Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 5

message: This has been discussed before...  But I've noticed that automobile articles tend to have more external links than other types of pages.  Is this something that's been arrived at through community consensus, or is this a problem that I should feel bolder in fixing?  In particular, Ford Mustang, one of our few featured articles, seems to have one of the largest sets of external links around (48 links).  Would it be reasonable to say that most articles should have no more than 15 external links?   --Interiot 13:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly would, 48 links it just too much. Signaturebrendel 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I can find nothing about automobile air con or climate control. Has anyone the expertise to start one? Can we have a 'Requested articles' heading on the project page? - Ballista 10:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there isn't one, just go ahead and start one- BE BOLD!. I also have a picture of the climate controls in my car that I'll put once you create the article. Signaturebrendel 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that we do not have an article for headrest and armrest. I have added the two. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to keep you updated I am going to keep looking for missing articles for now. My latest addition is taillights. Signaturebrendel 00:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new article 

message: I have nominated this article for deletion (List of successful automobiles).  among other things have made this article an . I would like for this  to be removed from Wikipedia . Please lend your opinion. Karrmann 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This rfd is a hostile and thinly veiled WP:NPA personal attack, as shown by the language of his nominations. Please review the grounds for deletion, removal is primarily for original research, not verifiable or copyright, none of which apply in this case. POV is not grounds for removal as long as it can be edited, and it is not clear which entries have a POV with the exception of the Taurus entry, which was written by User:Karrman himself. Please note that Karrmann has also managed to violate almost every rule of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:COOL, and his edits have been so marked by an intervening editor. I am highly disappointed that so many people are effectively condoning such behavior by supporting this rFD. I have found that I have been able to get along with many editors, but why others keep coming up for this sort of a battle distresses me greatly. --00:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand how angry you are with him, but whatever you do, DON'T make it worse by being incivil towards him. Incivility doesn't solve anything and it only makes matters worse. 
--ApolloBoy 22:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why thank you, that's a very valid statement that I agree with very much. I've gotten along relatively well, except for his siding with a person who has shown unbelievably poor WP conduct today I still wonder why Karrmann is advocating deleting his own Taurus entry, it doesn't make much sense to me. --matador300 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: He put his favorite pinewood derby car back into AMC Matador again - I rv'ed it...again...<sigh>.  SteveBaker 00:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why so many angry hostile people? Why can't we be friends? BTW, where does it say in Wikipedia policy that a scale model section has to be removed when there are dozens if not hundreds of toys across the various car pages, or that a page can't be devoted to toy cars like Hot Wheels? --matador300 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He put his favorite pinewood derby car back into AMC Matador again - I rv'ed it...again...<sigh>.  This is a photo he took of a car he built (at least according to the image description) - this is definitely 'original research'.  If you make a model of a car take a photo of it and attach it to an article about that car - you did original research - and it's flat out not allowed - no matter how relevent it might be to the article.  It's also 'WP:Vanity' - which is also not allowed.  Also, we do not put material about toy cars into articles about real cars - just about every real car ever made has one or more toys made of it - so this fact is quite utterly non-notable.  If we're going to document the toys made for real cars then I'm going to have to start photographing my 300 toy MINIs!   This has to be the fifth or sixth time we've been through this - and I'm getting pretty sick of it. SteveBaker 00:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of successful automobiles up for deletion. 

message: It's been a loooong day. I'd like to thank you for being such kind, considerate friendly people today, and I hope you have a wonderful evening. Good night. --matador300 01:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really want you to drop that attitude. What you have done today has violated multiple Wikipedia guidelines. Karrmann 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so IIIIIIIII've violated a couple of  guidelines now?? Look who is talking --matador300 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a reasonible excuse, I was mad. YOu know what, I'm not going to give you the satisfaction. I'm not gonna get mad, or get in a fight because that's probably what you wanted. Have a nice day. Karrmann 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE this is supposed to be a professional disucssion forum for our articles. Use the matador300 talk page. (See Bravada's comment above.) Thank you. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank You For Being Such Wonderful Friends

