Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 4

message: I have the Yugo up for peer review, and I would like to see people contribute to it. It is here Karrmann 00:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yugo peer review 

message: On the 22 June a large piece of text has been added to the Kit car article by 139.11.40.132.  This appears to be a "translation" of the German Wikipedia entry.  The trouble is it is not a good translation and is very hard to understand. I am not sure what to do about it.  I seems we have several options:
*Simplest is to delete it.  It is frankly, so hard to understand I am not sure what it adds.
*Retranslate it. My German is not good enough (and that's am overstatement of my ability)
*Heavily copy edit it with some guess work as to what is meant. This is possible but time consuming.
Any ideas? Malcolma 08:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A temporary solution would be to move this to the talk page for further Bearbeitung :D This fragment seems to be taken straight from some essay written for some other place, and was dumped into the German Wikipedia by the same URL. It is so full of POV and unnecessary opinions and evaluations. It reads like those 1970s German car catalogues, the authors of which found it only appropriate to comment on the feasibility of import cars to compete with German offerings :D Perhaps some of this info can be used, but I am not into kit cars enough to judge its relevance and trustworthiness. Bravada, talk - 09:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article could certainly use some text like this - without it, it reads more like a list-of-kit-cars than an actual article on the subject.  This new section has lots of lovely references in it - that's a good thing.  But I agree that it needs some copyediting - move it out of the introductory section, clean up the English, break up those L-O-N-G paragraphs, remove the references to german language articles and use the proper wiki tags. SteveBaker 13:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok.  I have done a copy edit and removed the large section of philsophy.  Consideration of German Technical education did not seem relevant.  It still needs more material but I lack detailed knowledge of the subject. I'm afraid I left the German language references in (and the Swedish one that was in the original article). Malcolma 09:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it needs a wee bit of work, but in the meantime, I slightly tidied the references style as per WP:Footnotes#How to use. Looking at the references themselves, I'm not nuts on them - they're not citing veribiable sources a lot of the time, and where they are, they're not doing it quite right (e.g. ISBN numbers, etc). I'll maybe have a closer look this afternoon, but kudos on tidying what really was a bit of a mess - it's not perfect, but it's a huge improvement on the bizarre interlingual cut'n'paste-a-thon we had before. -- DeLarge 10:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I myself am not an expert on Kit Cars, the text added by the anon user was quite POV and I am assuming that it was written for promotional purposes. Good job removing it so far. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kit car]] 

message: Thanks to the support from the participating members of WikiProject Automobiles during both phases of the peer review (special big thanks to DeLarge), the Talbot Tagora article has been significantly improved and is now nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. You can access it's nomination page directly here - all members of the WikiProject who have NOT been involved in the development of the article are eligible to express their views on whether it meets the Featured Article criteria there! If you would find time to review it, I would be most grateful. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again! I wanted to thank all the members of the Project that joined in at this stage and helped further improve the article, as well as look for the elusive Tagora photos :D Nevertheless, I would like to draw the attention of the rest of the members to this nomination - there are still only a few conclusive reviews there. If you could please spare a minute or two to read the article and give your opinion on it as FAC, I think all the people who contributed to it will appreciate that, be it a "support" or "oppose". In case of the latter, do not forget to point out how it could be improved and I will try to take care of that! Thanks, Bravada, talk - 21:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to announce that thanks to Mr. Stan Orand, one of the biggest Tagora enthusiasts and experts, we now have free pictures of the Tagora in the article! They aren't perhaps what is required by the WikiProject guidelines, so the search continues... Regards, Bravada, talk - 14:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talbot Tagora a Featured Article Candidate 

message: I am happy to announce to you that today Raul, the Featured Article Director, found the Talbot Tagora worthy of the coveted little star! So, we now have another Featured Article within our WikiProject, which I believe comes in a very timely moment as two others are in danger of getting delisted.
I would like to thank all Members of this WikiProject who have helped this article achieve FA status, be it by reviewing it, tweaking some minor bits, helping procure the elusive free images, and obviously those who have added huge chunks of content and revamped the article thoroughly so that objections raised during FAC could be alleviated.
So, now if we want to boost the profile of automotive content at Wikipedia, we can lobby for the Tagora to become Wikipedia:Today's featured article and to be featured in Template:Did you know! 
Thanks again everybody! Bravada, talk - 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champagne! 

