Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 11

message: Hello. How can I become a member of this Wikiproject? (Please post your response on my talk page.)  --  224jeff6 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I join this Wikiproject 

message: Hi, I've just started a stub for Haynes International Motor Museum for Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset but I know very little about car makes, model numbers etc - would anyone be willing/able to take a look & make sure the links etc point at the right makers/car (& maybe add some pics) - further info is available from the museums web site at Haynes Museum Web site. Thanks— Rod talk 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Haynes International Motor Museum 

message: Would this Project consider standardization in naming of these articles in this category? They should be all similarly named, in both the noun and adjective used. Chris 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it really be standardised? Isn't part of the problem (the noun part), differences between British English, American English, Australian English et cetera? --Boivie 14:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. For example, as a Brit I have a driver's license. My cars have number plates (which are more formally known here as registration plates). The only thing I have which is called a license plate is a souvenir car license plate from Churchill, Canada, in the shape of a polar bear. ;) – Kieran T (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:License plates]]

message: Can we do something about all of the images in the Cadillac Deville article? The page is so heavy with redundant images that I can't even read it. This is actually a problem on several of the Cadillac articles, but is most noticeable here.
Also, people keep adding lists of video games and rap videos to the Cadillac articles, particularly Cadillac Escalade and Cadillac XLR. I've done my best to remove them, but PLEASE keep a sharp eye on the Cadillac pages! Jagvar 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've gone ahead and removed the photo galleries that were interspersed throughout the page. I think we only need ONE photo of each generation in the infoboxes. Does everyone else agree? Jagvar 00:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in my opinion, the lack of content in that article is the bigger problem. I still can't find a source that would give any useful information. I didn't mind the galleries too much (at least there was something there) but they really didn't add much value to the article. --Sable232 02:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Glut of images in [[Cadillac Deville]]

message: I just noticed that the "Jaguar XH" is listed as the Jaguar X-TYPE's successor on the X-TYPE page. Also, in the Jaguar template at the bottom of the page, the "XH" has been added to the Jaguar infobox, slated for production in 2009. However, I've never heard of this supposed X-TYPE successor. I'm well aware that the Jaguar XF is coming next year, and I thought that the XF would effectively replace both the S-TYPE and the X-TYPE. I searched for "Jaguar XH" on Google, and all that came up was the X-TYPE article on Wikipedia and its mirror sites. Nowhere in Jaguar's own press releases or in the automotive press could I find any mention of anything called the Jaguar XH.
Could someone please look into this? Jagvar 21:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it definitely was vandalism added by a repeat offender with the ISP address 96.232.101.21. I deleted it. Please watch for edits that this vandal makes. Jagvar 21:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jaguar XH: Real, or are we being had? 

message: ...on Holden and Buick-related articles. I've currently had to clean up Holden Camira from POV and advertising material that keeps being inserted (see the talk page for more details).
If anyone wants to help me with this, let me know. Also, what GM minivan articles were hit by this POV vandal (Oldsmobile Silhouette - was that hit??)
Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further to the POV editing of GM minivan articles... here's more... 

message: Just wondering what should be done with timeline templates when some vehicles have their 2009 models announced, but the rest have barely been announced for MY2008 (mainly referring to the Toyota car timeline, since the 2009 Corolla and Matrix were just announced, while no other MY2009 vehicles have been announced, and, WP:Crystal Ball could come into play). Butterfly0fdoom 06:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we get sensible about this and ignore the so-called "model year" and refer to the year in which the car actually goes on sale. MY seems to be an almost exclusively North American feature, which is used very little in the rest of the world.  Paul Fisher 08:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when the template refers to a company's North American line-up, model years are perfectly appropriate. And your statement doesn't quite offer a solution to the future prediction question, either. Butterfly0fdoom 09:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two options: one is to add five or ten years to all "modern" templates; but these may get cramped. Another option is to add ten years to the modern templates and move ten years back from all templates... that will be slow and chaotic, but then most templates will have three decades. -- NaBUru38 14:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .....huh? I didn't quite understand that...Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline templates

