open the proper discussions, tag the articles so the interested editors know such discussions exist, and provide enough time for a consensus to develop.--Mariordo (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mario, at the time the last thing I felt like doing was continuing the debate. I was simply glad that you had closed the discussions so they could be archived away and dealt with at a later date (so yes, I accepted the blanket "no consensus" conclusions as a temporary measure, and thanked you for taking the initiative of doing so, thus putting the conflict behind us).

A few months later, another user has re-opened the issue of the mess that was the many Ford Focus articles, giving us an opportunity to fairly assess the previous discussion.

The above dialogue has resulted in three additional editors coming out in support of the changes (including the Electric versions), and I again took into consideration the comments made previously, minus those underhandedly enlisted from Autoblog Green. With the same four users opposed to the merger, and the now ten supporters, I don't believe there is much basis for argument. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to go back and make sure I voted (I am fairly certain that I did), but I still support the current split along generational lines, incorporating the BEV into the proper places.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As do I. The Focus BEV is an electric Ford Focus. Therefore, it should be split into its respective generational articles. And I also believe that I voted for the merge in the previous discussion. The Focus BEV hasn't even been released yet, and the information fits nicely within the generational articles. --Pineapple Fez 02:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is to let you know that after consulting with an admin ([1]) he recommended to do a cut and paste to restored the article content. Since a reversal of the move would have resulted in losing part of the content of the new Focus third generation article, a cut and paste was the less destructive approach, but the original history of the Focus BEV article remains in that article (and that is the purpose of the special tags I put above both articles). Also, I took the opportunity to restore it under Ford Focus Electric, considering that Ford changed the electric car name from Focus BEV to Focus Electric when the production version was unveiled in early 2011. Feel free to contest the renaming in the corresponding talk.

Also another admin recommended opening an ANI against OSX, which I will open soon. Despite of the formal discussions we had had here and the criteria brought in by several admins, OSX continues to disregard basic Wikipedia policies and procedures with the support of some of the editors of this Wikiproject, which believe they can dictate policies and decide behind the curtains anything related with automobile articles. As for the Ford Focus Electric article if you still wish to open a new merger discussion please do so in the talk of that article, just as the now ongoing discussion at the talk of Ford Focus RS WRC.--Mariordo (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear Mariordo - what have you done? Why do you feel the need to promote the idea that electric/hybrid propulsion needs such special treatment when it is getting coverage within main articles? It is your promotion of this artificial divorce from traditional petrol and diesel engines that maintains the myth that hybrid is a little wired and a little "special" rather than just being another mainstream propulsion option for a car. Shame you also ignored the comments of your fellow wikipedia editors here. There appears to be no argument about content, just its location, and this level of antagonistic editing is wasteful of everyone's time. Warren (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Here at this discussion we have seven in support of the merger versus two opposers. Mariordo has gone against this and recreated the Ford Focus Electric page, but I have undone this as is goes against the opinion of the overwhelming majority.

A discussion has been launched at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What constitutes a consensus? to set things straight. The participation of other users would be highly appreciated. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I am opposed to the merger, and that should have been obvious when I said above "we have got rid of the Focus Electric article, against the result of the merge discussion. The whole reorganization could have been done without touching the BEV article". I support the recreation the Ford Focus Electric page and think it looks good. Johnfos (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i just joined this Wikiproject but you may have already worked along side me before on an article. I'd like to bring up the matter of merging articles lazily and half-arsed. It's useful for some articles but for others it mentions the model name and that's all it does. Take the Nissan Cabstar, here's a not so common vehicle, but nether-the-less it's something you see often in the UK. In the article it redirects to it's mentioned and there's no real information on it. Here's how much is available just from one source on the latest shape - "http://www.parkers.co.uk/vans/reviews/nissan/cabstar-2007.aspx" The article completely fails this and is a stub, as are many others. So i'd like to start a debate on this to get it stopped unless it actually is the right thing to do for the article (like the Eurovans for example). Welcoming all comments, discussion and replies. Thanks Jenova20 16:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jenova. Looking at the history of the redirect page for the Cabstar, it hasn't been merged, simply that nobody has put together an article for it yet. It's all a matter of how significantly different one model is from another, how much well sourced information is available and someone with enough interest in the model to start to build an article. Most of the material on the link you pasted is editorial opinion rather than encyclopedic facts and phrases like "It doesn't feel as composed as many large vans" would be inappropriate in a wikipedia article. Look at a few more featured articles on other subjects SS Washingtonian or Lince (tank) for how it should be done. It's not volume or opinion that makes a great wikipedia article, it's a lot of well-sourced, pertinent information written in clear concise language with wikilinks to any technical terms or related material. It isn't easy and it takes a lot of work but with the help of people like you Wikipedia will keep on growing. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but my point is that this unhelpful merging of different cars keeps these stubs as stubs because no one wants to edit them.