message: The article Passenger vehicles in the United States has now evolved into a long and comprehensive article and would really a appreciate a peer review in order to improve the article. Thank you. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off... It probably seems petty, but that traffic photo has to go. If it is an article about the United States, I think it should have actual photos from the United States. I'll read the rest of the article later today and let you know though what else I think. ren0talk 17:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, thank you for pointing that out ;-) Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Passenger vehicles in the United States]], peer review

message: I am glad to report I am making some progress on my part, I have already uploaded some of the images  I received, although they were actually quite random and unrelated to what I have chosen as my first goal during this drive - furnish all Chrysler Europe cars' articles with nice free photos. Of particular urgency is the Talbot Tagora article - it is a FAC now and, as Steve noted, it cannot become an FA without a free picture. With relation to that, I would like to ask native English and non-native, just any French speakers to help me with those two issues:
* English speakers - I have emailed David Chapman, the Membership Secretary of Simca-Talbot Club UK, which could be a tremendous source of Simca and Talbot images (and perhaps the only English-speaking source of a Talbot Tagora image I could get hold of an email to). My command of English is as you can see, so I put together a rather incongrous email politely asking whether he could ask members to release some images into public domain via Wikipedia Commons, explaining why and what for do we need them. I guess I wasn't too clear about that and didn't place the accents right, as the reply I got is as follows:
 I cannot understand why you cannot use official photos - 
 they were issued for press use, or are you making money out of using them,
 in which case I can understand? If you could explain what your organisation is designed for,
 I could ask people in our club if they have suitable photos to spare. 
 Alternatively, you could use illustrations from adverts and brochues - 
 there are plenty available at autojumbles and ebay.
:I have already put together and sent David Chapman another incongrous email (he's going to love them), but later I thought (if you wonder about my perpetual modus operandi, it is "later I thought" - I am not that good in thinking before and thinking in general) that some native English speakers here could help put together an email explaining those issues in a nice a swift way, as well as convincing the reader that they there is nothing better in the world for them to do than to give us some nice photos. This could help us all tremendously, I believe.
* French speakers - could you be so kind and email the guys at  (they also include Talbot Tagora owners), and perhaps post at their forums asking whether they could provide a nice free Talbot Tagora pic for our future (fingers crossed!) featured article? My French is close to non-existent, so if you could "recherche" another possible francophone source of such and try to ask them the same, I would be most obliged! 
Thanks a lot! Bravada, talk - 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Steve, I will email you my previous correspondence with David Chapman in a moment. I still believe we might use a "boilerplate" text to streamline the process, so I hope you will post whatever you email him here, so that we all could use it! Oh, and I've changed the format of your email address - bots that browse the web would immediately catch that one. Bravada, talk - 20:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI chaps, if you set and verify an email address in your Wikipedia preferences, it enables an "email this user" option in the toolbox on the left of their user page, which avoids the need to have it in plain text on any articles. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 20:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your concern - but my public email address is probably on every spammer's list already.  I use Linux and Thunderbird for email - 99% of junk mail gets filtered cleanly and efficiently and I don't have to worry about viruses and such. SteveBaker 04:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English and French speakers - help needed! 

message: I think we need to standardise on one thing: should we be using litres or cc or cm^3 when stating the engine capacities? From what I know, many articles use litres, but cc is still an official standard in many countries, while cm^3 is a more SI-correct unit. Ariedartin JECJY 13:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should answer you question: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions Bravada, talk - 14:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: (after edit conflict) ... which suggests 4.6 L (4567 cc).  I would think 4.6 L (4567 cm3) would be approximately equally acceptable?  --Interiot 14:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I think engines over 1 litre should be expressed in litres (eg "A 1.6 litre MINI Cooper") but it sounds weird for engines smaller than 1 litre (eg "An 0.848 litre Austin Mini") - so small engines should be in cc's (eg "An 848 cc Austin Mini").  I believe we already have an exception for very old vehicles where the engine capacities were expressed in cubic inches.  millilitre (ml) would be more correct from a scientific perspective - but there is a clear historical precedent for expressing engine sizes using 'cc' and using anything else would be less clear to our audience - not more clear. SteveBaker 20:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If possible we should mention litres as this is the most commonly used measurement in the media and thus is going to be what our readers are most familiar with. The ad doesn't read 4567 cm3 but 4.6 liter. As for small engines cc is okay, but literes should be used for engines with more than one litre (i.e. 1.6 litre Nissan Primera). Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litres or cc or cm^3? 

