Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 49

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 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

It's crazy that a list of defunct manufacturers is kept at List of automobile manufacturers of the United States when List of defunct automobile manufacturers of the United States exists. That's a maintenance nightmare. I suggest that the former list is merged into the latter. Or probably better still, deleted outright as it is almost entirely unsourced. Repurpose the first list as current only with a link to the defunct list. SpinningSpark 00:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can see that, the main article to be only active companies and just put a header and change the opening statement appropriately. It makes sense that List of automobile manufacturers of the United States would only have current companies. The defunct article is missing a lot of sources, but it just needs some work, I probably wouldn't trim too hard as some of these are over 100 years dead and hard to source, but it needs attention. Adding the recently defunct under the main company (Mercury under Ford, Oldsmobile under GM, for instance) doesn't bother me so much, but I could go either way on these more recent defunct companies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• A case could be made for one article with current and defunct lists and another case could be made for separate articles but the current situation of doing it both ways is not good. A simple solution is to delete the defunct list from List of automobile manufacturers of the United States and add the alternate article in each article's 'See also' list. I have already done the 'See also' part but haven't done the delete.  Stepho  talk  21:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed that we have many redundant articles about specific vehicles that I think should be merged. One example where the problem is the worst has to easily be with the articles related to the Chrysler minivans. Every different model of Chrysler minivan has it's own article, even when the only differences between the two is just trim and options, each with their content forked from each other with varying quality. I proposed last year that all these articles be merged into a central article named Chrysler minivans with a specific article for each generation, which I created. However my efforts were blocked and reverted, so in the end, the minivans just now have even more redundant articles! I created a request for merge on the Dodge Caravan page which has gained unanimous support. However I learned from that experience that this isn't something I should undertake alone, it should be a community effort, especially since it will require merging over ten articles into one in a short period of time. Here is what I propose:
1. Chrysler minivans being the parent article to offshoot articles for each generation: Chrysler minivans (S), Chrysler minivans (AS), Chrysler minivans (NS), Chrysler minivans (RS), Chrysler minivans (RT) and Chrysler Pacifica (RU). The Pacifica article can be named "Pacifica" since that's the only name it's sold under worldwide.
2. Dodge Caravan and Chrysler Voyager will be merged into the Chrysler minivans article.
3. Chrysler Town & Country (1941–1988) should be moved to just "Chrysler Town & Country", and that article's minivan content should be condensed into a section that links to the Chrysler minivans article.
4. Plymouth Voyager should be reduced to a short disambiguation article noting the the Plymouth Voyager nameplate has been both used as a full size van that is a rebadged Dodge Tradesman, which links to the Tradesman article, and then links to the generation of Chrysler minivans which were sold as the Plymouth Voyager: Chrysler minivans (S), Chrysler minivans (AS) and Chrysler minivans (NS).
5. Volkswagen Routan is merged into Chrysler minivans (RT), which already has a dedicated section to the Routan which is most of the main Routan's article content forked and condensed.
6. Lancia Voyager is merged into Chrysler minivans (RT).
7. Chrysler TEVan is merged into Chrysler minivans (AS).

All of these article's non-redundant content has already been collected into the articles about the respective generations. All we really have to do is merge them together. Just when I try to do it by myself it immediately gets undone by an editor outside of the project with the rationale of "You can't merge all these articles together by yourself, go to the talk page." It's sat dormant for a year now but I still want to do it because it's for the best of the project. Do I have the support of other editors to make this move? Reattacollector (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's a response for each proposal in the list

1. No need to rename page. There already is a Chrysler Pacifica disambiguation page.
2. Strongly Oppose Too much elimination of content.
3. Strongly Oppose The article name is due to the model recognition of the minivan, and see #2 for the latter.
4. Oppose Can see point on expanding content elsewhere on full-size version (if anywhere), but too much elimination of content
5. On the fence rather than merging, this duplication of content can be fixed through editing as well.
6. No need Article already redirects here and nearly no mention whatsoever into content.
7. Oppose While in strong need of attention, this article is of its own scope and needs to stand alone.

While there are there things that can use attention, the central Chrysler minivans should be made smaller, with content added to the offshoot articles. Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager have related, but not identical, model histories, justifying keeping them.

To counter, I want to clarify that I have no plans to change the Chrysler Pacifica (RU) article. It's fine the way it is. You're making the loss of content out to be far worse than it will be. Not only is a lot of content from the two Voyager and Town & Country articles just copied from the Dodge Caravan articles, but all of the content in the articles worth preserving is already present in Chrysler minivans (S), Chrysler minivans (AS), Chrysler minivans (NS), Chrysler minivans (RS) and Chrysler minivans (RT). There are so many redundant articles for this topic that I'm even having a hard time keeping track of the consensus right now. The merge proposal has gotten four supports on the Dodge Caravan talk page, one oppose on the Town & Country talk page and one oppose here. Reattacollector (talk) 64.85.150.114 (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There are some other redundant car articles I want to propose be merged together. Like with the issue with the Chrysler minivan articles in the section above, all these articles are for different versions of the same vehicle, and I don't believe they are different enough from each other to be notable to have their own article. 1. Mercury Villager be merged into Nissan Quest.
2. Ford Five Hundred and the content for the Third-generation in the Mercury Montego article be merged into Ford Taurus (fifth generation).
3. Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis and Ford LTD Crown Victoria articles should be merged into one article. (the Lincoln Town Car is different enough from the other two to still have it's own standalone article}.
4. Plymouth Acclaim be merged into Dodge Spirit.
5. Plymouth Laser and Eagle Talon be merged into Mitsubishi Eclipse.
6. Dodge Colt be de facto merged into the Mitsubishi Galant and Mitsuibshi Mirage articles.
7. Eagle Summit be merged into Mitsubishi Mirage.
8. Mercury Marquis be merged into Ford LTD.
9. The content from the 1994-97 section of the Chrysler New Yorker article be merged into Chrysler LHS.
10. The content from the Mercury Cougar article be merged into the articles for the respective generations of Ford Mustang and Ford Thunderbird that each Cougar generation was based off of.
11. Mercury Tracer be merged into Ford Laser and Ford Escort (North America).
12. Merkur XR4Ti be merged into Ford Sierra.
13. Merkur Scorpio be merged into Ford Scorpio.
14. Eagle Vision be merged into Chrysler Concorde.
15. Mercury Mountaineer be merged into Ford Explorer.
16. Mercury Mariner and Mazda Tribute be merged into Ford Escape.
17. Oldsmobile Bravada be merged into Chevrolet S-10 Blazer and Chevrolet Trailblazer.
18. GMC Envoy, Buick Rainier, Isuzu Ascender and Saab 9-7x be merged into Chevrolet Trailblazer.
19. Pontiac G8 be merged into Holden Commodore (VE).
20. Pontiac Sunfire, Buick Skyhawk and Oldsmobile Firenza be merged into Chevrolet Cavalier.
21. Pontiac Sunbird be merged into Chevrolet Monza and Chevrolet Cavalier.
22. Buick Somerset be merged into Buick Skylark.
23. Chevrolet Lumina APV, Pontiac Trans Sport, Pontiac Montana, Oldsmobile Silhouette, Chevrolet Uplander, Saturn Relay, Buick Terraza and Opel Sintra be merged into central "General Motors U Minivan" articles for each generation.
24. Dodge Omni 024 be merged into Dodge Charger (L-body).
25. Mercury M-Series be merged into Ford F-series 26. Lincoln Mark LT be merged into Ford F-Series (eleventh generation)