It has been merged with other cars or there wouldn't be more than one in the article, Wikipedia can change the meaning of the words "merge" and "template" but there is a real meaning aswell.

The article is a jumble of 3 or 4 cars with no information on any but one.

Take a look at Citroen Dispatch.

Thanks Jenova20 08:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly your concern is? It is convention that cars and commercial vehicles have one article, even if they are known by different names around the world. Should there be regional differences this can be included in the one article (such as Renault 5 including the US Renault Le Mans). If the vehicle is significantly different, then perhaps it warrants its own article under its own name. The convention of having one article can make some European and Japanese vehicles in particular to end up in unexpected places - I found this when I created the Renault Maxity page, which of course is near identical to the Nissan Cabstar... By have all version in one article there is less duplication of core technical detail and specs, but requires careful editing, layout and redirects to ensure each version is easily found. Warren (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done some searching and have made a proposal at talk:Nissan Atlas.  Stepho  talk  10:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Stepho, it's better than nothing.

Warren maybe you should look at the examples i gave you and then compare them with any other car article, like the Ford Focus for example.

I'm saying it's not right to group together articles willy nilly because it's not working, look at any article with more than 2 models grouped together and it's a stub or it's been abandoned by all editors, it would be more effective to have left them separate and have 2 or 3 articles that are of a higher quality than 1, which is unreadable.

Thanks Jenova20 12:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Merging articles depends very much on context. Many articles have been successfully merged (eg Toyota Camry). Badge engineered vehicles are a prime candidate for merging (same car, same details, just a different name for a different market). Multiple generations are also a prime candidate for merging - especially if the info on each generation is relatively small. Anyway, better to take this discussion to talk:Nissan Atlas so that we don't bore the rest of the project.  Stepho  talk  14:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to create disambiguation pages for similarly named cars, engines etc. For example, today I searched for A Series Engine, looking for the BMC variety. I therefore wondered if a disambiguation page pointing to the variety of A Series engines out there would be helpful. Rather than go straight ahead and do it, I thought it best to consult other, more experienced Wikipedians. Wikipedia says not to include partial matches, which I suspect includes this. Also, what about a 'see also: BMC B-series engine' at the top of the A-Series page? Or does doing that start to create a ridiculous precedent (e.g. 'see also: BMW 1 Sereis, 3 Series, 5 series etc' at the top of all of them) Thanks in advance for all your advice! ARDawson (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Afraid of setting exactly such a precedent, I added "See also" sections to the bottom of the A/B-series pages. Category:British Leyland engines is also very useful for finding other articles. I don't see an A-series dab page being in any way harmful, but were I to search for info on the Toyota A-engine, I would include "Toyota" in my search - so I don't see how much use it could be either.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I need your advice about the convention for expressing units for the Talk:Chevrolet Volt/GA1. The reviewer is requesting to convert L in the infobox and well as the battery volumes (The battery pack size was reduced, from about 300 L in volume in the EV1, to just 100 L in the Volt). I believe the engine volume is expressed in liters by international convention, so it shouldn't be converted. As for the battery volume, should I convert it to ft3 or L is fine? Also, the wheel size is expressed in inches, I never have seen it converted, should I? Your help will be appreciated. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Metric is preferred in nearly all cases of modern cars but wheel sizes are one of the very few exceptions. Of the top of my head, the Russian Lada is the only manufacturer I know of that uses metric wheels - practically everybody uses inches and the public in English speaking countries expects to see inches for wheel rim measurements.