message: I've noticed that a lot of articles have "In pop culture" sections and such that list all the movies, TV shows or even music videos that a car appeared in. I think these sections aren't really that notable, except in the case of certain cars (like the Ford Pinto or Yugo, for example). Should these sections be removed, or should they be kept? --ApolloBoy 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sometimes they're notable, sometimes they're not. It's one thing to list cars which really capture the public's imagination (and a nice illustration to a model's positioning, IMHO) when this can be demonstrated (referenced) with things like the existence of T-shirts and die-cast models of individual cars, etc. I'm thinking of things like the General Lee from Dukes of Hazzard, or the Starsky & Hutch car, and Herbie. However, I think it's way over the top to have a list of every TV show the Ford Escort ever turned up in, for example. So, the bottom line is that a hard and fast rule is probably unhelpful. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 23:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if there was an "In pop culture" section for the Toyota Camry or so, would that be fair game for removal? --ApolloBoy 23:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief, they all look ultra-trivial. The closest to interesting is "Aha, where's the Camry?", implying perhaps that the writers felt the audience would infer some kind of social class from the way it was presumed by one character that the others would have a Camry. (That might not be what was going on. It's not even explained in the article.) Totally unworthy of Wikipedia. Be bold. Ditch it. (I'm clearly feeling mischievous tonight.) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree most of these section's arn't of any value and the pop culture related to some iconic vehicles such as the Caddi Eldorado can be summed up in one or two sentences, listing every TV show a car has appeared in is not of any real value here. So, go ahead such section are "fair game." Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should work these references into the main body of the text where it's important - and try to avoid the 'Trivia' section kind of thing.  It's definitely not worth mentioning every movie or TV show a car has been in - but in some cases where the car is really iconic in the movie (the General Lee in Dukes of Hazzard or the Mini's in The Italian Job would be reasonable examples) - then it would be wrong not to mention it.  This means that it would be hard to come up with a hard and fast rule.  If you really want to list all the movies a car was in - then make a separate 'List of...' article (which is what I did with List of movies in which Mini cars are featured) - then stick it in the 'See Also' section - that way you keep the fans happy - but don't clutter the main article much.  As for toys - just about ever car on the planet has toys made of it - they are generally completely non-notable. SteveBaker 04:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In popular culture" sections - Keep or remove? 

message: Apollo Boy has stated that Chrysler "Has not competed with the likes of Cadillac and Lincoln." So categorizing Chrysler (the marque) as luxury is incorrect. Some Chrysler models such as Chrylser 300C are luxury models, and so may have been the LHS Series. It is okay to tag those articles, dealing with those particular vehicles as luxo cars. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yeah. Like I said. Treat each model on its individual merits... ;) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 00:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly ;-) Signaturebrendel 00:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution

message: Hi, I realize that I have asked before, but I would still greatly appreciate your input on the Passenger vehicles in the United States! The article is a current GA nominee and is in need of a peer review- this could be another FA for this project. Please, if you can spare a few minutes, your input would be greatly appreciated. Signaturebrendel 16:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I dislike this kind of article and would not recommend it.  The problem with this kind of "List of current things" is that it gets out of date VERY quickly and people just don't maintain them. SteveBaker 19:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed a problematic issue, but I have no way of doing anything about it, as this article's subject matter is clearly subject to change. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit confused.  The article is "Passenger vehicles" but the statistic you quote for number of vehicles is one including trucks. There are also quite a few spelling mistakes including one in the middle of the first paragraph that is baffling me.Malcolma 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the United States SUVs and Pick-ups are refered to as trucks, light trucks to be more precise; thus light trucks as well as cars are referred to as Passenger vehicles. Signaturebrendel 20:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review still needed

message: Bull-Doser: Car photographer (Free Use)
Bavaria: ConsumerGuide guy (Fair Use)
ApolloBoy: Both ConsumerGuide & photographer (Fair & Free Use)
In addition to photographing cars, I use ConsumerGuide for non-Canadian cars. 
Bull-Doser 03:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've only taken one picture. The rest of the PD images I uploaded were "donated" by other people. --ApolloBoy 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bull-Doser Vs. Bavaria 

message: Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9

message: Volkswagen Type 2 is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  
Sorry to hit you with two at once:  we really need help :-) Sandy 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of these FARC's need info-boxes.  The Mercedes article needs more photos - I agree with everything the other reviewers said - so there is no doubt that as-is neither of these deserve FA status.  The question is whether anyone has the time and expertise to fix them up before they get de-listed.  Sadly, I don't.  SteveBaker 04:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Volkswagen Type 2 