What is the project's opinions about these potential moves? Reattacollector (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I would oppose nearly all of that. When I've seen articles where a related car has been merged in, the "merge" is often merely a separate section added in at the end. What's the purpose in that? And if the content is integrated throughout it becomes difficult to find the details on any specific model. I'd prefer to see more articles that are smaller and easier for the reader to navigate than have a single massive, disorganized one. Much of what you're proposing would be very confusing to the reader, in my opinion. Some of those GM cars you mention each had differing powertrain options at different times and trying to explain all of that in one article would make the end result intolerable for anyone trying to find specific information, unless you had each one in its own section - and again, at that point it'd be easier to just leave the articles separate anyway. I took a look at the history on some of the ones listed; the fact that merges are getting undone by readers who didn't readily find the information they were seeking is evidence of this, and good reason to err on the side of clarity even if it means a degree of redundancy and/or the existence of more and smaller articles.

(I actually proposed a merge recently regarding your #3 above, but to merge Ford LTD Crown Victoria into Ford LTD (Americas) because the way both are written it is unclear which model years are covered where - but that's a separate discussion.) Olds 403 (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a better way to approach this would be to instead focus on the articles where the cars are almost or completely identical both cosmetically and mechanically, where the differences are between the two cars are so trivial it's hard to justify the models having separate pages, especially if there is already an emerging standard for similar articles to be merged. Thus I propose a condensed list: 1. Mercury Villager be merged into Nissan Quest, only difference between the two is the grille, badges and trim, neither offers and special capabilities that the other doesn't. They can be served by one article, ala Eurovans.
2. Ford LTD Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis be merged into Ford Crown Victoria. For the majority of their run the only differences between the two models were trim and some exterior modifications. And the LTD Crown Victoria is already so strongly associated with just being called the "Crown Victoria" I think it having its own separate article is more confusing to readers.
3. Plymouth Acclaim be merged into Dodge Spirit. Only difference between the two is the grille and taillights and some interior trim. Plus there is already a pattern of the non-notable Plymouth models being merged into the article for the Dodge, for example Plymouth Sundance has been merged into Dodge Shadow, Plymouth Horizon has been merged into Dodge Omni and the Plymouth Breeze article has been merged into Chrysler Cirrus. There is nothing there that can't be easily and neatly covered in the Spirit article.
4. Plymouth Laser and Eagle Talon be merged into Mitsubishi Eclipse, all three cars are almost 100% identical, only difference is the front bumper styling and some trim.
5. Eagle Summit be merged either into Dodge Colt or Mitsubishi Mirage. The Summit is just the Colt/Mirage sold under a different name, not notable enough for it's own article.
6. Either merge Ford Cougar into Mercury Cougar or merge the content from the 1999-02 generation section of the Mercury Cougar article into the Ford Cougar article. They are the exact same vehicle just sold under a different name depending on the market. Consider how the section for the third-generation Ford Escape just links readers to the Ford Kuga article.
7. Merge Mercury Tracer into the Ford Laser and Ford Escort (North America) articles, the first-generation Tracer is just a Laser sold under a different name and the second and third generations are just Escorts with slight cosmetic modifications.
8. Merge Merkur XR4Ti into Ford Sierra, the XR4Ti is just the Sierra imported into America and sold under a different name.
9. Merge Merkur Scorpio into Ford Scorpio, it is just the Ford Scorpio sold under a different name.
10. Merge Mercury Mountaineer into Ford Explorer, both vehicles are nearly identical, Mountaineer just has slightly different exterior styling and more standard features. The article for the Mazda Navajo, a similar badge-engineered Explorer clone, has already been merged into the Ford Explorer article.
11. Merge Mazda Tribute and Mercury Mariner into Ford Escape, all three vehicles are completely identical aside from trim and front fascias, the Ford Escape article already covers both variants. Another user proposed this merge months ago, it's still under consideration.
12. Let the Chevrolet Trailblazer, GMC Envoy, Saab 9-7X and Oldsmobile Bravada have their own articles. Merge Isuzu Ascender into GMC Envoy since the Ascender is almost identical to the Envoy aside from slight cosmetic alterations, similar to how Isuzu Hombre has been merged into Chevrolet S-10.. Merge Buick Rainier into Oldsmobile Bravada, as the Rainier is literally the Bravada being remarketed under the Buick brand due to the Oldsmobile brand being discontinued.
13. Merge Pontiac G8 into the Holden Commodore (VE) article, as it is simply the VE Commodore sold under a different name.
14. Merge Buick Somerset into Buick Skylark. This should be a no-brainer, the Somerset was the two door version of the Skylark marketed under a different name starting in 1985 until it was merged back into the Skylark line for 1988. Not notable enough for it's own article, can be best be covered by a mention in the Skylark article.
Reattacollector (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• A vast long list? Well I'm sure some will sneak through, just because no-one will have the time to check all of them.