Since the US is the major market for the Volt, it is reasonable to do conversions for litres to cubic feet or cubic inches. As long as it is consistent within the article whether metric or imperial is listed first.  Stepho  talk  06:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. What do you think of converting the engine to cubic inches and the battery volume to cubic feet? Is there a template? (I am not aware of, sorry).--Mariordo (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I just use '{{convert|2000|cc|cuin|abbr=on|0}}' to give '2,000 cc (122 cu in)' and '{{convert|20|L|cuft|abbr=on|1}}' to give '20 L (0.7 cu ft)' . The {{convert}} template takes most units that are needed by car articles. Add '|disp=flip' to swap the order of metric and imperial. That's a lot of fine work you've put into that article (and many other articles).  Stepho  talk  06:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that as US cars are no longer marketed in cubic inches that it is unnecessary to include them (see Wikipedia:CARS/Conventions#Displacement). Other imperial units like inches, pounds, gallons, et cetera are the primary units in the US so should be listed first with metric conversions afterwards. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

For engine sizes you may be correct. But I suspect that if you tell an average American that the battery size is 100 L then they will give you a blank look.  Stepho  talk  08:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that I was only referring to engine displacement and not volume in general. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, I will follow your advice.--Mariordo (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that L is fine here, as the main point is that volume is reduced by two thirds. But I know better than to argue with people who base their measuring systems on "the distance from the tip of the nose to the end of the thumb of King Henry I"... As for engines, ci are really not used much anymore even in the US. I think that the "Mustang 5.0" marked the beginning of the end for cubic inches.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, have a look on Citroën Xsara and Citroen Xsara Picasso (Car). Someone removed the whole section and there are no links between those two articles now. I'm not sure about policies here on en.wiki, if it should be separated or merged. --Pan BMP (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the contents of Citröen Xsara Picasso, which I was redirected to from Citroen Xsara Picasso (Car), to Citroën Xsara Picasso, with the other two articles becoming redirects. I assume that the articles should remain separated, because as far as I know they are different cars, and that the articles should follow the same manner as Citroën C4 and Citroën C4 Picasso.--Pineapple Fez 22:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks okay now Pineapple Fez. Perhaps Citroen Xsara Picasso (Car) is a candidate for a speedy delete as it is superfluous and serves no purpose. Warren (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Template:Auto CID is not working at present. Paul foord (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Another editor made changes which broke the precision. I tried to repair this but obviously broke something else, so I have reverted to the last-known-good version. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI I have also reverted the changes made to {{Auto lb·ft}}, {{Auto in}} and {{Auto L}}. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The other editor was I. I was rewriting these as hard-codings of {{convert}}. I had intended to avoid the input-insensitive default rounding used in the templates up to that point so I tried replaced the rounding with input-sensitive rounding. In discussion with Biker, however, I decided that it might be better to leave things as they are. I fixed Biker's broken repair to the {{convert}} call. Now the templates are ready for substing and then they can go the way of the others. JIMp _talk·cont 00:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'm fully supportive of the changes and agree that the original templates should be deleted or deprecated. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 14#Automotive conversion templates to discuss the deletion of these automotive conversion templates. All functions are now possible using {{convert}}. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, User:Colonies Chris is taking a large number of piped links and turning them into redirects without demonstrating knowledge of the accuracy of these links. By way of example - Holden Commodore SS was turned into a redirect towards Holden VE Commodore, ignoring the the 'SS' nameplate has been used on the about a dozen different Commodore model ranges rather than just the VE. Mini John Cooper Works S2000 was established as a link to Mini John Cooper Works WRC despite the article referring to a different car enitrely with no information on the S2000. --Falcadore (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, he has also cleaned up a lot of overlinked and badly articles.  Stepho  talk  00:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Triton > Mitsubishi L200 Anyone interested, please contribute on the Triton talk page. Thanks Jenova20 13:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

