Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 2

message: Just wanted to inform everyone that additional stubcategories have been created. Some of these are subcategories of auto-stubs, and here is the list:
* for autos pre 1900
* for autos produced 1900-1915
* for autos produced 1915-1930
* for Classic pre-war autos (1930-1945)
* for Classic post-war autos (1945-1975)
* for autos produced after 1975
* for any parts and components, as well as technologies
* for any auto related organizations, such as museums and others, but not manufacturers
* for any manufacturer of autos, parts or accessories
* for trucks
I've sorted most of the auto stubs, and have reduced them from about 1400 to about 175, most of which are related either to racing, magazines or people. Shouldn't be any need to create more subcategories, but if so, feel free to give me a little nod on my talkpage. Bjelleklang  -  talk 23:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Stubcategories 

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

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

message: As someone who just stumbled on this project, I'm very surprised that there is not a standardized infobox given the maturity of the project and number of contributors.  I know that there has been talk over at Layouts, but it seems very inactive.  I truly dislike to criticize, but coming to a consensus about the info would make a number of very good articles even better and should be a higher priority. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the artciles of Lincoln models they feature a standardnized infobox that is now also used for all Cadillacs. Gerdbrendel 22:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox? 

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

message: Is this extra page needed, or should it be a sub-entry under Mitsubishi Galant? The car looks about the same as the Galant, although it is highly modified and does mean the difference between the life and death of Mitsubishi Australia. 
The differences between Galant and 380 are fewer than between the 1984 Galant and the 1985 Magna, which had a widened platform. The 380 is on the PS platform, some of its changes will be incorporated into other Galants, and is arguably not that much more different from the original than the Taiwanese Galant Grunder, which at least has some unique sheetmetal up front.
To me, Galant v. 380 is the same difference as between a Ford Cortina made in the UK and one in Australia—and historically, we have dealt with the latter as part of the main article.
Mitsubishi marketing has convinced local journalists that this is a unique car for Australians—a fact that instils a level of pride. I can understand this, as the issue of local production is a big deal Down Under. I'm asking fellow editors from around the world if they see it objectively the same way, or if antipodean editors are being swayed unwittingly. Stombs 04:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mitsubishi 380]]

message: I have recently been confronted with the issues as to how the different types of engines should be listed in car articles. At first I tried lisiting them in the table at the top of the page but in some models such as the Lincoln Town Car or Cadillac Seville this led to monstrous tables that literally disfigured the article. In ordered to solve the problem I created little "blue boxes" as I call them for articles concerning cars that have too many engines in order for them to be listed in a page. You can see an example on the Lincoln Mark ir Lincoln Continental pages. On these pages the blue boxes provided an alternative to listing the engines inside the table and to the ununified approach of lisitng engine specs within the article. Any suggestions let me know, Thank you. Gerdbrendel 05:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The blue boxes looks nice to me. There are lots of engine listings on Toyota Corolla as well, maybe they could need some blue boxes. Or maybe boxes in three different colors... --Boivie 09:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine Spec lisitings 

message: I just published an article Vehicle Engineering.  I am fairly new at this (only my 2nd article), so I would appreciate some editing, help, etc on this.  Helpful links, catagory referencing, etc, would be helpful.  
Another area I would like some help with is, I can not find many references to the term Vehicle Engineering.  It is not a widely used term outside the auto industry.  All modern auto companies use a Vehicle Engineer, or that function.  I would like to add legitimacy to this if anyone could find an web reference to VEHICLE ENGINEERING.  Thanks.
I have also discovered many articles that either need to be written, or need some "automotive" editing.  I will review this, and publish these at a later time.  I will use this as my to-do-list, and if anyone wants to jump in and help, be my guest.
Also, I recommend the book I listed as a reference for anyone interested in the modern workings of a auto.  Note, I have no affiliation with the book, just thought it was a great read, and reference to some of the things I have written here.  See www.haynes.co.uk for details. --Drussel3 14:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vehicle Engineering 