8. oppose Merging Merkur XR4Ti into Ford Sierra, because "the XR4Ti is just the Sierra " is quite untrue. The XR4i, the high-performance V6-engined Sierra was quite a different beast from the jellymould. I'd be OK with merging the Merkur into an article on the Sierra XR4i, but we don't currently have one.

I've no opinion on the others, as they're US cars and I know little about those. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there's two separate things at hand here (or should be, at least). Proposing that many page merges at once is a lot to consider and I don't think there'll be enough specific input on most to gain a consensus.

However, the heretofore-unmentioned part of the discussion would seem to be this: what should be the "default" in cases like this? Can we apply a general standard one way or the other?

To that point, I'd propose a default of keeping articles separate, for the reasons I noted above. I see little merit in overturning what seems to be the present status quo for little (if any) practical gain.

There is one of your items that I'd agree with off-hand, and that's Buick Somerset. The car is more or less a brief name change within the Skylark's lineage and for that reason I think a merge makes sense. I'll comment on the Somerset talk page to keep the discussions orderly. Olds 403 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy in principle with merging "it is just the Leyland Wombat sold under a different name." but I looked at the first of those and it wasn't. These need to be checked individually, by someone who knows that model. A blanket OK would be a bad idea. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the default should be that the articles should be left separate, and a case must be made for merging. We don't want this being stretched to ridiculous lengths to where we have to argue why the Lexus ES should have an article separate from Toyota Camry. The reason why I proposed such a laundry list is because I believe I am confronting a problem that has been left unchecked for far too long, or possibly never properly confronted, so thus there is a lot of catching up to do. I also want to point out that article quality plays a significant part in why I am pursuing this. As is often the case when we have an article for a car model that is just a lightly modified, badge-engineered version of a more prominent model, there isn't enough unique information/characteristics about it to constitute an article about the car, so they are either just stubs (like Isuzu Ascender) or they're poorly written articles that are just cobbled together from content copied from the more prominent model's article (see Mercury Sable and Plymouth Voyager for particularly egregious examples). That's the main rationale as to why I want to merge the Chrysler minivan articles together. Also, the articles for the badge engineered clones are often poorly maintained. While editors are maintaining and improving the article for the main model, the clone's article just sits dormant, often for years at a time. (Look at the edit history for Isuzu Ascender or Plymouth Acclaim). So we have a bunch of poorly written dormant articles for vehicles that are just a version of a more prominent model with a different grille and taillights that were created by just copying the content from the more prominent model's article as it appeared years ago. At that point why not just merge them and have one article? Though I also want to add that there may be cases where it's the opposite, and the clone's article is decently written and it's notable enough to stand on it's own: while I voted to merge Pontiac G8 into Holden Commodore (VE) (I'm not the one who originally proposed it), opposition has emerged arguing that since the G8 has developed a cult following among muscle car enthusiasts in the United States, that gives it enough notability to have its own article. Reattacollector (talk)(via public computer) 64.85.150.114 (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Lexus vs. Toyota are a good example of articles that clearly shouldn't be merged. In particular, because they're sold in the same areas. These are two marques that are distinguished to distinguish them (and many other details). They're not just an identical vehicle which collects a more locally-known label, like the Merkur & Taunus or Opel vs. Vauxhall. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree on the blanket OK of merge proposals being a bad idea. Of the 26, there are only about 3-4 that make a good case for merging; the goal of most other proposals can be handled through some editing attention. (There are a couple of proposals that might work out better a different way than proposed, as well). This whole topic does bring up the topic of badge engineering and how it is done between automakers. While merging some articles makes sense, consideration needs to be taken for the combined product. (the example of the Lexus ES and Toyota Camry is perfect here). A stub with a half-dozen lines of text is a better candidate for a merge than an article with a half-dozen subsections with several infoboxes. In a greater context, this also runs the risk of eliminating a great deal of articles related to specific automakers (i.e., Mercury, Merkur, Plymouth, Dodge, Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile); in the European automotive industry, badge engineering is used just as much (if not more openly) than in North America; in Wikipedia, there is no mass call to eliminate content of related automobiles (VW/Audi/SEAT/Skoda, Opel/Vauxhall/Holden/Chevrolet, Peugeot/Citroen, Fiat/Lancia/Alfa Romeo, Rolls-Royce/Bentley).

Going through the list, here's an (quick) opinion of each one:

1. Neutral/Low Priority While highly related to each other, neither article is a stub and both vehicles have different model histories (Mercury Villager was all-new, Nissan Quest replaced two other vehicles and remained in production for two further generations)
2. Strongly Oppose The Five Hundred article is much more descriptive of the car; the Taurus article is largely derived from other Ford Taurus articles, describing revisions to car. Different marketing for Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego, as the former replaced Ford Crown Victoria while latter sold alongside Mercury Grand Marquis.
3. Strongly Oppose LTD Crown Victoria into Crown Victoria might be worth discussing, but not Crown Victoria into Grand Marquis (article length, different market position following 1992 redesign)
4. Support Would fit together well with proper editing attention (predecessor Plymouth Reliant is example)
5. Oppose All three vehicles have slight technical differences from one another, with a different model history. Suggest a merge of Plymouth Laser into Eagle Talon, though.
6. Absolutely Not Three very complicated model families, without any sub-articles present.
7. Strongly Oppose Moving Eagle Summit content into much larger Mitsubishi Mirage article makes it disappear. Propose moving Eagle Vista (stub) into Dodge Colt.
8. Oppose only the final two generations (1979-1982, 1983-1986) have direct commonality. Suggest attention towards making sub-articles of Ford LTD (Americas) in future and addressing content this way.
9. Oppose Suggest adapting content from New Yorker article to Chrysler LHS article (the latter outnumbers the former nearly 5 to 2).
10. Strongly oppose Mercury Cougar has a model history involving several Ford (and Mercury) vehicles. This page is not redundant and allows for the model history to be understood in a single place.
11. Slightly oppose While later examples are nearly as similar to the Ford Escort as the Dodge Spirit/Plymouth Acclaim, the first-generation Mercury Tracer marks the first use of the Ford Laser in North America and is a Mercury vehicle not marketed by Ford.
12. Strongly oppose While derived from the Ford Sierra, the Merkur XR4Ti underwent modifications for North America, the sole market of Merkur; the difference between the cars is the scope of the article.
13. Oppose (In part, the result already exists on the Ford Scorpio article); the Merkur Scorpio article can be reworked instead
14. Neutral While indeed highly related, the Eagle Vision doesn't share a model history with the Concorde, as it was effectively replaced by the Chrysler 300M; leaving the article standing (and not questioning the Dodge Intrepid article either) is the best course of action in the long run.
15. Oppose While highly related, the Ford Explorer article is at the point of needing to be split up; a merger is not a good idea there. The 2006-2009 Mercury Mountaineer is also related to the Lincoln Aviator, in terms of some content.
16. Oppose While sharing commonality with the Ford Escape, the Mariner and Tribute are marketed in different export locales. All three have a slightly different model history; while the Escape is currently in production, the Tribute is the only one of the trio that had a predecessor and successor.
17. Strongly oppose A one into two split is impractical. While visibly similar, the Oldsmobile Bravada offered several different mechanical features from its Chevrolet/GMC counterparts during its production. Also one of the first US-market luxury SUVs.
18. Strongly oppose A four-into-one merger risks eliminating too much content; the GMT360 page already exists. I can agree with the Ascender/Envoy merger, but I'm not totally sure (yet) on the Bravada/Rainier merger.
19. Strongly oppose While Pontiac G8 is common with its Holden Commodore counterpart, merging it back in does not make sense not from its popularity, but because one would have also have to consider other counterparts of the Commodore as well, including the Vauxhaull VXR8, Chevrolet Lumina, and Chevrolet Omega; this would needlessly complicate the article.
20. Strongly oppose While several of the GM J-car articles can use some attention, none are stubs and using its counterparts to expand the Chevrolet Cavalier article could make it needlessly long (there is already a GM J platform article)
21. Slightly oppose I do suggest a different merger, however. Pontiac Sunfire into Pontiac Sunbird; however, the former nameplate is fairly recognizable on its own, so I want to leave that up for discussion.
22. Support (under suggestion) I completely agree for the need, but instead of a merger, this is an ideal place to make a sub-article for Buick Skylark. Instead, move Buick Somerset to "Buick Skylark (1986-1991)", with Buick Somerset content as a subsection
23. Unsure of explanation Beyond expanding the GM U platform page, I was not sure what was proposed. The only mergers I would suggest would be Chevrolet Uplander into Chevrolet Venture; the 1990-1996 "Dustbuster" vans are completely different from the 1997-2005/2005-2009 vans.
24. Support The articles are a good fit for putting together. While the Omni 024 came first, I'm not sure which nameplate is better recognized; I plan on leaving that up to discussion.
25. Mostly Oppose While the Mercury M-Series vehicles directly appear as clones, the article is of a different scope (explaining the reason behind its production). Along with offering space that is not afforded in the very long Ford F-Series space, there are Mercury M-series vehicles beyond pickup trucks.
26. Oppose There is a stand-alone article for the much rarer Lincoln Blackwood pickup; there are also two generations of the Mark LT (the second generation was marketed in Mexico)

Overall, I don't think going so heavy-handed is the best idea (especially in terms of trying to build consensus). Going through the articles and editing things out could accomplish a lot more. --SteveCof00 (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Chevrolet Volt, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I am Christin, reaching out on behalf of Turo. I am looking for someone who is willing to review the proposed edits I suggested on the Turo page in the link below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turo_(car_rental)#Updating%20this%20page

Thank you

Christin at Turo (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the lead image for the Electric car article going on at Talk:Electric car#Images that look like electric cars or car cars. Comments welcome there.  Stepho  talk  08:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I discovered this thing, WP:WikiProject Volkswagen Group / {{User WikiProject Volkswagen Group}} / Category:WikiProject Volkswagen Group members -- it only has one member, no talk page, no project banner, no category, no activity since mid-2016 -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This UK government body seems like an important player in the field of autonomous vehicles, but it doesn't get a mention on Wikipedia. I don't know how much could be written about it, but there is likely at least a paragraph - where would be the place to put it? Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be mentioned at Autonomous car or Vehicular automation. But you need to have notability and references to back it up.  Stepho  talk  20:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that a bunch of new car images are credited to User:Bull-Doser, who has been blocked from Wikipedia since 2012. His account on Wikimedia Commons is still active and he's been uploading a bunch of images there (see [1]), then getting someone else (or maybe his own sockpuppet) to add them here. For example, Volkswagen Jetta#/media/File:2019 Volkswagen Jetta au SIAM 2018.jpg, an awful front-view shot with reflection. Should we report this to an admin? Or just assess image quality case-by-case like we normally do? --Vossanova ^o< 20:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to report it to an admin since Bull-Doser has a strong history of trying to evade his bans, which has included multiple sockpuppet accounts. Reattacollector (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I just posted about this on the Administrators' noticeboard. In case anyone else from here wants to chime in. Reattacollector (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Admin informed me that his block is only valid for the English Wikipedia, and that he is free to contribute to the Wikimedia commons as long as he is following the rules. But I think it would be worthwhile to be vigilant to see if this is leading to another round of ban evasion, which Bull-Doser has notoriously down over a number of years. See if any sockpuppets are adding the images to articles, etc. Reattacollector (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Reattacollector: A bit late but he been blocked from the English Wikipedia since October 2012. As the admin said he can contribute to Wikimedia Commons. It been about 6 years and he hasn't really been causing problems. Users have been using his images on articles. He often the first to photograph a new or facelifted automobile in America which proven useful until we get more higher quality images. I viewed thousands of Bull-Doser's images and he still takes bad ones but to be honest, he has improved overall. --Vauxford (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Plug-in electric vehicle, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK the Mondeo Mk3 was FWD only and yet it is listed as AWD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mondeo_(second_generation)