message: Both List of automobile model and marque oddities and List of unrelated vehicles with identical nameplates have been marked for deletion. Although I contributed to both articles, I find nothing flawed with the reasoning for deleting them. I'd like to know if any other project members are interested in keeping them. --Pc13 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automobile lists AFD'd 

message: Wouldnt it be a good idea to have an "image wanted" section on the main project page where you could list cars that currently have no images. --Dahlis 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I put up a similar request to this awhile back and now we have a section: Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Requested images. ren0talk 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, i missed that. Thanks. --Dahlis 21:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image wanted section 

message: This is a dubious use of toy cars on an automobile page if I ever saw one. Image and history indicates that some kid who identifies himself as Karmann posted both the picture and put it in the article. I fully expect equal treatment of all authors, and I will be watching. Karmann has also placed an image which infringes copyright since it is neither open source nor promotional from the origina website on AMC The Machine. He has replaced a high quality image of an accurate scale model of the car in question, and reverted back after numerous warnings. I am apalled that this sort of behavior is condoned in this project. At least one editor above has stated, as official policy that a high quality image of a model is acceptable if no image of a real car is available. A stack of  Hot Wheels certainly does not meet this guideline.--matador300 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My pal Warithu, I will not yell scream, and I will remain civil. I will let this stay up, and maybe the image should be removed. We'll say what the rest of the project has to say. Karrmann 22:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your newly civil attitude. Very interesting that you worked so diligently to erase a legitimate use of a toy, yet you yourself had already put in a very questionable one --matador300 01:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the offending image - it really had nothing to do with the article. SteveBaker 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Minivan#Public image and future|Stack of Hot Wheels Caravans]]

message: I have compiled a list of addresses of various facilites for automobile manufacturers for a indirect project.  I have aquired the addresses through public information channels (mainly the internet). I was wondering if it would be taboo of me to post this information on Wiki. The information as I said was obtained publicly so I dont think there should be much of a deal,  but I wanted to post the thought here first. --LSX 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory.  That also mentions that there are places that likely welcome that sort of information, such as Yellowikis.  --Interiot 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Address Posting --Taboo? 

message: Is of the model in the context of a notable Johnny Lightning special reproduction. It is also notable because that edition includes a reproduction of an original ad (see back of picture). On request, I would be happy to scan the ad, but it would be a scan of a toy reproduction of an ad, and that might produce another firestorm of controversy since so many people object to pictures of toys on these articles. I'm still waiting for an explanation from Apolloboy as to how removing  a decent primary picture could possibly improve the quality of the article, since editing an article knowing that it will degrade the quality is not consistent with WP rules, and could be part of an attack on the content of one editor. I've got plenty of other models I can provide good pictures of, but I don't know if I will if I continued to be pummeled for doing so. It is very difficult to get good pictures of old cars to put into the public domain, it is often much easier to purchase models, and get pictures of those. I don't think I'm the first person to attempt to put pictures and descriptions of models on articles, and I don't think I'll be the last, 
I think there is a much more rational approach than simply the current, undocumented (until to try to do it) ban all mentions and all pictures of all models and reproductions on all articles patrolled by the Automobile Project, including ads. If there is a list of all instantly revertable categories of material that will cause bar room brawl, it should be put into a document accesible from the project page, and noted on every page that it will be enforced on, otherwise it's my consensus vs. yours and any similar hapless editor will be similarly be reverted until senseless or forced to yield.
Apolloboy maintains you can remove any picture of a model if you think no picture is better than a model picture. Karmann, whom I do not dispute his claim is more knowledgeable as a 14 year old and more mature than myself, a 48 yr old MIT Master degree graduate in computer science who has not yet has had his edits marked as , believes in replacing a good quality model picture with one of unknown source, and posting a stack of Hot Wheels caravans on his living room on automobile pages. I do believe this issue deserves further qualification. Another user says you cannot post a picture of a model you made yourself, though such a picture has generated no such controversy on the cub scout Derby page where I have provided the ONLY pictures of completed models. I intend to provide pictures of the famous Chaparral sports cars in the form of promotional pictures of models, since it is nearly impossible to personally get pictures of these cars, or get permission of the professional photographers who took most of the photos used in books or magazines. Any objections, please raise them now before we ignite another Israeli/Hezbollah skirmish here.--matador300 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The other image