message: Hi -its me again, I'm proposing a New GMC Yukon Page. Considering the recent 2007 Model year design changes and the Denali trim the Yukon has really become a model in its own right. Nearly half of the current  Tahoe/Yukon page is filled with Yukon and Yukon Denali information that does not relate to the Chevy Tahoe. It has also been really difficult to describe the recent design changes for both the Yukon and Tahoe in the same article. Just like the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis have their own articles so should the Yukon and the Tahoe. Gerdbrendel 02:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not nearly half, it's just a section that serves the purpose of describing the differences between Tahoe and Yukon. Technically, they are identical, so I don't quite see the purpose of having two different pages. Pc13 16:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Tahoe/Yukon Page 

message: Reading the discussion on this page I see there is a fair breadth of opinion. I have been working on Valiant (automobile) that now has a focus on the Chrysler Australia Valiant range and created a Valiant Charger article, IMHO a noteworthy car. However there is a longer article on the Plymouth Valiant. Some editors may want to merge these articles. But, from an Australian perspective, and the later model Valiants were Australian. The main article should probably have been Valiant (automobile). These articles are currently at :Category:Transport in Australia, there is no clearly more appropriate category at present - suggestions Paul foord 13:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a merge is necessary. If I understand you correctly, the Plymouth Valiant and the Valiant Charger had different names, were manufactured in different countries, and had some notable differences in the later models. No, the way you structured it looks fine to me. Valiant should in my opinion have its own category, if it was used as brandname for several models. --Boivie 14:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one would not like to see the articles merged because the US Valiant and the Ausi Valiant are not the same cars - after their initial rollout, all they seemed share is the name Valiant.  They are two different approaches, target markets and different enough they should not be merged. Stude62 16:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, why is the focus on the Chrysler Australia page on the Vailant and the Charger?  Chrysler Australia was more than just the Vailant.  Where's the Centura?  Where are the Euro Chryslers that were sold in Australia?  There's a lot that is lacking.  -Daniel Blanchette 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian cars - Valiant articles /also [[Ford Performance Vehicles]] merged 

message: I'd like to merge the content from Overhead cam, Single overhead cam, Double overhead cam, Pushrod engine, Camless, OHV, Flathead engine and F-Head Engine into a single article about valvetrain configurations/layouts/whatever else you want to call it. They're all small (for the most part stubs) and contain overlapping information. I think it would be easier  for the audience to refer to one comprehensive article on the subject rather than a half-dozen stubs. At the very least Single overhead cam and Double overhead cam should be incorporated into Overhead cam. Thoughts? Objections? Endorsements? --93JC 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really no mechanic but the cam articles should most definetely be merged since this would easy navigation and increase user-friendliness, beasied Overhead and Single cam are stubs. Gerdbrendel 19:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. Valvetrain configurations could be a list though, with overhead cam (incorporating both SOHC and DOHC), overhead valve (incorporating pushrod, OHV, flathead and f-head) and camless (much more rare type) as the main articles. Pc13 19:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like drivetrain, I think valvetrain should be an overview/list of the components, rather than merging them all down into one.  And yes, valvetrain is definitely one that needs to be created.  --Interiot 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! --93JC 21:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valvetrain configuration merger 

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

message: Hi, just wanted to see if I could drum up some assistance on a few fringe automobile pages.
*Rice burner
and, to a lesser extent,
*Import Scene
*Rice rocket
*sport compact
and many related articles are trendy, cultural topics that currently attract a lot of vandalism, over-enthusiastic IP editors and lots of POV commentary. There seems to be a fairly low amount of traffic on these articles from established, policy-savvy editors.
I don't really like editing these articles, but even these loosely-related topics reflect on the quality of automotive information on WP, many of them link to more mainstream automotive articles, and some of the least reliable auto information ends up on these pages. Not to mention the POV, vandalism and copyright issues.
Anyway, I'm not begging anyone to come put out a fire, or back me up in some argument or dispute; I just think if these articles were on a few more watchlists, the general quality of this corner of WP could improve a lot.
Thanks!
Fox1 (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The less glamourous side of Autos on WP: need help on "Rice" articles 