GMC cars & trucks > GMC (automobile) (sharing topic, since it was already here) For some reason, User:Scheno moved this to GMC Cars, then to GMC cars & trucks. They also got move-happy with some Opel articles recently. --Vossanova ^o< 20:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I fired a gentle warning shot across his bow (on his talk page). Since he is a new editor, I've assumed it was just ignorance on his part.  Stepho  talk  23:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any specific guidance for the layout of articles that relate to companies which fall within this project. I am asking because I just reverted a change at Jaguar Cars, which placed the history section after the current/past models section. The bulk of the articles that I have seen put the company history before the models - indeed it is typically the first section in the article after the lead. What are other project members' opinions on this? Are there any guidelines (I couldn't find them here or at the WikiProject Companies). --Biker Biker (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it should depend on the individual subject - if its a defunct manufacturer its all history isn't it. If they are making and selling right now then all about the current line-up should lead the article. Eddaido (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of manufacturer articles do lead with history. The same seems to be true of companies in other sectors e.g. motorcycle manufacturers, banks, oil companies, telecoms etc. While an article about a car falls almost exclusively within the this project, an automobile company would also be within the scope of WikiProject Companies, so I'm guessing we need to fall in line with any guidelines there. That's why I'm asking if there if anyone is aware of guidelines that may already exist. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the way that article is set out. My preference would be to combine the list of models into the history section. A separate list of Jaguar vehicles page could be created as a comprehensive list. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(If I follow OSX correctly) this then means Wikipedia is about the history of particular enterprises and not about what particular enterprises actually are and do? I prefer: General Motors is . . . its current products are . . . and not General Motors began in . . . by making paper-lace doilies. I suggest it makes more sense to say what they are (now) followed by how they got there. This article on Boeing 747 begins by telling the reader what a Boeing 747 is then goes into background (history). If I look up a dictionary(/encyclopedia?) it tells me what a word means first then it might go into its origins. Horse then cart or do I mean cupwinner then its breeding. Eddaido (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the order of sections is too critical. The lead should always contain a short summary of the current state of the company. The history section can come as the next section or anywhere else in the article (but not in the lead). I wouldn't get too worked up about it. Even Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Guidelines doesn't seem to make a recommendation about the order of sections.  Stepho  talk  02:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec x 2) 747 doesn't begin with a detailed description of what a 747 is, it begins (following the lead) with a background section discussing what lead up to the design of the vehicle. All articles have leads (which explains briefly what the topic is) and generally should have a background/history section as the first actual section of the article. --Daniel 02:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an anonymous (IP) editor who keeps adding irrelevant information to the article on the Auto Avio Costruzioni 815 racing car from 1940. His/her addition is as follows:

The trademark "Auto-Avio Costruzioni" was bought in 2004 by a group of car enthusiats. The goal was to create a modified version of the Ferrari F430 with a V-12 engine.(name : AAC 1260)

The brand was launched in a French auto magazine "Sport Auto" in May 2008. The consequences of this article triggered an unwarranted attack by Ferrari.

A swiss court is on the way (2011) to decide if the legal owner (since 2004) of the trademark can keep his rights on Auto Avio Costruzioni. It's funny to notice that Ferrari Spa never make a deposit on the trademark Auto Avio Costruzioni and now claims that the 815 was the first Ferrari. In fact the first Ferrari is the 125S from 1947. The 815 could have been the first Ferrari, but Enzo couldn't use his name on this car due to the agreement with Alfa Roméo. In the same way to prove that, Ferrari celebrate his 60th birthday in 2007...so what 1940+60=2007 ?

In fact, the first car built by Enzo Ferrari is not the 125S or the AAC 815, this was the Alfa Roméo Bimotore...(so Ferrari should have say that Alfa Roméo belongs to him ?)

All this in an article, not about the company, but about a car built and raced in 1940! This is clearly unrelated to the car in question, but every time I take it out, with this explanation, it is returned, with no explanation. All requests for discussion on the article's talk page have been ignored. What should I do next?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

IDK if it's apt, but I added a vandal warning. (There's no dedicated "don't spam" warning AFAIK.) Maybe it'll help. I'd also see if the IP can be blocked for this kind of behavior. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

He/she/it/other needs references to back up their claims. The more extraordinary the claims, the more solid the references have to be. If references are found but they aren't very strong, then it could be put into a 'Controveries' section phrased as 'XX claims ...'. But extraordinary claims without references can be deleted immediately.  Stepho  talk  05:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite, what i feel is rightly placed frustration, i am going to remain polite as the page asks. I would be very pleased if the page for the list of Cadillac's was updated to the end of the 20th century. the list comes to a dead stop at 1975 then jumps to the current models of 2010-2011, there is no mention of any cars produced during 1976 through to 2009. if this problem could be rectified to show the automobiles manufactured during this time, that would be fantastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.72.183 (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is a volunteer effort with no central control. Volunteers add bits of information as their know it. And these volunteers are scattered all over the world. It's a great way to put many minds onto a task but the downside is that there are often gaps in the articles - as you found out. The only way to fill in the gaps is to either do it yourself (through lots of research in libraries) or hope that someone else can do it for you. But even if you can only add a little, then at least the gaps are smaller. Adding the list of models (or even just the few you personally know of) over those years (without actual articles on each one) could encourage someone else to start writing some individual articles for those newly listed models. It's all collaborative. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  06:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Another idea is for you to go through the vehicles listed at Template:Cadillac timeline 1980 to date and add them to List of Cadillac models. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  07:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that! ARDawson (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The article on the Nissan Figaro has an error. One of opinion, maybe, but wrong nevertheless. The article states that the Nissan Figaro looks like the Datsun Fairlady sports cars of the 1960's, which it simply doesn't. Iit has the same number of wheels, doors and headlights but the general shape and aspect ratios of the design are totally different. I'm surprised you haven't had some vintage sports car aficionado threatening mayhem over the offence to what was a genuinely rapid soft-top, and arguably the first Japanese mass production sports car.