Did such a car exist? If not I would propose to delete the mentioning of AWD

--PhilippDavid (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The normal criteria is that all claims must be self evident or require some supporting evidence - usually in the form of references. No evidence means it can be deleted. See WP:REF.  Stepho  talk  22:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The German-language article doesn't mention AWD for the 2000 Ford Mondeo. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you all think of using the term "phase" to describe a model code change (with a significant update) within a generation of a model? See for example Porsche 991. I bring this up because of Dodge Viper, which 3 years ago used both terms but since has replaced all references to "generation" with "phase", which I think is overkill. --Vossanova ^o< 18:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Describing clean sheet designs as phases seems wrong, I don't find it particularly objectionable within a generation but I think "20XX Update" is better. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Normal usage is generations means radically different changes, often both mechanically and in looks. Within generations we get face lifts where it is just minor tweaks to the design. Never heard phases used for either of those cases.  Stepho  talk  21:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I would just keep with whatever general wording most of the sources are using. In the case of the 991.2, they're comparing to a mid-generation facelift, but say its exceptional because the exterior looks almost the same, unlike a typical (non-Porsche) facelift, and the engine is completely different, unlike a typical facelift. Explaining all this to the reader is a lot higher priority than Wikipedia issuing a judgement whether something is or isn't a new generation. Just describe the changes as changes, don't call them features or upgrades or sandbagging or downgrades. Just changes. Cite in-text sources' opinions on what it amounts to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

mostly all of the draft of wiki automobile was from @70.51.203.56: im just shock, I fix a lot of his category issues and some of them are ready for main article? like this one Draft:Tesla Model 4. User:49.148.189.247 03:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Is the British Jaguar I-Pace an SUV as Jaguar[2] and the British press[3][4] are describing it, or a mid-size liftback as User:Michge[5] describes it? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a liftback by any stretch of the imagination. It would need a longer trunk for that. I might be to willing to call it a hatchback, it's not much taller and has the proportions, but I see no source for that. The sources all call it a SUV, it's going to be marketed as a SUV, I see no reason to refer to it in the article as other than SUV. --Pc13 (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This question wasn't asked in a neutral fashion. That said, the non-neutral request doesn't change my opinion. Basically if RS's call it an SUV we follow the sources. Springee (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

With no apparent support here for the change, I've changed it back. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Following RSs is well and good, but common sense shouldn't be thrown out the window. In my opinion, this is a mid-size cross-over SUV / liftback, if ever I've seen one. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Talbot Automobile Logo.png Does anyone know when Talbot began to use this logo or maybe even a logo with just the big T? Eddaido (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This October 1979 (see bottom) brochure is the oldest one Google images will give me. For what it's worth. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Would it be near enough for WP? Eddaido (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Depends on what you want to establish, right ? — I think it convincingly proves this logo design was used as early as that — It followed the PSA Group purchase of Chrysler Europe for a single dollar in 1978, so it couldn't have been much earlier either. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a reboot of a request / proposal that I made on the talk page of Infobox automobile on 22 February 2018.

Worldwide sales of SUVs grew from 5 million units in 2000 to 20 million in 2015 and are forecast to hit 42 million units by 2031, See: SUVs Become the Largest and Fastest-Growing Automotive Segment in 2015 — so I originally proposed including three new parameters in the infobox automobile:

• Approach angle
• Departure angle
• Ground clearance

Subsequently — as the discussion unfolded — three things became clear:
1). Many more relevant parameters exist in the infobox Motorcycle, and / or in the infobox Weapon, but not available for cars and trucks,
2). Ground clearance, for example, currently is available in infobox Weapon, and
3). Other editors additionally requested parameter "track(s)".

To clarify the current status quo, I made below table — only the blue ( ! ) parameters are entirely new — all other are already available in at least one of the other two templates.

I hereby renew my request / proposal to expand the available parameters in the infobox Automobile, because I feel it is currently unnecessarily concise and restrictive. And of course the parameters should be understood to be optional. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way: * 2). @ current parameter 'Propulsion' in infobox auto is optional for non-wheeled vehicles only. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we should be reacting to you above or below the sample table. Feel free to paste this somewhere else if I guessed wrong about that. As far as what is available as an infobox line is concerned, the point to stress is that you don't need to use all the lines every time. You almost certainly shouldn't wish to. But that is not a reason to exclude a line simply because one has never set up an entry on a car where it was sufficiently important/interesting to include. We should not be in the business of trying to second-guess what will be relevant in entries we never had the knowledge/imagination/sources to set up ourselves.

On a specific thought I just had, I am a little troubled about Approach angle and Departure angle simply because in my corner of the planet (where the roads are terrible and getting worse, but townscapes and much of the countryside are rather flat) one never - or hardly ever - comes across the terms. Maybe if I'd ever been tempted by an SUV I wouldn't think that. But maybe the terms should be linked to a definition? Success Charles01 (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. I think it's most transparent to keep the discussion above the table — pun intended   :-)      And indeed — the optional nature of any additional parameters cannot be stressed enough, I think.

To summarize – should we read your post as a position ? If so, how would you describe it ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Q: "should we read your post as a position?"

A: I do not understand the question. But if you are canvassing votes, then I would describe my position as a vote for "do it / doe het". Please / aub.

Charles01 (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

♠I'd strongly favor adding these as optional, & I'm frankly surprised track (or tread) isn't standard now. It's in many (all?) the specs I've ever seen published. (It might need linking out, too, for those unfamiliar with it.)

♠I'd also favor adding some of the "missing" items, including turning radius, fuel capacity, & maybe others; I'm less sure about transmission, bore & stroke, & such, because they're very model- or option-dependent.

♠Linking to the articles for approach/departure angle would be good, & that's not an uncommon thing for infoboxes, so it shouldn't create problems. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I am, broadly speaking, in favor of adding more fields to the infobox.

The production number (XYZ,ABC units) should have been included a long time ago. It might make sense to position it between the model years and assembly field.

Adding more engine related fields wouldn't be helpful in my opinion. Cars with a lot of engine options already have a lengthy infobox. In addition Template:Infobox engine exists and covers those details. A change as to how engines should be added to the infobox might be better, e.g. when the article has a table that lists all engines or something similar just have the cliff notes version in the infobox. Aka Petrol engines: 4L–6.7L V8 (XYZhp–XZZhp).

Opposed to the idea of the unit_cost field. There is no good way to list prices that are relevant to the average reader because of region differences, different taxes, differing equipment levels and so on.