message: I've rewritten the LaSalle article and the Edsel articles
I undertook the rewrite on LaSalle because:
* The article wasn't as all inclusive as it should have been, and failed to explain how the LaSalle came into being and what the role of Harley Earl was, and how the LaSalle propelled Earl to a GM Vice Presidency.
* The article made a statement to the effect that the LaSalle was closer aligned with Oldsmobile.  While 1934-1938 LaSalles were very closely related to Olds, the 1927-1933 and 1939-1940 were not and I found the initial statement to imply that the LaSalle was a gussied up Olds, which it was not.
* Broadened the illustrations which before seemed to feature numerous images of a mid-1930s LaSalle to include historical PR shots of the 1927 endurance test LaSalle and a 1927 lobby sales poster for Cadillac dealers. 
* Provided more concrete information on the two GM Motorama show cars; clarified the relationship to the Buick Riviera model. 
*I sourced the article through the Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1805-1942 3rd Edition, by Kimes/Clark.  Anyone is free to check my facts through that work as they see fit.
Regarding my work on the Edsel article:
* While the article did discuss the history of the Edsel it did not address the role of Robert McNamara in the Edsel's demise as part of his plan to strengthen Ford sales.  This was included in a sub paragraph that dicussed the lack of internal support of the make within Ford's Executive structure.
* Clarified role of Eisenhower recession.
* Documented how Edsel's price structure confused the public and how the price points put all versions of the car (save top line Citation) in direct conflict with Ford and Mercury (documented through a price comparison chart).
* Included illustrations for 1960 Edsel, and Edsel Comet project.
* Restructed some text to better highlight how numerous factors worked against the Edsel.
As usual, my writing needs a keen and sharp eye for proofing.  Still I think that some of the contributions helped to make the articles stronger than they were before. Stude62 16:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewritten LaSalle/ Edsel Article needs proofing 

message: Is one already in the works?It seems that on the transport page a (train) and (aircraft) portal are already link.An automobile portal might be a good idea,it would pull some attention to the project and give a nice overview.
I can't help to notice that although this project has a lot of participants that the aircraft project 'seems' more organized.--Technosphere83 20:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bovie just noted on the main page that there's Portal:Cars.  Looks like it got started a month ago, and isn't very active yet.  --Interiot 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Automobile portal

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

message: Does the scope of this project cover things like auto magazines, car trade shows, auto racing, auto biographies, driving techniques, etc?  It looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobile construction is inactive, but even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't cover the bulk of these.  But things like /Templates seems to be exclusively focuesed on makes and models of cars.  Can I add  to that?
It seems like most of the topics are being talked about on this page, so can we go ahead and add all the relevant stub types to the main page, that are listed at the top of :Category:Automobile stubs?  And otherwise add more resources that reflect a broader scope?  --Interiot 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of this WikiProject? 

message: My vote for the next stub to be created is , as that seems to be the largest group currently in :Category:Automobile stubs.  Though it would probably only have 50-75 entries now, so maybe it can wait.
About :Category:Automotive organization stubs, that doesn't seem to be used very much.  I'm not quite sure what should go in there.  Should auto magazines go in there?  Can auto shows go in there?  Both seem to have a lot of representation in  currently.  --Interiot 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub questions 

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

message: If someone can spare the time, can you take a look at the Pontiac article.  I think its bogged down in cliches and lingo to the point where information seems to be taking a back seat to jargon and POV statements.  I was wondering if anyone got that feeling. Stude62 17:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, the first paragraph reads like an advertisment from the manufacturer. I have issued a "POV" tag. Gerdbrendel 19:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Nice to get a reality check now and then. Stude62 22:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pontiac article 