The Nissan Figaro looks vaguely like the original 1959 Fairlady SR211. You might be thinking of the 1969 Nissan S30#240Z, which was also called the Fairlady Z in Japan.  Stepho  talk  08:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A Spanish car fan has turned a redirect into a stand alone article for the SEAT 131. I figure it's best to nip this in the bud before there are also separate SEAT Panda and SEAT Ritmo pages. Feel free to discuss the question here. Just realized that the same editor (LeonCR) also redirected the SEAT Ritmo to SEAT Ronda, which seems less than optimal.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've entered a (far too long) disagreement with you over the Seat 131 at the relevant talk page.

On the Seat Ritmo I don't know what there is to be said/written...I don't know much. But if there is disagreement over whether it should be subsumed into the entry fopr the Fiat Ritmo (which the English call Fiat Strada for reasons which made sense to someone's Marketing Director) or into the entry for the Ronda (which was a direct evolution from the Ritmo even though the discussion over whether or not it was a copy with endless very small differences in the places where the judge might look - fascinating story but a digression) --- the fact that you cannot agree which entry to subsume the Seat Ritmo into suggests to me that you probably need to set up a stand-alone entry for the Seat Ritmo which you can link to both the Fiat Ritmo and the Ronda entry. I don't know what there is to say about the Seat Ritmo, but someone must do. And there was certainly plenty to be said about the Fiat Ritmo in terms of the sales and marketing and background politics that is totally irrelevant to the Spanish situation. There are ugly rumours that Fiat quality and availability suffered from the poor industrial relations in Turin. I've no idea how true that is: no doubt it an be sourced, true or not. But it has nothing to do with Barcelona. Ditto the industrial robots on the Ritmo production lines that Fiat kept boasting about atthis time.

No futher thoughts. Time for breakfast. Charles01 (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The SEAT Ritmo was simply a license-built Fiat Ritmo. There were some minor engine differences, but nothing enough to warrant a standalone article. The Ronda was its successor in the Spanish market (I don't know where else we have redirected an article to a cars successor), which should have been made more prominent in the Fiat Ritmo article. I just made some changes to that effect.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Boyd Coddington is a part of of this project - Does anyone know anything about the subject? There's weird external link edit warring and COI editing going on, but I don't quite understand since I know nothing about the subject. Going through the history, I'm not sure about what's correct and what's wrong. I think it should probably get semi-protected and noticed left on the WP:COIN, but I believe someone more familiar with the subject should look at it beforehand. Thanks! --CutOffTies (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

While IDK Boyd's career backwards by any means, I don't see any real errors. (I seem to recall the Luce coupe being a midengine Deuce, not a '33, but I wouldn't swear on it.) Otherwise... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed that the Hummer H3T material be merged into the Hummer H3 article. The H3T only a variation of the the H3, and not a substantially unique and separate vehicle. There will not be further generations or new developments to this model in the future. The H3 "pickup truck" content can easily be explained within a section of the H3 article and thus making one H3 article a comprehensive source with more complete information. Thanks, CZmarlin (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref the article for the CMax transmissions alternatives