Seats could be useful, especially for models with an optional third row as with many SUV and minivans.

2A04:4540:904:F00:4423:4D70:A45:1A62 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The proposed engine fields belong in the corresponding engine article, to avoid clutter and duplication (especially when the car article and the engine article don't agree).

The production numbers field promises to be a minefield. Is it total number produced so far (a maintenance headache to update every month), list of subtotals per market, list of subtotals per year, list of subtotals per model/grade, etc. This is the job of the Sales section.  Stepho  talk  22:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sales section is equally a minefield. The production number for the infobox should perhaps only be added after production of a model, or generation of a model, has ended. The number should be of total production, all markets (RHD & LHD), all variants. A subtotal should only be allowed for notable sub models. As an example Ford made a total of 123456 F-150 (12th gen), of those 789 were a Raptor. Strict guidelines are needed so not every special edition gets added and causes clutter.

Totally agree that the proposed engine fields should not be added to the infobox. I thought this was adequately expressed with the sentence, apologies if it was not clear enough. 2A04:4540:906:5200:1893:877C:ECAB:8A44 (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the infoboxes side-by-side, it can show how the automobile infobox may have some room to grow. However, when it comes to some of the specific information (bore/stroke/ignition/compression ratio), I feel that this information is best accommodated by the engine-related infobox; we can click on a link to those specific articles to find that information. For the parameters about cost, I would say no, as automobile articles generally do not focus on pricing unless it is highly notable. Suspension, steering, and brake types might be parameters worth including alongside engine and transmission, though. As far as seating capacity, I would say yes (this infobox is used for many types of vehicles besides cars), along with payload capacity (while N/A for car articles, this would be a parameter relevant to other types of vehicles). Most of all, having a footnotes/ref parameter could make source-editing the infobox a LOT easier... --SteveCof00 (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability of Pricing / cost factors should not be underestimated — it was one of the crucial factors that made the Ford Model T the Car of the 20^th Century, and cost-cutting was equally crucial in historic design decisions, like the omission of a front stabilizer bar on the "Unsafe at Any Speed" Chevrolet Corvair, and the Ford Pinto's explosive fuel system vulnerabilities, etc. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anybody suggests pricing or cost should be omitted from the article entire, just from the infobox, which is not meant to make reading the article unnecessary. It's supposed to be useful for someone who wants to "hit the highlights", AIUI, in much the same way the C&D spec page (frex) does. A parameter for "available engines" should be mandatory (if it's not already...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a parameter for listing engines/linking them to related articles about them (the proper convention is to link the engine article to the vehicle article through that part of the infobox). As far as listing costs go, that is more of an unwritten rule, since WP is read globally, along with many automobile articles written about vehicles out of production. However, I can agree with the point with the notability of cost and design...that is best handled in article space, though. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It isn't always preferable to use a separate infobox for the engine, let alone devote a separate article to it. As things stand right now, an editor is barred the option to simply present the engine highlights in the vehicle's infobox, if they think this will provide the most favorable article layout / structure for it .. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Passengers and by row somehow. Something like 2, 2+2 or 2+3 (automobile), 2+2+3 (minivan), 2+3+2 (SUV). Using "+" might have problems with some old advertising.

Side note: I just heard "approach angle" on some TV ad in the last few days. Not a Jeep but I don't remember who. Sammy D III (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Parameter	Infobox
	Automobile	Motorcycle	Weapon – (Selection)
| name =	yes	yes	yes
| image =	yes	yes	yes
| image_size =	YES – but undocumented	—	yes
| alt =	missing	yes	yes
| caption =	yes	yes	yes
| aka =	yes	yes	—
| manufacturer =	yes	yes	yes
| parent_company	missing	yes
| origin = (country)	missing	—	yes
| production = (date(s))	yes	yes	yes
| model_years =	yes	—
| number = (production)	missing	—	yes
| unit_cost = (introduction and max sticker ?)	missing	—	yes
| variants =	missing	—	yes
| assembly =	yes	yes	—
| designer =	yes	—	yes
| design_date =	missing	—	yes
| class =	yes	yes	similar: "type"
| spec_label = (to specify a representative model)	missing	—	yes
| body_style =	yes	—	—
| layout =	yes	—	—
| passengers = (seats)	missing	—	yes
| platform =	yes	—	—
| related =	yes	yes	—
| engine =	yes	yes	yes
| bore_stroke =	missing	yes	—
| compression =	missing	yes	—
| top_speed =	missing	yes	yes
| power =	missing	yes	yes
| pw_ratio =	missing	—	yes
| torque =	missing	yes	—
| ignition =	missing	yes	—
| transmission =	yes	yes	yes
| frame =	missing	yes	—
| suspension =	missing	yes	yes
| steering =	missing	—	yes
| brakes =	missing	yes	—
| tires =	missing	yes	—
| propulsion = * 2)	yes	—	missing
| wheelbase =	yes	yes	—
| track(s) = (requested by another editor)	missing	—	—
| length =	yes	yes	yes
| width =	yes	yes	yes
| height =	yes	yes	yes
| clearance = (ground)	missing	—	yes
| approach_angle =	missing	—	—
| departure_angle =	missing	—	—
| weight =	yes	yes — dry and wet	yes
| dry_weight =	missing	yes	—
| wet_weight =	missing	yes	—
| payload_capacity =	missing	—	yes
| fuel_capacity =	missing	yes	yes
| oil_capacity =	missing	yes	—
| fuel_consumption =	missing	yes	—
| turning_radius =	missing	yes	—
| (vehicle) range =	missing	yes	yes
| predecessor =	yes	yes	—
| successor =	yes	yes	—
| spelling =	yes	yes	—
| footnotes / ref =	missing	yes	yes

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the correct kW/hp or hp/kW for car engines??

I've seen some sources online saying

1kW = 1.3hp

1kW = 1.341hp

1hp - 0.74kW

1hp = 0.7476kW

and at Toyota_Celica#Fifth_generation_(T180;_1989–1993) I saw this:

77 kW / 103 hp

What is the correct calculation for hp-to-kW and kW-to-hp, especially for articles on vehicles sold in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa where kW is widely used?