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

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the articles I often read from, the best would probably be Ford Cortina and Toyota Corolla. But if they're good enough for your classes, I don't know. The featured car articles are Ford Mustang, Volkswagen Type 2, De Lorean DMC-12 and Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9. --Boivie 07:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggested example articles of this project, Ford Mondeo and Lincoln Town Car looks good as well. --Boivie 10:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I will add them to this table when I have time. :) Gflores Talk 00:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ford Taurus is listed as a good article. --Boivie 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: Wikipedia (in my opinion) is in need of an article discussing autmobile ownership and such issues as insurance, registration, autmobile maintaince, license and etc. Since this is the automobile project i come to you. Thank you for reading and hope i made a useful suggestion. Tutmosis 02:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's indeed a good idea. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now, but I really think its a good idea. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Hi, Samstayton has recently proposed a merger between W12 and V12 engines since they are very similar. Considering the extend to which mergers were discussed above, this is an example of two pages that should be merged. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 17:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This merge breaks the precedent set with previous engine pages, in which each engine type has a separate page.  Moreover, V12 and W12 were merged and moved to 12 Cylinder Engines without seeking consensus in a way that destroyed the page history for W12.  Flat-12 and Straight-12 were not merged, making the name 12 Cylinder Engines inaccurate, and I would oppose merging Flat-12 and Straight-12 into one big 12 cylinder page as well.  Wikipedia is not paper, and it doesn't help to have fewer articles.  Links between the various 12 cylinder engine pages are adequate in order to relate the topics but keep them separate.  W12 engines are quite different from V12s and should not be lumped together.  They are far more different than a Crown Vic and a Grand Marquis. TomTheHand 17:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if they are than meybe there should be two articles, but neither of them should be called just "12 Cylinder Engine" (that name includes everything). I agree if they are different split 'em, but name one "V12" and the other "W12" so the difference is clear. Maybe the article "12 Cylinder engine" should be made into a disambugation page linking the V12 and W12 article- as you said the name is incorrect. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 17:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fail to see the rationale for this merger (and I consider myself a Mergist). The engine configuration articles are clearly defined, most pages link directly to them, and the number of cylinders itself is less important than the layout they are associated with. I propose Samstayton's edits in this area to be reverted ASAP. Pc13 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There WERE two separate articles, titled V12 and W12.  "12 Cylinder Engine" was created by Samstayton as part of the merge. TomTheHand 18:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The articles are separated now, with 12 cylinder engine being created as a new disambig.  While I don't know that the disambig page is necessarily needed, it doesn't hurt anything.  Otherwise, I too fully support the articles remaining split up, per all of the reasons you guys have articulated.  --Interiot 19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I mean, there are other options, like refactoring Template:Piston engine configurations a bit, to 1) make it narrower so it could fit on the upper-right of articles, and/or 2) align the rows so that some relationships between the rows are visible (most obviously, I guess, would be lining up all "12"s in the same column, though other relationships might potentially be illustrated...  on the other hand, I think the relationships between layouts are rather complicated, and it's much better to simply list/link them in each article's text).  --Interiot 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[V12]] and [[W12]] Merger 

message: How do I sign up to become one of the editors on this automobile project?  Samstayton 10:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you already have your name on the project page - nothing more do but go wild editing articles! akaDruid 21:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Signing up

message: I've noticed on the Chevrolet page that there have been a number of informational edits regarding what replaced specific vehicles and which vehicle were replaced by the list entry.  While I understand that lists need to provide basic information about the entry is on the list (ie why is the item listed) shouldn't the hyperlink to the article contain information about what precedes and what follows something?
I normally wouldn't pose the question, but given the length of the list, it gets a bit overwhelming... Stude62 21:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chevrolet model listings, how much is too much? 

message: I would like to request for a userbox to made for Wikiproject: Autmobiles for use on userpages. I know there is already a template, but having a userbox would be awesome as well. I myself much prefer userboxes. If somebody could whip one up that would be great, because unfortunatly I'm a beginner at HTML. Thank you for your help.
:Good idea. When If have a little more time I'll do one, but somebody is probably going to beat me to it. Signaturebrendel 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still wrestling with the pictures used in the automotive stubs as being out of sync with the times.  The "brass era stub" has generic car that looks too new for the era that the stub represents, etc.  Car we put those up for consideration, or does that get addressed in another forum? Stude62 15:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could be discussed here. Do you know any picture that would be better? It's difficult (but shouldn't be impossible) to find pictures that looks good when they are that small. --Boivie 16:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should have a variety of pics (a sedan, sports car, SUV, etc...) to fit the taste of the user. Signaturebrendel 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Wikiproject: Automobiles UserBox 