message: Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
*List of basic transport topics
*List of basic vehicle topics
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of List articles 

message: I am currently in an edit war over the Plymouth Valiant page as I have added the trivia tag and the user user:69.231.5.43, (also user:69.226.46.17, user:Mastermesh) accused me of taking a dislike of American cars because of that useless section, so shall we keep it or purge it off considering its less than usefulness on the page. Willirennen 00:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dump it.  Even as a prose section it still offers almost no information.  I think Millikan quote is using the Valiant as an example that could be replaced by any car and thus doesn't have anything to do with Valiants. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reminding, done it, now be prepared for the edit war by that lameass! Willirennen 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "lameass"? You are aware of the assume good faith policy are you not? I would strongly suggest before you engage in any sort of "edit war", you either discuss things calmly with 69.226.46.17 as it seems he has attempted with you before, or kick your dispute up to arbitration.  That said, cars are cultural artifacts that reflect the cultures that created them. Some information regarding their impact on popular culture and the impact popular culture had/has on them is definitely needed.  -Brother Dave Thompson 04:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree, Iwill assume good faith with all parties involved.  However, the pop culture section in the valiant article does not discuss its impact.  All it does is list a couple of film appearences and a very dubious philosophy reference.  Millikan was not saying the the Valiant persists longer than any other vehicle, he was just using it as an example of a physical object, thus he wasn't saying anything about Valiants in particular so I don't feel it adds any thing and is in fact confusing if one doesn't understand the context.  As for the films, unless the Valiant is a very imporant part of a film like the General Lee or some such, it does not really illustrate cultural importance to list film appearences.  Should we list everytime some one uses a ball point pen in a movie on the ball point pen page?  If someone can source some info on the cultural importance of the Valiant than by all means it should be added, but listing movie appearence is really just a waste of space. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I apologise for losing my temper as I was getting angry and frustrated in this edit war over this pointless trivia section, but one thing I am not apologise to and that is this sockpuppet who appeared to written to my talkpage and that article within an hour. That bit about Kurt Cobain will have to go as there is nothing significant about him owning it and nothing remarkable about his car to be kept on the page. Willirennen 02:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plymouth Valiant popular culture 

message: Recently, User:Falcadore edited the Holden Commodore article and five of its sub-articles (VB, VN, VR, VT and VE) to include Wheels car of the Year succession boxes. Quite personally, I consider these pointless and messy, as it only repeats what has alreday been mentioned in the articles. Would anyone here consider a policy that would effectively ban the use of such templates in automobile articles? OSX (talk • contributions) 22:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed from the Ford Focus (International) article that there was a precedent for other such awards to be given succession boxes that appear in other articles from sporting achievement to heads of government to reality TV winners. If there is a wish that these be deleted then perhaps all such awards be deleted from Automobile articles. There certainly should not be any claim against the notability of the Wheels Car of the Year, one of the worlds oldest such awards and perhaps the most stringently tested. --Falcadore 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point of discussion if you just delete it anyway? I don't mind if they are to be deleted, but don't start a discussion and then not listen to it. It's not worth an edit war, but there is a respect considerations. And finish the job too, you need to look at Honda Civic, Toyota Avensis, Renault Laguna, Mazda 6, Opel Corsa and Toyota Vitz. Maybe there are others too. --Falcadore 03:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I planned to delete them from the beginning, but I wanted you to know about it so my edits would not get reverted. I've seen these boxes in other articles before and have never liked them, but because I had virtually nothing to do with the articles in question I left them as be. When the problem started to affect the article I edit, the story changed. By the way, I am not going to remove those boxes from every article, gosh, now that is a big ask. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just suggesting the vehicular ones, for consistency. It's probably not as many as you think, don't think there's many, if any, beyond those seven. Don't get too caught up in ownership of articles (and smack me sideways if that sounded patronising, the insult is more often in the receiving than the giving). --Falcadore 07:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've fixed up those examples listed above, and if I see any more I'll be sure to remove them. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 08:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. The Wheels COTY carries a lot of industry cred because a lot of awards consist of significant people being polled, where as the Wheels COTY thoroughly tests the contenders against each other of three days. If it didn't have the cred the manufacturers wouldn't give them the cars to test. But that only address the Australia diminishing point. My efforts with the Wheels COTY were not the first award so I felt the precedent was broken, and perhaps assumed that this discussion had already taken place. Especially since the... Semperit? award mentioned previously was particularly un-notable as an award, a tyre cross promotion or something. Perhaps I was hoping to qualify some of the awards according to their creditbility as well. This is getting like a forum post, delete if you like. --Falcadore 11:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automobile awards succession boxes 