message: As you might have noticed, the Anniversaries section of the Portal:Cars is still missing entries for some dates, which is pretty embarassing, I believe. I have found out that the History Channel site has a section that can be very helpful with filling in the blanks . I have already started taking blatant advantage of it, and I guess I am done with the first half of the year. If somebody could take care of the rest of the year, or perhaps just individual months, it would be great. It doesn't require much typing, but is quite repetitive... :( Bravada, talk - 18:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my birthday today! Does that help at all?  <grumble> OK - I thought not. :-(  SteveBaker 19:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:Cars/Anniversaries 

message: Although IFCAR is from the United States, I'm Canadian! IFCAR is beginning to upload images like ME! Bull-Doser 01:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, IFCAR's images are of much higher quality than yours, on average. Bravada, talk - 10:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a serious complaint? Aside from the fact that IFCAR's images are of higher quality than yours, there is no rule preventing anybody from uploading images, so... Signaturebrendel 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IFCAR, The OTHER Bull-Doser!

message: I noticed that there are many tasks left unanswered in the Ford Taurus' task page. I really want to get this article featured, so I am asking you to give your all to this article. Karrmann 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Taurus 

message: The HHR slots in length between the Aveo and the Cobalt, just like what the Prizm was, slotting in length between the Metro and the Cavalier.  The HHR is more expensive than the Cobalt, just like back then, when the Prizm was priced above the Cavalier.  Just like HHR replaces Cavalier, the Caliber replaces the Dodge Neon.
Bull-Doser 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bit of a stretch. The Prizm was an oddball Chevy, a leftover from the ill-conceived Geo venture. It was more of a "redundant also-ran with Cobalt) than anything else. The HHR is a totally new entry, Chevrolet's first compact minivan in the US. Bravada, talk - 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the Prizm was aimed at a different market and is a totally different type of car (compact sedan versus compact wagon) than the HHR. --ApolloBoy 19:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the look of the two cars speak for themselves. The Cobalt is the replacement for the Cavalier, the Prizm as stated by Bravada was a leftover of the Geo fiasco and does not fit in here at all. Don't take the lenghts of vehicles to literally, the HHR is a completely new body style for Chevy and America, for that matter, as it is significantly smaller than any type of wagon/van corssover sold here. Also the Caliber may act as Dodge's new entry-level vehicle but is not a proper Neon replacement as it is a compact SUV crossover- a different body style form the 4-door compact sedan Neon. A lot of manufacturers there days want to get away from the plain ugly 4-door econobox image and try to replace vehicles such as the Neon with new coneptions such as the Caliber. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Prizm replacement was the Optra, another rebadged Japanese car. It's sold in Canada, but not the US. IFCAR 10:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite Japanese, but it could be seen that way. Bravada, talk - 11:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going by the Suzuki Forenza, being the only other version sold in North American. Though of course that started off as a Korean. IFCAR 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HHR A Proper Prizm Replacement? 

message: I've revised pages for the Toyota Tundra (adding the double cab version) and the Hyundai Santa Fe (adding the 2005-2006 versions and the 2007 version that's out now).  All images came from the Wikimedia Commons.--Bull-Doser 17:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My Uploads To The Wikimedia Commons

message: Since the Pathfinder slots below the Murano in the lineup, it is rumoured the Pathfinder will use Nissan's new D platform (used by the 2007-present Altima) and continue to slot below the Maxima-based Murano in the lineup.  Still, the Pathfinder would continue to be built in Tennessee.--Bull-Doser 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pathfinder To The D Platform?

message: 1985-1988 (Before Geo):
Chevrolet Sprint Vs. Ford Escort (Or Festiva)
Chevrolet Spectrum Vs. Ford Escort
Chevrolet Chevette Vs. Ford Escort
Chevrolet Nova Vs. Ford Tempo
Chevrolet Cavalier Vs. Ford Tempo
Chevrolet Corsica (1987-88) Vs. Ford Tempo (Or Taurus)
Chevrolet Celebrity Vs. Ford Taurus
Chevrolet Caprice Vs. Ford LTD Crown Victoria
1989-1997 (The Geo Era):
Geo Metro Vs. Ford Festiva/Aspire
Geo Spectrum/Prizm Vs. Ford Escort
Chevrolet Cavalier Vs. Ford Tempo (Note the second-generation Cavalier was longer in length than the Tempo.  I heard a 1991 GM Canada commercial had a 1991 Cavalier & Sunbird next to a Ford Tempo)
Chevrolet Corsica Vs. Ford Tempo (Corsica & Tempo were compacts)
Chevrolet Lumina Vs. Ford Taurus
Chevrolet Caprice/Impala Vs. Ford Crown Victoria
To squeeze this, GM & Ford's rivals were:
Mainstream: Chevrolet/Geo/GMC/Saturn - Ford
Near Luxury: Oldsmobile/Pontiac - Mercury
Luxury: Buick/Cadillac - Lincoln
Buick was never really on Cadillac's and Lincoln's level. Signaturebrendel 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GM/Ford's Competitions Pre/During Geo