message: I've always been bothered by the listings for DeSoto being under De Soto, and I moved the main article today.  My reasons for doing this are:
*The National DeSoto Club uses the DeSoto spelling.
*The Standard catalog of cars series uses DeSoto as well.
*Collectible Automobile also the non-spaced version.
*Chrysler specs and advertisements of the 1940s and 1950s for the car also use the non-spaced version in most cases.
Hope that this doesn't trample on any toes or hurts feelings, but to me, it just makes sense to have the article in step with those who follow the marque. Stude62 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick google test shows that the car brand is much more often written DeSoto or Desoto than it is written De Soto, so I support the move. --Boivie 12:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should just be left at DeSoto due to the fact that most publications use this writing. That half a space is just a little ad trick, not affecting the actual writing of the name. Signaturebrendel 01:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed that you made the change and I support it. Good job. Jagvar 23:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved De Soto to '''DeSoto''' 

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

message: I just stumbled over List of automotive flops and I am asking members of the project to review it for its unsupported claims and POV wording.
While I agree with some of the POV's stated on the page, the content lacks the suitable proof and/or sites to make this "List" valid as a piece of reference that I could feel is reliable enough for Wikipedia.
Also, what are the criteria for determing what a flop is? To me an automotive flop is a car that at least meets some of the following criteria:
:1) Consumers have failed to embrace it (ex. Chrysler Airflow); 
:2) And/or the automotive press fails to embrace it (ex. Yugo); 
:3) And/or Government regulators or consumer groups question its safety or behaviors that can lead an unsafe condition (ex. Suzuki Samurai);  
:4) And/or its existence has cost its producer either profit, its brand identity, or its reputation (ex. Edsel); 
:5) And/or is pulled from the market (or its future development plans are dropped (ex. Cadillac V8-6-4 engine); 
:6) And/or its development and lack of return leads to closing of, or weak partner merge into a larger concern (ex. Hudson Jet).
And there is a big difference between poorly built cars with design flaws that sell well enough or have enough cache to make the manufacturer happy, and cars for which the names enter into the lexicon as a replacement for the word flop.
Again, thoughts, like other things off the top of one own head, tend to be a lot like dandruff - small and flakey. Stude62 15:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can make a list of flops without violating NPOV. Nor could we do it without doing original research. The subjectivity of it in-and-of-itself is not encyclopedic whatsoever. --93JC 16:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it can be done, if the flop is documented by quanitative facts - how much money did Ford loose on Edsel, how many cars under the projected sales of the Hudson Jet actually sold, etc. It could be done, but as it is now its just way too subjective. Stude62 17:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you changed the vague word 'flop' to something more concrete like 'Cars that were unprofitable' or 'Cars that were cancelled within the first year of production' or 'Cars that sold less than 10,000'...something you can objectively measure.  The trouble is that these definitions may not get you the list you were hoping for.  eg The first version of the Prius was unprofitable because it was deliberately sold at a loss to build a market and to get experience with the technology.  We wouldn't put such an astoundingly successful car onto a 'flop' page - but it would belong on an 'unprofitable' page.  If you went with low sales, you'd get practically every Supercar in existance - and those aren't "flops" either.  So to get the list you want - you'll have to phrase the conditions carefully to both come up with an objective measurement - and yet somehow encapsulate what you mean by a flop.  If you can't come up with such a coherent measure then that tells you that the very concept of a 'flop' might be entirely subjective.  The Edsel was a notorious 'flop' - yet it's a famous car - fantastically collectible - and generally worth a fortune nowadays. SteveBaker 02:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I Agree it can be done, but there needs to be some measurement of what a flop is otherwise its total NPOV. I think we have to go with "most unprofitable cars" or at least that being our guideline here. I think the profit a vehicles has earned or not earned in addition to the expectations the manufacturer had would be sufficient guidelines to keep the article. Thanks Signaturebrendel 03:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're on the right track in looking for an objective measure rather than a subjective one.  But I don't think profitability captures the essence of this list.  Would you be happy to see the innovative, effective and highly popular Prius on the list?  (The Prius has been sold at a loss for several years).  How about the Mini - which was a cult icon car - sold over 5 million vehicles, voted car of the century - the most popular British car in history, etc, etc - but made a loss for it's manufacturer for most of it's life.  Neither the Mini nor the Prius made a profit - neither could remotely be called 'flops'!   So yeah - we can make another hard-to-maintain list - but will it be interesting?  I don't think that the profit the car made for it's manufacturer is a good criteria for 'floppiness'.  A car that made a loss merely because the manufacturer decided it was more important to make the car sell than to make a profit isn't the kind of thing we're trying to capture here.  I would suggest perhaps 'Cars whose production run was prematurely terminated' or something.  That would capture the Edsel and the DeLorian...although it's still a bit tricky to adjudicate. SteveBaker 15:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a good idea "Cars whose production run was prematurely terminated." I think looking at the gap between the expectation a manufacturer had for the car, compared to its actual market preformance is just about the best defenition of a flop. I think sales numbers might also help- the difference between how many cars the marque expected to sell, and how many were actually sold. You're right, the Prius and Mini certainly don't belong on a list next to the Edsel as they were not marketing flops. Signaturebrendel 17:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with actual sales versus projected sales is that those numbers are gonna be hard (or perhaps impossible) to find.  Picking the Mini (which is a subject I've deeply researched over many years), we know the actual sales (5.3 million) - but I've never seen a figure for how many the manufacturer expected to make.  If that number is hard to find for a success - imagine how much harder it'll be to find for a flop...following a flop, everyone is covering themselves to avoid getting fired/sued - that information (which would be confidential even for a success) will be the first thing going into the shredder!  However, in most cases it's pretty obvious when a production run is cut short.  For the Edsel, this is easy to prove.  For the DeLorian it's a bit harder - arguably the car might have become a success if the founder of the company hadn't been so spectacularly busted.  But as criteria go, it's relatively provable and probably fits everyone's idea of a 'flop'. SteveBaker 17:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you're right the data as to how many sales were expected is quite difficult if not impossible to find, whereas a prematurely ended production span is quite easy to prove. So, the production span is probably the best measurement of a sales flop. Signaturebrendel 23:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of automotive flops 