There was a Constantly variable (CVT) alternative offered for a while with the 1.6 Diesel Engine It was apparently a ZF Ford collaboration with a model number CFT 23 2.24.21.31 (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am inviting anyone with an interest or knowledge to provide suggestions for how best to organize articles on the Maserati Biturbo range, which will certainly grow much too large when all the cars are included. Currently certain obscure versions such as the Maserati Racing and Maserati 420 have standalone articles, which also seems at odds with our guidelines. Please feel free to join in here: Talk:Maserati Biturbo#Organizing.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A very helpful member of your project (Typ932) helped me identify two cars I photographed at the 2011 Rolling Sculpture Car Show in Ann Arbor, Michigan (an Alfa Romeo Spider "Duetto" and a Fiat X1/9 respectively). I took a handful of other photos at that same event that I was only able to categorize by make (and one I was completely unable to identify), so I thought that someone here might be able to categorize them more specifically and accurately than me. If you have any interest in having a look, here they are with their makes as their captions:

Thanks in advance for having a look and take care!

TFCforever (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done two. That leaves 9 for someone else. Happy ones. Charles01 (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm insufficiently certain to caption them, but the "unidentified" red number makes me think Alfa 33 for some reason, & I'd say the Cad is a '59. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The red job is a Manta Montage (later built in the UK as the UVA M6), a fairly good copy of the McLaren M6GT which was inexplicably relabelled the "Cody Coyote" for an American TV show called Hardcastle and McCormick. See article here.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I've updated the descriptions of all the images (and the few categories that haven't already been changed) to reflect your identifications. I'm also removing the identified cars from the gallery and will take a second look at the three remaining unidentified images. I really appreciate all your help, and I cannot say enough about the swiftness and helpfulness of your collective response as a WikiProject. All the best! TFCforever (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been able to figure out the last three: the Cadillac is a 1959, the Edsel is a 1959 Ranger, and the Bentley is a 1949 Mark IV. Thanks again for all your help! TFCforever (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Make that a Mark VI (IMHO) and your "Ford hot rod" is a Chev! Eddaido (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Can something similar be done with size? For instance this battleship-size Lanchester or, for that matter, a matching-scale Bugatti Royale (like trying to steer a cathedral they say)

• Lanchester 40 6178cc phaeton 1925

and see if you can appreciate the difference in scale between these two cars Humber and a bonsai Jowett which in a photograph cannot be recognized.

• Snipe and race-goers

again just a thought. Eddaido (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I know this may be a subject previously dealt with and disposed of but in case it is of any use; I notice some editors are completely unaware of the selling prices of cars they are commenting on. For example in the era of the £100 car (Ford Morris etc) there were new cars available costing upwards of twenty times the price, much more - the same thing happens today.

It would be possible to construct a table of the price each year of the most basic car (say a Ford) in the home market of manufacturing countries. Then perhaps the most expensive Cadillac would be 15 Model Ts?, the most expensive Rolls-Royce 12 Ford Populars? The most expensive Mercedes? (ratios intended to be meaningless). More complicated than Mars Bars but once a table was set up for each manufacturing country it would remain a valid basis for comparison. It would point unerringly to the intended market segment. Just a thought. Eddaido (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be wary of being so specific, because price would vary by year, trim, market, & exchange rate, just to name a few obvious ones. If you can price roughly contemporary cars, tho... (Which I tried to do, frex here.) IMO, a rough comparison is close enough to get a sense of scale. Readers today will know what the cheapest cars & most expensive cars are, even if not the actual prices, & will be able to locate the subject car in market & time accordingly. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Trekphiler's comment about trim is a good one - the UK's best selling car in 2010 was the Ford Fiesta, but the car costs from £9,495 to £16,245 depending on engine and trim. Also WP:NOPRICES means that it is very rare for a car article to quote a price, and quite often when it is quoted it is in contravention of the no prices policy because the price is quoted without good reason. Finally I just don't see the point of it. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the exact price is not really needed. But it useful to know which group a car falls into - economy, mid-range, high-end and "if you need to ask then you can't afford it". Otherwise it's not really fair to compare a Ford Fiesta with a Bentley (one wins on fuel economy, the other wins on luxury).  Stepho  talk  10:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The price info is only needed for extreme cases, like very high price or very low budget car for example Tata Nano, Ferrari FXX and so on.. I dont think we need any table for that, those cases can be explained in the main article. -->Typ932 ^T·C 11:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Coverage of Ford pickups is presently distributed between a very large F-series article and seemingly difficult-to-justify, poor-quality standalone articles on certain submodels of the F-150. All interested parties please read and comment on the merger proposal. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am having to bring this concerned list up here as in the past weeks, I had to deal with IP editors who wish to include a modified Lotus Exige there and engage in edit warring without any form of discussion and an user who wanted the list to be in its current state, which is why I am bringing up the issue here.