This is mainly for vehicles like Ford Laser, Ford Sierra, Toyota Tazz, Holden Commodore and Holden Astra which I want to ensure have correct hp/kW conversions, due to the measures used (South African motoring publications quote kW for most of their reviews, I've never seen them use hp).

I want to ensure things are accurate, but have no idea! --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem is "horse power" has more than one definition. I'm not talking about different ways to measure it (SAE Gross, Net etc). I mean the first Hp, as defined by James Watt was 745.66272W=1hp, (he defined it at 1hp = 550 lb*ft/s). The Gernmans had to mess it up by coming up with their own version 1=75kp*m/s=735.5W. At least they offered a hint and called it PS (horse strength) vs Hp. 1PS=0.986 Hp. So if you use PS then you should use 735.5 but if you want to use Hp then use 745.7. Springee (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right that HP, BHP, and PS are not the same. If you convert kW to HP it's a different answer than PS. HP and BHP are measured in critically different ways. BHP is an idealized measurement, typically at the crankshaft.

The best practice is this: {{cvt|1|kW}}. This is your answer: 1 kW (1.3 hp). Or 77 kW (103 hp). As long as you rely on {{Convert}}, and in most cases accept the defaults (engine displacement being the main exception), you'll be fine. The Convert template represents the consensus of tens of thousands of editors; it's used on over 900,000 pages. The default conversion target and default significant figures are generally reliable, and when they're wrong, it's usually best to raise it at Talk:Convert to fix it or find out why it's right. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Dennis, {{convert}} and {{cvt}} are the best way. Give it the number you have as kW, hp, bhp or PS and let it figure out the rest. Add the |order= parameter to display them in a different order. Interesting combos can be done like {{cvt|200|PS|kW hp}} to give 200 PS (150 kW; 200 hp).  Stepho  talk  21:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, the convert template works. It has one idiosyncracy to be aware of: a figure ending in "0" will produce odd results if you don't add the "0" sigfig: {{convert|200|kW|hp|0}} (& I"d add "abbrev", too: {{cvt|200|kW|hp|0|abbr=on}} or you may get odd plurals where they aren't appropriate). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:Convert might be a more appropriate place to raise concerns, as Talk:Convert redirects to the talk page for football conversions. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Per Horsepower, 1 hp = 745.7 watts, and 1 PS = 735.5 watts. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Personal transporter#Requested move 7 June 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the layout of information relating to hybrid and electric cars is unclear and could be made more readable, with less information being repeated. Many of these articles as marked as requiring attention and I think this is in part because the purpose of the pages can be interpreted in different ways. This is something that I want to clarify with the WikiProject, so that I and others can start improving the quality of these pages. These are:

• Electric Vehicle, which gives an overview of all types of vehicle that incorporate electrical power. This does not require modification, but could be updated to better reflect any changes to other pages.
• Hybrid Electric Vehicle, which says it covers all hybrid electric vehicles, but most of the article talks exclusively about automobiles, focusing on legislation and market. I would suggest that this article should remain balanced with other vehicles such as boats and trains. There is probably enough content to make a page on hybrid cars.
• Battery electric vehicle, which covers vehicles that only store energy in a battery, no ICE. This article gives a good overview of the different types of vehicles.
• Plug-in hybrid, which focuses on cars. This article is considered too long. Some of the environmental and subsidies information could be collated into one page, as this is mentioned on most pages.
• Plug-in electric vehicle, which covers battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. Talks about the advantages and disadvantages which are similar to those covered in electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid.
• Electric Car covers cars that run exclusively on electric power and is a sub-category of battery electric vehicles. This is a good quality article that does not require modification.
• Hybrid vehicle drivetrain, covers the way that a hybrid system may be implemented. This article is listed as having issues, and I believe should extend to mention the hybrid system architectures used on trains and ships.
• Mild Hybrid, which is a short article that discusses cars with this configuration, although there is not a separate page for full hybrid.
• Hybrid Vehicle, which covers hybrid systems that are not electric, as well as summarising the hybrid electric vehicle page and the hybrid vehicle drivetrain page.
• Electric vehicle battery, which focuses on the batteries used in hybrid and full-electric cars on the drivetrain. I believe this should also cover the batteries in all Battery electric vehicles.
• Automotive battery, which just covers the batteries used for starting, lighting and ignition. However, I think one might visit this page and expect to learn about all of the batteries that can be found in an automobile. Also, 48 Volt systems are coming in the future. Whilst at the moment they sit along side the 12 V 'Automotive battery' to provide a mild hybrid, eventually the 12 V battery will be phased out^[1]. These 48 V batteries do not fit into the high voltage definition of electric vehicle battery either.
• Environmental aspects of the electric car, which discusses the pros and cons of EVs over ICEs. Something that is covered on many of the pages above, so could instead be collated here.

As I hope this makes clear, there are a lot of articles on the topic, all of which have varying awareness of others. I'd appreciate community feedback as to which of these should be treated more as part of the Transport WikiProject, covering trains etc. in equal measure to cars, and which should just be about cars. I'd also appreciate help in removing the ambiguity as to the purpose of each page, then they can be bought up to a good standard quicker. Drumncars1996 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There's also Alternative fuel vehicle, which despite its name also describes electric vehicles (electricity isn't fuel!). --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion at [6] which editors may wish to comment on Lyndaship (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A couple of IPs have been changing all the dates at Hummer H2‎. It looks quite suspicious to me, so maybe someone from this WikiProject can have a look and see if the changes made during the last couple of days should all be reverted. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That's why references are essential - otherwise its your word against his word. I followed the references and they agree on model years 2003-2009 and the equivalent calendar years 2002-2009. If somebody changes it to disagree with the references then either they are wrong or they need to add supporting references. If their changes are not supported by references then you are free to revert them.  Stepho  talk  17:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Many more changes were made than just the start and end dates of production. Other dates were changed and don't have references in the article to support one value or the other. So, was the article full of wrong dates before, or is it full of wrong dates now? Gnome de plume (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't really know the correct value of some of those dates (implying that more references are needed). But since 103.18.8.187 changed referenced correct dates to incorrect dates then I would feel safe in bulk reverting whatever he did. 2600:1700:3f00:8020:3c09:a2eb:b878:f0c6 already reverted most of them, so I'd feel safer trusting his edits (although more references are still preferred). PS: 'Category:Cars introduced in 1999' was missed in the revert - should be 2002.  Stepho  talk  11:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please take a proper photo of the F90 M5? The photos at commons have poor angles and the photos of the car from IAA, 2017 are too smokey and poorly taken.U1Quattro (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Should Autozine be considered a reliable source? Link to the site - http://www.autozine.org/home.html# NealeFamily (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