message: Okay.  I've looked at the length of the Mazda CX-9, and it's about 198 inches (about longer than a 4Runner).  The CX-7 is a mid-size competing with Highlander, Pathfinder or Pilot, the CX-9 is another mid-size competing with 4Runner, Explorer or Murano.  The Murano, of course, slots above the Pathfinder.  The CX-7 is identical in length to a Highlander or 2007 Santa Fe. Both CX-7 & CX-9 are based off the CD3.  -- Bull-Doser 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bull-Dozer, one question: Where does the Mazda CX-9 slot in the Swedish market? --Pc13 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the CX-7 uses a unique platform, it's not based on the CD3 as most people think. --ApolloBoy 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mazda CX-9

message: IFCAR - Only uploads free images
Bull-Doser - Uploads free & fair images
Bavaria - Only uploads fair images
And the winner is?  Stay tuned! -- Bull-Doser 20:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the relevancy of this is....... Stay tuned! Karrmann 00:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides being irrelevant this is actually very bad wiki etiquette- it comes very close to offending other users. One should never state that one user is better than another, espcially if the former it the author of the statement. Signaturebrendel 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I'm not offended, and Bavaria has responded to the same comment in a way that indicates he wasn't either. IFCAR 09:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Nonetheless it is not appropriate to anounce oneself the winner (as if this was a competition) or state that one is better than other users. The above sounds like a bad soft drink advertisement. I was not saying that you were offended, but rather that the above could be offensive. Signaturebrendel 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IFCAR Vs. Bull-Doser Vs. Bavaria

message: I'm a bit confused as to why the Ford Ranger has about five generations, when in fact there were only two. One user I talked to said that there were enough differences between 1983-1988 and 1989-1992 Rangers to constitute two generations, when in fact most of the body panels between the two are exactly the same and the only major differences were the front fascia and interior. What do you guys think? Should there only be two generations or five? --ApolloBoy 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I counted three generation ;-) But otherwise I'd say two. It is very common for a vehicle to feature a slightly revised design in the middle of a generation's run. Signaturebrendel 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's always a hard call.  In the Mini article there was great debate about this because the original manufacturers never talked about particular generations - yet the enthusiast community universally recognises three generations - with some sources talking about five or even seven generations.  In the end, it's all a bit subjective since all cars evolve slowly throughout their production runs and what constitutes a "new generation" and what doesn't is a matter of opinion and not encyclopeadic fact. SteveBaker 22:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, there is no real guideline of what constitutes a generation. For some cars one can look to the media. If most publications state that there are two Ranger generations, than we could use that number- the problem is that there it is a subjective measure. Signaturebrendel 00:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did some research, and the only thing I found was ConsumerGuide, which shows three generations of the Ranger (1983-1992, 1993-1997, 1998-present).  --ApolloBoy 01:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well if there is no source supporting the seven generation theory- I say go ahead and make the changes. Three generations sound right to me and consumer guide is a good enough source. Signaturebrendel 05:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Ranger generations 