message: Aren't these excellent (or terrible) examples of edits that take a non-neutral point of view, and examples of what NOT to do?  I would say that the young (hint) editor here is taking a hysterically pro-Taurus point of view. None of the other articles in successful automobiles takes a clear position for or against any car, although this is evidently the primary basis for the near unanimous opinion to delete the article on a basis not supported by the guidelines for deletion (or am I mistaken in assuming WP people follow  the rules and act with kindness, love and civility to one another?) . Does anybody else agree? I won't fix these right away, I'll let you guys handle it. --matador300 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wairthu, I will not yell, scream, or get in your face. I am no better than you when I yell too. I will follow the rules, and if you see something you want to change, change it. But if I feel that it won't help get the Taurus to FA status, I may revert it, as I really want the Taurus article to get featured. But I want to give you advice. acting like this WILL GET YOU BLOCKED, so I really want to warn you before someone takes you before the abritration comittee. So please try to behave yourself. If a 14 year old can, you can too. Karrmann 01:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taurus POV 

message: Dear all,
Despite the fact that this WikiProject talk page and activities of some of its members have successfully been monopolized by User:Wiarthurhu, his antics, and resulting discussions (despite the fact that they are either pointless or would much better fit in user and article talk pages), there still is some actual activity within the project I would like to draw your attention to:
# A group of members decided to create and further improve an article on the Polski Fiat 125p with the goal of it reaching the FA status. This effort also encompasses work on related articles, such as Fiat 125 and Fiat 1300/1500. Sources are fairly ample, but help is needed with extracting the essential information and further enhancing the articles with it.
# Another effort concentrates on the small group of articles pertaining to the Autobianchi brand - there was only a handful of Autobianchi models and sources are even more ample, so it should be easy to quickly upgrade the current status of those articles. There is also a good chance of creating another FA or two, which we need so much.
# List of automobile model and marque oddities has been renominated for deletion with a more focused reason for deletion.
You are coridally invited to participate in those efforts and respond to the AfD request. 
Regards, Bravada, talk - 17:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a WikiProject Wiarthurhu? 

message: Passenger vehicles in the United States just passed GA! Another one for this project! Signaturebrendel 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it lost the GA status. Bravada has delisted the article for the reasons provided on the talk page of the article. Oh, well. Signaturebrendel 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Almost a new GA

message: I put the Taurus up for GA status. Karrmann 17:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ford Taurus]] 

message: The Mercedes-Benz W221 article used to make references to the failure of the "Distronic Plus" feature in bringing the vehicle to a stop in a metal-walled room, and one reviewer's finding that the "Night Vision" feature was ineffective. These were removed in a rewrite. Should such details be noted to make the article seem less like an advertisement? Shawnc 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm not a W221 expert but usually minor tehcnical problems are not worth mentioning unless they cause some sort of mass-recall. As far as I now the distonic plus featured didn't work because of the metal walled room. Also, one reviewer is just one person-you should only really mention a problem once the manufacturer releases a statement-there are just too many car "journalists" out there. The problem w/ the W221 article was that is sounded like it was written by a MB fan. (I can kind of relate as I am a Lincoln fan and its hard not to get carried away). Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercedes-Benz W221 

message: Over the last few days I have been trying to expand a bunch of articles on the Italian brand Autobianchi and its (few) models. I guess I now need help with that - see the talk page for the brand if you can spare a moment. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 16:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yahoo! A car is featured on the front page again, for the first time since the unfortunate featuring of the Polski Fiat 125p, and its the tiny Autobianchi Stellina! Now there is no good reason not to pay a visit to the Autobianchi pages! Moreover, it seems that multiple DYK nominations on similar topics are not forbidden, so I would like to ask you for propositions on a possible DYK from the main Autobianchi article. Bravada, talk - 23:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While battling against this becoming WikiProject Wiarthurhu, I would like to invite you all again to participate in this innocent and uncontroversial pastime! See you there, Bravada, talk - 00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autobianchi - help needed! 