His about page at http://www.autozine.org/About_AutoZine/Author.html says it all. "AutoZine is my personal car website established on September 1997. Throughout the years, AutoZine has been non-commercial at all - no sponsorship, no advertisement thus no income. In other words, I do it just for fun." In other words, it has no editorial oversight and we rely only on his personal goodwill and diligence. He seems to be pretty good at gathering facts but unfortunately we can't use him as a reference. In many ways its similar to my own website - many interesting facts (and we have both lived in Hong Kong) but still not a true reference.  Stepho  talk  11:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Stepho-wrs. It matches my conclusion based on a couple of comments in earlier discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_21#DSG trannies Autozine does little more than rewrite press materials and journalist reviews to suit the webmaster's point of view and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_27#Possible Wiki hoax on Bentley 4½ Litre which implies the site is unreliable In 2009 the claim appears at Autozine.org. I see it on a few other blogs but nothing reliable.. I actually like the sites contents and comments but as it draws from more reliable sources, it would be better to use them. The Autozine author refers to

The reports I wrote were based on the findings from different magazines, plus my own technical analysis, background information and opinion. I regularly read 10 or more magazines a month, so integrating them usually result in a more comprehensive view than just an individual magazine.

. Hopefully this will prove informative to Typ932 and Drachentötbär who were getting into a fairly terse debate. NealeFamily (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no proofs its unreliable site, its more reliable than user Drachentötbär added references, I have nothing more to say this thing, all is already said many times, but these two users keep insising it unreliable and only prrof they have its a blog (when it isnt actually). They keep removing it with no reason or adding worse references or adding tags unreliable. That site is more reliable than many other automotive sites. I dont know the reason they have attacked against that site, because there isnt any reason for that . If these two editors dont like that site, they should not remove or add worse referecnes or add unreliable tags to articles. If they have so much energy they could then add more reliable refs. This is just silly, really hard to understand why they dont learn when said what to do , they are like small kids. -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Any personal site is unreliable for Wikipedia purposes, no matter how well it's regarded by an editor. An enthusiast pretending to be a motoring journalist is still nothing more than an enthusiast. That's it really. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? they should not remove or add worse references or add unreliable tags to articles. If they have so much energy they could then add more reliable refs. basic idea in wikipedia editing is make articles better not worse, good reference is better than reference at all or "professional journalist" made unreliable reference , and not all personal sites are unreliable if you read wikipedia policy . "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

They were clear on why they were doing what they were doing. I don't see the problem. You can disagree with them, but no-one has supported your point of view up to this point. Drachentötbär was in fact making the effort of replacing a poor source with better ones where possible. WP:RS makes clear a motoring magazine (even if somewhat biased) is always preferable to a non-RS like a personal site. RS makes clear "self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", which means Autozine was being improperly used. There is more leniency for experts, but the Autozine webmaster admits he's not one. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I disagree if they add unreliable references (ref with wrong info) instead reference which has right info (see this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfa_Romeo_Giulia_TZ&type=revision&diff=846186544&oldid=845574347= ) (and this is the right info (same info as in autozine) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfa_Romeo_Giulia_TZ&type=revision&diff=846228873&oldid=846186544). They are so keen to replace these that they add bad references. Do you really think that someone here really supports these bad refs? -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If you think that the new reference has the "wrong" info, you can search another RS with the correct data. But if you say Autozine is an any way better than the new source from a Wikipedia perspective, I can only say in response that idea is wrong. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If the new reference has wrong info its worse than any type of reference with right info, its very simple to understand or is it?? . And if you noticed I replaced it with new ref with right info. There is really no idea to just replace autozine refs if you dont know what you are doing, it makes more harm than good -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Autozin, like any blog is generally a poor source. That doesn't mean it can't be used but that it's use should be very limited. I've been reading the guy's work for many years. Much of the material is subjective opinion presented as fact or is a generality being treated as an absolute truth. I'm not sure that Autozin should be included as a general "See also" for an article. It may be OK as a source for a non-controversial fact but not much else. I remember when many car forum discussions would cite Autozin. I suspect that was in large part because there aren't many good sources about technical automotive topics on the web. That the sort of thing that really lives in the world of specialty publishing/trade knowledge. Anyway, it shouldn't be blanket removed and we shouldn't replace it with low quality sources just to avoid Autozin. At the same time we really shouldn't rely on it as a source for anything that resembles expert opinion. Springee (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I conclude that Autozine is only worth using if there is nothing better, and even then, it is a use with care because the site does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. In particular WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:RSSELF. I think Springee's comments above nicely sum up the approach to take NealeFamily (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID providing external links to personal webpages like Autozine should be avoided and according to WP:SPS they are not acceptable as sources, there's no "acceptable if nothing better" or "acceptable for non-controversial facts". This would even apply if everything on the webpage was correct but Autozine is biased and the author even intentionally tells things which are not correct, like reporting 0-60 mph times from magazines which do not measure them, so even for an unacceptable source it's lacking in quality, not worth making an exception from the guidelines. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Drachentötbär. Because we are dealing with a living person can you back up your statement the author even intentionally tells things which are not correct with a reference. NealeFamily (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of pages (for example the Lamborghini Countach and Ferrari F40 pages) on this site which quote 0-60 mph times from Auto, Motor und Sport and Quattroroute who use kph and not mph. http://www.autozine.org/911/911_7.htm shows that he once tried to handle such times the exact way but he obviously decided against it on other pages. He also leaves other errors on his site he was notified about. It's his personal webpage, he's free to do whatever he wants there to make himself and others happy but it doesn't work as a source for Wikipedia.Drachentötbär (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on that - the inaccuracies, Autozine shouldn't be used as a reference as it fails WP:RS NealeFamily (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)