message: User:Wiarthurhu has been trying to add the Chevrolet Chevette as one of the predecessors of the Chevrolet Cavalier. I really don't think the Cavalier replaced the Chevette, as the two were aimed at different markets and even overlapped for 5 years. However, he refuses to listen to me, and keeps adding it back in, using a page from Edmunds which he takes out of context. What does everyone else say? --ApolloBoy 00:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Monza was the Cavalier's predecessor. Chevette was replaced by Sprint. Facts bear this to be undeniably true, and Arthur has problems dealing with facts. --93JC 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cavalier also replace the European Chevette. Monza replaced the Vega as coupe because Americans like the style, but Chevetted replaced Vega other body styles for pure function and cost. Sprint fits in a tiny-car category much smaller than Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord. I have presented two citations to support the Spirit/Acclaim replacing the cars, both cars look almost exactly like the two K cars and covered the same market niche and competitors as 2 bench seat  competing cars. You should not use original research if you cannot provide a verifiable source for your assertion. Everything I have seen is a construction based on reasoning, which is not the same as providing proof that someone out there had  the same idea first. That was also the problem the F-14 Tomcat article, when an editor, unable to find a statement in two articles that it was a dogfighter, concluded that it was not, even after I provided dozens of directly supporting articles and he provided no supporting or contradicting sources. You folks had better get used to people who know their facts, and can research them instead of coming up with some crazy construction that the Sprint replaced the Chevette (source?) or that the Shadow replaced the Aries (source??) 93JC has already demonstrated problems with logic or facts that conflict with his POV such as the fact that the former Premier plant produces the 300 and Charger, and that he uses uncivil language, except I am not allowed to say negative things about other editors, no matter how deficient their research skills or logic are. I am going to start to recruit good guys, you can change or keep your black hats. --00:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If those are the cars the anon user User:Wiarthurhu is talking about, they're dead wrong. The Vauxhall Chevette / Opel Kadett was a much smaller car than the Vauxhall Cavalier / Opel Ascona – we're talking Escort to Cortina kind of difference (and those were the competitors.) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 10:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the Chevette was 1975-1983, the Cavalier was 1976-1994, so they overlapped for almost the whole time the Chevette existed. Cavalier ---> Vectra (European midsize/family cars). Chevette ---> Astra (European compact cars), while the Nova/Corsa slotted into the supermini slot created by the gradual obesity of the two cars above it. -- DeLarge 10:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, "gradual obesity" – I like your turn of phrase ;-) Actually, there's probably a very good analogy in here somewhere for the way success is measured in terms of growth in the entire capitalist economic system, but... whoops, no, we've got plenty enough controversy around here already... :-P – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 10:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cavalier replaces the Chevette? 

message: I see this WikiProject doesn't have a project notice template.  Please see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Talk_namespace#WikiProject notices.  One article, GMC Denali, has the generic template on its talk page right now.  Please create the project notice template and replace that generic template with it.  --Geopgeop 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do: .  --Interiot 16:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it's in the list, too. Should they all be there, then? There are some others missing. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 16:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes all project notices should be listed there if you know of some that arn't on there, please go ahead and add them. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 21:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, didn't see that.  --Geopgeop 00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project notice template 

message: The TSX was introduced in 2004 to replace the CL coupe, and both were based on the Honda Accord.  Acura dropped the Integra sedan from the lineup in 1997, and it was replaced in Canada by the Acura EL.  Both cars were based on the Civic.  With Acura phasing out the RSX after 2006, a TSX coupe will replace it.  As what I saw on MSN Autos, the Integra didn't have a sedan in 1997. -- Bull-Doser 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in Europe the Acura TSX is sold as the Honda Accord (or the other way around ;-)) Signaturebrendel 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Japan too. The US Accord is a more economic version of the Honda Inspire (while the Acura TL is identical to the Inspire). The US Accord is sold in Australia and in South America as well. But the Japanese/European Accord need to be main in the main Accord article, and not be a redirect to Acura TSX, which is just a badge-engineered version. The Accord article needs an explanation on the splitting off of the American Accord line from the Japanese one. --Pc13 08:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acura's Entry-Level Info!

message: There are some major errors here that are nearly impossible to fix because of policing.
It is claimed that the heir to the Aries is not the nearly identical
Dodge Spirit in size, layout and room, but the much smaller
Omini replacement, the Dodge Shadow. I tried fixing it once, but it
came back, and even ApolloBoy indicated he though that was broken at
one point in time. Then I noticed somebody jumping all over Bulldozer
for the same thing. I found Allpar, a parts site, and a consumer
buyers site all saying Spirit and the EEK was the replacement, but all
I get is yelled at, told that none of the sources is valid, and get
reverted, along with anything else I might have said. 
Similarly, several auto sites say the Chevy import fighters started
with Covair, then Vega / Monza, Chevette, Cavalier, then Cobalt.
However the way the pages have been connected on WP is Vega to Monza /
Chevette (so far so good), but then Chevette->Spectrum/Sprint (what?) and Monza->
Cavalier, even though the Monza was a tiny niche coupe, and the Cavalier was a best
seller with notchback, hatchbck, sedan and wagon bodies. I can't even put this sequence 
on the Corvair page without getting spit out by these same editors. Ditto a hit song about the 
Chevette, or any attempt to mention the existence of any replica of a car. It's no democracy, I've
entered a little kingdom where, rather than a place where anybody can write anything, nothing happens 
unless it coforms to some gigantic unwritten rule book of things that a secretly allowed or unallowed, and  the only
way to find out is to put in in and see what happens. Any attempt to link the 
Chevette to the Cavalier is met by reverts from 3 different editors, and more 
bad feelings and warnings that none of the six sources is valid since all are less
than perfect, and only perfect citations are acceptable to replace what appears to be 
uncited guesses based on original research, and being told that I don't know the 
way things are suppoosed to work, which is evidently whatever a gang of editors want
to work, since they have no directly supporting or contradicting primary sources and 
they dismiss six different primary sources.
A web search for supporting sources shows only one place where the shadow replaces the Aries, and the Cavalier does not replace  the Chevette -- the Wikipedia.
As a man of principal and character, do you recommend
Fight for the right thing, no matter how many editors complain or threaten or revert, stick
to posting correct and cited information and replaced uncited information
:Sign here
Or do you recommend - back off and go where I am not contested
:Sign here
Is there anybody else out there who objects to the behavior of these
auto editors, or am I the only one having problems?? --matador300 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix errors without raising a hornets nest? 