The current state of the list consists of unsourced entries as well as an indiscriminate comparison of every modern sportscars' acceleration times. After leaving a cite mark, I have tried to remove them after having a leaving a cite mark, as a result they got reverted by various IP editors who wish to include their dream car as well as I attempted to shorten the entry to tighten the criteria for entries, that said editor reverted my edit stating that there is no need to shorten the list, he stated that if it was reduced to size, it would be more like an article than a list when I stated to him that under 4 second is easily achievable by the majority of modern $150k sports cars so is less than 13 seconds.

Can I ask how this list can be improved, surely not in this current state. Donnie Park (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see an AfD started to determine just how keen these IP editors are on this particular subject. Additionally as acceleration is not a particularly useful real world startistic except as you have hinted at in some form of Top Gear fans dream list. An AfD debate can bring out various issues about this particular article, particularly as it appear to been compased as an WP:OR exercise. An AfD debate should be able to determine the article enclopedic value, if any. --Falcadore (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The list is now been nominated for AfD. Donnie Park (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We need more opinions there, so peeps could give their votes in the deletion page-->Typ932 ^T·C 04:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The truck in the foreground of Commons:File:Seattle - Pigeon Point neighborhood 06.jpg: I'm pretty sure it's a 1960s Ford truck of some sort, but it's prominent enough in the photo that more precise ID would be very welcome. Please edit there accordingly (and add any relevant category). - Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an F150 third or fourth generation.  Stepho  talk  01:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Rough guess, a '65. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say Ford truck enthusiasts, this is a GM product! A first generation (1960–1966) C/K design, and it is a GMC version. There is a nice set of pictures for a virtual Chevy clone here from 1966. Please examine the top rear of the cab, a distinctive feature to help identify that this is a GM pickup. Moreover, the GMC versions used a V6 engine, and that is the insignia on the front side of the hood. A close up to match the V6 emblem on this GMC truck is [2] CZmarlin (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Broken link, I think you meant here. But I'm not a US truck expert, so I'll defer to you.  Stepho  talk  07:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Stepho-wrs for fixing the link! Here is an even better shot of the emblem used on GMCs of that era. A front left view of this pickup here. The design was introduced in 1964 for the light-duty GMC pickups (the previous years had a wrap-around windshield creating a dogleg, see here). However, I am also not up on the differences among the more subtle changes among the 1964, 1965, and 1966 designs to nail down the exact model year of this truck. CZmarlin (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to a request here, I added {{convert|13|-|21|mpgus|L/100 km|abbr=on}} this. It gives what I find (& I imagine others, too) is a peculiar L/100km range: 13–21 mpg_‑US (18–11 L/100 km)... Logical & mathematically accurate, perhaps, but peculiar even so. Is there a fix? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I might be looking right at it, but I'm not seeing what's peculiar. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't find a range of 18 to 11 odd? I noticed it right away... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, high MPG means low L/100km - logical but weird looking when the lower L/100km number comes second. I will ask the guys at the template what can be done.  Stepho  talk  23:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Good news - there is already a discussion on this at Template talk:Convert#Reciprocal conversions.  Stepho  talk  07:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment - why even specify the second parameter? If you leave it blank it will do both imperial mpg and litres per 100 km, meaning you don't exclude those of us who use imperial gallons. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody still use imperial gallons? I thought the US stayed with antiquated units and practically the rest of the world (including the UK) moved to litres?  Stepho  talk  07:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"why even specify the second parameter? If you leave it blank it will do both imperial mpg and litres per 100 km" I did not know that. Thx.

As for why, it was just a sample, so I saw no need for both.

"Good news" It is indeed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There are some real imperial/metric oddities in the UK. It sells fuel in litres, but economy is universally quoted in MPG and distance is measured in miles, but most other length measurements, weights and volumes are metric. Beer is sold in pints - and those are proper 20 fl.oz. pints not the puny US 16 fl.oz. ones! Everyone in the UK understands what 40mpg is, but if you said 7 l/100km they would stare at you with a blank look. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And so doest thou remain in the abode of the 16th century :) So I guess we just have to handle it.  Stepho  talk  10:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)