message: Can someone help me with the Toyota articles, particularly Toyota Corolla and Toyota Corona - these need a lot of cleanup and help would be appreciated. --TheM62Manchester 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Toyota articles

message: From my talk page.
I'm also starting to add EPA gas mileage and volume information, somebody should  make a databox for that. As much as we all the EPA numbers are only slightly more than useless for real world use, they are widely quoted and compared, something that you would typically use an encyclopedia for if the numbers were there. WP typically has numbers like weight and height that are much less important to buyers looking for information on a car, a typical use for WP. Reviews also provide real-world MPG numbers, such as CR.
Consumer Reports reviews
I know you don't particularly like me, and frankly at this point I seriously doubt whether you will read very much of what I have to say about anything. But I really feel we need to talk about the Consumer Reports reviews you have been beginning to include in certain automobile articles.
While adding them is in no way "wrong" insofar as breaking any Wikipedia rules and such (they are referenced, someone actually did say such and such thing about such and such car), I think including this sort of think sets a very, very dangerous example.
As much as CR tries to paint their reviews as objective, they're not. They never have been, never will be. No review is, no matter how hard the reviewer trumpets "we don't accept advertising" and the like. It's a fact that some schmuck working for Consumer's Union might have said something along the lines of "Toyota Camry is the greatest car there is, was and ever will be", but it doesn't make it true. 
Wikipedia, in my opinion, is not on a mission to tell people which car is better than which according to Consumer Reports magazine. You're old enough to have seen Dragnet: I think our goal is "Just the facts, ma'am".
I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. --93JC 16:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, CU is one of my favorites as reviews go. It's not the only one, for example I used Car and Driver for the fusion. Some calls are odd, for example hating the Gremlin at first, and then giving it  first place later, rating the Caravan over the too-small 1st Odyssey. But most school and public libraries carry it, it's made the news for condemning some cars, and they have among the best surveys for reliability. On reading them now, I actually have more of appreciation for when they considered the Taurus to be the equal of Camry and Accord, and how superior the premier-based Intrepid was when it was judged the equal or better than any of those three, but the previous LeBaron fell short of all three. 
So far there are too few reviews for a pleathora of reviews to be a problem. I'd recommend adding a review section with short comments from a range of reviews. MT and CD are available and searchable on line, as are reviews from Edmunds /Inside line, CU are available by subscription, and of course, public libraries, as are magazines like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics which used to have highly regarded reviews of cars like the Torino and Matador. CU is probably the most objective of any magazine publishing reviews, at least they don't do photo spreads of an admiral fighting it out with a Boy Scout like C/D or drive a car off a cliff or race against a dog or drive behind a running 747 like Top Gear. Currently many articles refer to poor reviews or remarsk about poor engineering on cars like Shadow and Cavalier without referring to any specific review, and that's a shame.
--matador300 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The principle is easy.  If your article needs to say "X believes Y about Z" and X is a car reviewer, Y is an opinion and Z is a car - then referencing CU as evidence that X believes Y about Z is reasonable.  However, if you want to say "Y is true of Z" - then you can't quote some reviewer in CU because you just promoted someones mere opinion into a fact and that's very, very, VERY naughty.  But why would we care about the opinion of a car reviewer?  Maybe if the subject of the article was the reviewer - but not if the subject was the actual car.  I think you'd be on stronger grounds if you wanted to back up some nice hard fact with a reference ("The 0-60 time of Z is 6.5 seconds (Consumer Reports: July 2007 page 23)") - then maybe CU would be a reasonable reference - in the unlikely event that nothing more trustworth was available.  However, Wikipedia is not a car review site - it's an encyclopedia.  We don't want reviews or opinions here.  That's clearly stated in the WP guidelines...frankly I'm too exhausted to look it up...but it's there - trust me. SteveBaker 23:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews, Consumer Reports and others 