message: Is there such a list? If not there should be. ;) I mean I see tons of things that I could photograph, but a lot of times they already have a better example. I would just love a list so that I could look for specific things. ren0talk 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Requested images has just been created, feel free to add or fulfill requests.  --Interiot 08:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Automobile related articles in need of photos 

message: First off a G20 would compete with a C-Class.  An I30/I35 would compete with an E-Class, while a Q45 would compete with an S-Class.  Lexus's lineup winded to four sedans in 2001 by adding the IS that slots below the ES, and Mercedes-Benz winded up to four in 2005 by adding the CLS-Class to slot between the E-Class & S-Class.  I35 heavily competed with the TL & ES, but also the GS, which was shorter than the I35 & ES.  Q45's competitor is the LS, but the I30/I35 was Infiniti's only midsize until the M45 arrived in 2003.  Now the M is Infiniti's only midsize (even though it includes 35 & 45).  An I35 was cheaper than an E-Class or 5 Series, but was priced similarly to a Q45.  Q45 almost competed with the GS & E-Class.  Q45 competed with Acura RL, Lexus LS & Mercedes-Benz S-Class before the M45 arrived.  The I35 did not quite rival the C-Class or 3-Series, because they were rivals of the G20.  Infiniti's always had 3 sedans (except for 1996, 2003 & 2004). -- Bull-Doser 04:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infiniti's Post-J30/Pre-M45 Info 

message: So, I looked again on MSN Autos, and the Integra DID have a sedan in its final year of production.  Now, let's start this Acura vs. Infiniti vs. Lexus vs. Mercedes-Benz info.
Pre-2001:
Integra Vs. G20 Vs. ES Vs. C-Class
TL Vs. I30 Vs. GS Vs. E-Class
RL Vs. Q45 Vs. LS Vs. S-Class
2005-Present:
TSX Vs. G35 Vs. IS Vs. C-Class
TL Vs. M35 Vs. ES Vs. E-Class
RL Vs. M45 Vs. GS Vs. CLS-Class
Q45 Vs. LS Vs. S-Class
Note the Acura RL was downsized in length after 2005 to compete with mid-priced sedans.  As we all know, the RL is a fullsize. -- Bull-Doser 00:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the Q45, RL and even LS are quite a bit cheaper as the S-Class but just like the TC and DTS they still compete w/ the S-Class. As for the M45 and TL I think they comete against the E-Class. The Lexus ES is an entry-level luxury car, the E-Class is one higher, a mid-level luxury car. The TSX competes w/ the IS, true but the C-Class also competes w/ the Lexus ES. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the IS is.  ES & GS are similar in length to an E-Class, the ES being an E-Class competitor, the GS being a CLS-Class competitor.  TL is about the length of an E-Class.  C-Class is shorter than TSX or IS.  The next C-Class (178 in. in length) will still be shorter than the TSX (183 in. in length). -- Bull-Doser 02:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note that you cannot use mere length as a measurement for whether or not a car is a competitor, otherwise the Crown Vicotria would compete w/ the S-Class and the Impala w/ the Town Car. The IS is prices as to compete with the TSX, both of which are priced quite a bit below the C-Class in the near-luxury car. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't the ES cheaper than the IS? Then how can it compete with the E-Class? I thought th ES was created to compete with more traditional FWD near-luxury American cars. And Lexus does not have a CLS-competitor, because the CLS is a coupe. --Pc13 08:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now I've Got It 