message: Out of the 25 countries that have an appearance in Category:Automobile manufacturers by country, four are singled out to also have a defunct category as well (Britain, France, Italy and the US). The defunct category seems to have been widely ignored by editors but recently someone has moved a lot of the British companies listed under the general country heading into defunct. This got me thinking.  What is a defunct auto company? With some (most?) it is obvious, they closed for whatever reason years ago and are extremely unlikely to re-appear. Others are more problematical. Take an example, MG.  They are not at the moment making cars because the company has been sold but there is every intention that production will restart in 2007 under new ownership. This is surely not defunct. I have moved it back to the general category. What about companies that are still in business in other fields, that used to make cars but no longer do? They are not a defunct company but not a current car maker either. Then there is someone like Oldsmobile, which appears as both defunct and in the standard category. Can anyone be certain that GM will never using the name again.
My inclination is to dump the Defunct category, it brings up too many problems. Malcolma 12:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree the term Defunct itself is somewhat POV. Past Auto manufacturers is better since if a car brand is truly "defunct" it does not exsist any more. There is no objective measurement for defunct other than the mere fact that a company has ceased to exsist. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure the categorization of 'defunct' is in good faith, but perhaps it should be something more accurate and less POV, like "companies which no longer manufacture automobiles" or something to that effect. Which doesn't describe the status of the company at all, but describes their status directly regarding the production of automobiles, which is the info we're really trying to get at. -Dawson 05:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I my opinion whether or not cars are sold under a brand's name decides wether or not the marque is "defunct" or still up and running. For example, Eagle ceased to exsist. Obviously its parent company Chrysler is still around, but the name Eagle has been retire and the brand Eagle is there "defunct." The same holds true for Plymouth and Oldsmobile, both marques were retired by their parent companies and are there for defunct. Austin became "defunct" since there were no longer any vehicles sold under the Austin name. Once the name of brand disappears from the market the marque will become "defunct," unless there are confirmed plans to revive the marque in the near future. Thanks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Defunct automobile manufacturers