message: Steve suggested above that we should try to upgrade as many articles as possible to GA status.
The problem with the Good Article status is that, due to the inherent "leakiness" of the process, the  tag got severly depreciated. Basically any two users can nominate and promote anything they want, and this is quite often the case. Therefore, I believe that striving for GA status might not be a good goal.
Moreover, there are also some specific standards and conventions that we have established here concerning automotive articles, and an article can basically attain GA status not complying with them.
My suggestion would be to take a leaf out of the sister WikiProject Trains' book (btw, this project is doing quite well compared to ours, while being similar in membership size, scope and "difficulty" of the topics covered) and create our own Article Assessment Scheme. An example of the WP Trains' assessment scheme is here (I suggest you open that page in a separate window/tag and keep reading, so that you can look there for reference).
We can then set specific standards that an article has to comply with (apart from the general WP 1.0 standards) to be given this or that status within the WikiProject Automotive - for example, one might require a proper infobox with a number of boxes filled, or a complete list of engines employed by a model, for some status level (please note that these are abstract examples). Additionally, the appraisal might be complement by an "importance" grading, which can serve to indicate priorities - e.g. an article with high importance and low "quality" status would be an obvious candidate for immediate intervention.
Finally, this allows for more detailed grading of articles - e.g. since "FA" is a general WP status and an article cannot get it without going through the full WP:FA procedure, it might be good to strive for an "A" status with the hope that A-class articles will become FAs in due course. Same applies to expanding stubs to e.g. B-class, when there is not enough time or sources to go further at a given moment. Keeping track of the numbers and breaking articles down by category, we can monitor progress and spot problem areas.
I hope I made my idea more or less clear, but I will gladly explain the possible benefits and modus operandi. So, what is your opinion on that? Bravada, talk - 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a more diverse status system is a good idea. Classifing articles as A-class and B-class and setting clear standards what each article needs to achive to move up the "quality latter" makes sense. Until now the only two distinguished stages for articles have been GA or FA. The only exeption was for the WP CD in which articles were also classified as A and B class-an idea I very much liked then as there are surely more than two three different stages for articles (none, GA, FA). The idea sounds good to me. Signaturebrendel 16:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA problem / Assessment Scheme proposition 

message: Please see the notice I placed at the top of the article. --TheM62Manchester 22:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Renault Laguna]] article

message: I've put my reasons in the talk page. --Zilog Jones 13:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move from "keicar" to "K-car" 

message: Upon searching for info about the "Lean Burn" 1.6 engine in the Carina E (still don't know much about it), bizarrely this was 4th on the list that Google gave me: http://homepages.iol.ie/~omara/omm/toyota.html
It seems to be a website stuck in 1996, but has detailed specs and prices for most Toyotas sold in Ireland back then, which may be useful to us.
The bizarre part is the site appears to be made by the son (or some relative) of Tony O'Mara, who is my local Toyota dealer - there's a picture of the dealers on the site here - judging by the "new" cars it must have been taken between 1987-1990, which is quite amusing.
P.S. In case you're wondering, the dealer does have a current website: http://www.omaramotors.com/ (The old dealer showroom/courtyard in that picture is still there but is only being used for storage) --Zilog Jones 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Toyota Stuff 

message: I would like some input/attention to the Vector Supercars article, as I believe that with some work it can become featured. Karrmann 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vector Supercars]] 

message: I've been trying to edit this article, but it needs a rewrite. If anyone knows what can be done can they let me know- thanks?? --TheM62Manchester 09:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess the biggest problem is its focus on the American market nameplate, especially after the sixth generation, when the JDM Accord and USDM Accord were split into different models. That "worldwide" section needs to go, and each generation needs to be rewritten with the Japanese model's details first, followed by a paragraph with specific changes for other markets. Pc13 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also add in info on Canada, Australia and New Zealand-specification models, these are quite different to Japanese or American versions. --TheM62Manchester 10:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Honda Accord]] 

message: it seems that Wairthu pushed Apolloboy over the edge, as it looks like he going to be off Wikipedia for a while.
:I'm back, things seem to have cooled down fast, so I decided to come back now that the "all clear" was given. --ApolloBoy 00:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Wairthurhu decieded to make himself a Wikicop, and started handing out ciatations left and right to everybody he disliked, and in the Bully article, he added three long paragraphs bashing us and Wikipedia, and that got him blocked for a week. Hallaulla! Karrmann 00:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apolloboy