message: Ford is doing much worse than GM in revenue.  GM is still profitable today, despite being the largest car company in the world.  I like GM over Ford.  One of the only Ford cars I like are the Lincolns and the Ford Fusion.  I wrote a Way Forward-related article on the Ford Crown Victoria page.  Even GM's restructuring plan killed Oldsmobile. -- Bull-Doser 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if Ford'll ever get rid of the Crown Vic, keep in mind the Crown Vic still does very well in the fleet markets. --ApolloBoy 02:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lucerne is actually a Crown Vic competitor, but the LaCrosse is a 500 competitor.  The longest sedans in their companies are GM's Cadillac DTS, Ford's Lincoln Town Car (which will be discontinued next year), and DaimlerChrysler's Mercedes-Benz S-Class.  They're all luxury cars. -- Bull-Doser 02:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I never said anything about competitors. --ApolloBoy 03:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will The Way Forward Kill The Crown Vic? 

message: BLACKLISTED LINK REMOVED 
I debuted this! -- Bull-Doser 22:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Automotive Blog Board 

message: I'll take this chance to mention that the more technical side actually needs more photos, and if anyone wants to take a picture of their beauty, the following articles have no pictures and could use one: power window, power door locks, power seat, coilover, t-top, filter (oil), fender (automobile), brake, bench seat, Engine Control Unit, shaker scoop, paddle tires, shift light.  --Interiot 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get photos of a T-Tops (Mom's Camaro), Oil Filter, Fender, and Bench Seat tonight. ren0talk 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a pic for power seats and will add other for other interior power features. Signaturebrendel 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical photos

message: Just to get the word out to everyone, I have added a cell for "parent_company" to the infobox below manufacturer. So now there shouldn't be as many arguments over who is manufacturing what. Signaturebrendel 22:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that be a bit superfluous? What if the manufacturer is the same as the parent company? In that case it would be redundant. --ApolloBoy 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most categories in the infobox are optional. If there isn't anything entered it won't show up. So in other words, if it is the same as the manufacturer just leave it blank. ren0talk 01:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactely its optional. I had the same concern as ApolloBoy, espcially since I am also of the opinion that the parent company is the manufacturer. But it is the best compromise as I have recently experienced heated discussion regarding some who do not recognize the parent company as the manufacturer. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parent company

message: A number of car pages have so many pictures and so many info boxes (with even more pictures within those info boxes) that they overwhelm and overshadow the text of page.  Basicly, the articles are lopsided (and so do not look at all professional), and in fact, cause some to not render properly on a browser.  Nissan Sentra is one of the worst, but it is not difficult to find other examples. Should there really be an info box for each generation of a car?  Can the info box be compacted some?  Something really needs to change.  Mrand 12:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is precisely what I have been saying. I raised this issue yesterday, in fact, but have not yet received a response from other project members. As I said, do we really need 17 photos on the Toyota Camry page, or 14 photos on the Nissan Maxima page? So many articles, especially those on Japanese cars, have become so congested with pictures (that add little or nothing, by the way), that it becomes very difficult to read the text. I feel there should be no more than one or two pictures of each generation of a car.  Jagvar 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some car pages do not render properly due to excessive pics and info boxes 

message: Bull-Doser: When you archive a discussion, you are only supposed to archive the inactive topics.  Threads that people are still actively posting to should stay in the current discussions area. SteveBaker 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we usually archive every 50 discussios. I have reinserted discussions that people might still want to participate in and am going to complete the archiving process once the overall discussion on this page has reached that point. Signaturebrendel 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I find that rigidly sticking to the '50-discussions' rule is kinda silly - it's only a guideline anyway.  Some discussions ramble on for dozens and dozens of posts - others are just a couple of lines.  When the discussion page is HUGE then it's time to archive - irrespective of the number of topics discussed. 19:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, I myself archive 53 posts in the third archive. I do however think that it is important to look at the dates of the previous discussion posts- usually after three days of nothing the discussion is dead and can be archived- as I said, "I have reinserted discussions that people might still want to participate in." Signaturebrendel 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premature archiving 

message: Could you all please keep a close eye on Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Mercedes-Benz W220 and Jaguar XJ? A user by the name of Daimler with no profile and no talk page has been adding his opinion to the S-Class page, calling Mercedes "fat," "hideous," and "certainly no Audi A8 or Jaguar XJ." To the Jaguar XJ page, he has been adding comments like "dream car" and "far better than its German rivals." This is an obvious case of heavy POV, and despite my constant reverts, he is not stopping. Could someone issue him a stern warning, please? Jagvar 15:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by [[User:Daimler]]