message: I've been working on Hudson automobiles (had a dickens of a time finding a decent grille badge with the Hudson logo on it) and it got me thinking about the Metropolitan. Currently the car is listed under Nash Metropolitan, the name under which it was sold in the United States.  Because the car was sold under four/five different brands during its model run, would it be better to list the car as the Metropolitan (automobile) (which is available as you can tell by the red link) ?
Here are my thoughts:
* The car was developed with authorization by Nash.
* Early versions were sold under the NKI label (Nash Kelvinator International) before converting to a Nash identity.
* Some Metropolitans were badged as Hudson’s according to several sources I have found, including publications from AMC.
* The car was sold as a Rambler and again, going back the AMC sources, some were sold as AMC vehicles (and AMC, not Rambler, issued the press materials on the car)
Before placing a comment on the Nash Metropolitan page, I thought that an informal discussion would be of help. Stude62 22:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's best known as a Nash and most were sold as Nashes. It's just fine the way it is. --93JC 04:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input on moving Metropolitan 

message: Several weeks ago another editor suggested there be new userbox for the Wiki Auto Prject which fits the userbox tables used on many user boxes. This my version of such a user box. The text is "Wiki Auto Project."
Thanks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useboxes 

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

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

message: I wonder what's going on with the infoboxes on the Cadillac Coupe de Ville and Cadillac Eldorado articles?  The headings look made-up to me, and the so-called "generations" don't really follow the actual changes in the cars.  The edits are coming from IP addresses.  Is this a particularly elaborate form of vandalism?  RivGuySC 02:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes one should always assume good faith. Nonetheless the edits had to be reverted. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same person just edited it again (under a different IP no less). I changed it again this time, and I have warned him. --ApolloBoy 02:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cadillac articles - fake infoboxes? 

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

message: Hi, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and thought I'd help tidy up the Porsche 911 entry. These are some concerns I have with it:
1, The entire range of air-cooled cars (from 1963 to 1996) is called MkI, while the subsequent water-cooled cars are called MkII. This is not correct terminology and is confusing. I removed the references, but they have reappeared.
2, There are a number of glaring errors (such as the 964 Turbo being offered in 4WD form). I've corrected some but, again, some have been reintroduced.
3, Much of the information is sketchy and fluffy, while a lot is missing.
4, Many of the models detailed already have their own pages, so there is duplication of information, making the page very long.
5, How far do you go? There have been around 60 variants to the 911 over the years (and that doesn't include, say, Targa and Cabriolet versions). I have information on them all, but is that required?
6, Ideally, I'd like to start again from scratch on the page, but is that correct etiquette?
Anyway, I'm happy to work on sorting this page out, but not if my efforts are undone. I also feel I'd need help with editing and formating correctly. As I said, I'm new to this, so any guidance is welcome.
Thanks
Philsy 12:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porsche 911 page 

message: Just an FYI...   I proposed this new stub type at stub sorting proposals.  A provisional list has 72 articles that could be included.  --Interiot 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stub proposal, {{tl|auto-bio-stub}} 

message: Hi, I'm fairly new the Wiki community to which I found while working on a project. I added an article on the Ford Proving Grounds in Arizona after noticing that a small stub was put in for the General Motors Proving Grounds, just southwest of Phoenix. I was going to ask for some help to see about the creation and expansion of Durability Testing Area (Proving Grounds) documents for all manufacturers (or as many as we can provide data for). I have a small amount of data accumulated for Ford testing facilities and will look as getting as much as possible on the other manufacturers.  Anyone want to help with the cause?   LSX 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already done an article on Studebaker's proving grounds under its current name of Bendix Woods Stude62 23:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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