message: As of November 15, 2007, I will no longer be photographing any Pontiac Grand Am automobile for me.  This was due to IFCAR having the G6 (the Grand Am's successor) as his most-wanted Pontiac vehicle in photographs.  IFCAR will handle the rest of my Grand Am job. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you just go away and stop throwing hissy fits (which is what you seem to be doing in the unintelligible paragraph above). --Sable232 (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No More Grand Am For Me

message: Carl G. Fisher has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Epbr123 (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Carl G. Fisher]] FAR

message: Hi, this is Bull-Doser, and due to the heavy snowfall this week in Montreal (where I live), I will put car pictures on hiatus until the 2008 Montreal Auto Show in January.  For outdoor car pictures, they are scheduled to resume this March.  Right now, I will be uploading car pictures from the last day of car pictures for '07 -- November 18. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to sound harsh, but frankly, nobody cares. If you have pictures to upload, great! If not, well, then, whatever. It is not like we all sit on pins and needles going "Oh, when will Bull-Doser upload his next batch of images?!" because I hate to burst your bubble, but you are not that important. Karrmann (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And while we're at it, maybe Bull-Doser and IFCAR can ask for new digital cameras for their holiday gift. I think everyone would find their images much less objectionable overall if they had high quality cameras.--Analogue Kid (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who finds a photo "objectionable" is more than welcome to create their own higher-quality equivalent. IFCAR (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the EXIF data, better technique might help as much as better equipment. Using :Image:08 Subaru Outback.jpg as an example, if you'd used AV (or manual) mode you could set the camera to f/2.8 (a full stop faster than what was actually used), and shot from further back zooming in at 23.2mm, instead of as wide as possible at 5.8mm. Both those things will reduce the apparent depth of field and increase the background blur. There's enough distraction in parking lot photos as it is without using settings which keep everything in focus. However, there's only so much a P'n'S can do. --DeLarge (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And while we're at it, Analogue Kid, let's not wave our dicks around and slap people over the head with it needlessly, hokay? I don't see anything objectionable in IFCAR's pictures at least. They don't look like publicity shots or whatever, but unless you feel like buying him some Hasselblad gear you shouldn't expect it. Also, analogue > digital for great justice! Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No More Car Pictures For Me This Year

message: I noticed that this article and almost all articles related to aerodynamic components are either covered by the Physics and/or Motorsport Wikiprojects.  I believe aerodynamic components qualify as both automotive parts and automotive technology.  Do they fall under the scope of this project?Mustang6172 (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automotive aerodynamics

message: This entry needs deleting 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VG30DET
It's contents need moving to section 10 on the NISSAN VG engine page. Where it already has an entry as part of Nissan VG engine family. If this is permitted to remain then there will soon be separate pages for every version of every Nissan engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nissan_VG_engine
80.176.86.205 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that's the case, you could merge the information yourself and stick a proposed deletion tag on the page; if no-one's interested enough to remove it within a week it will get deleted. Mark Grant (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said. Better yet: Stick a message on the talk page. If nobody responds, do a clean, merge and redirect yourself. Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 18:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, a redirect would be better. 19:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DELETE NISSAN VG30DET? 

message: I think I am heading for another tedious episode of which car is a supercar or not, otherwise another pointless edit war as this is the case with the Nissan GT-R, as Dusk Knight tried to pointed out according to sources, without reading the supercar article saying he don't have time to read it all.
In my opinion, the class sports/grand tourer is more suitable. Plus to back my claim up, the Japanese wikipage refer the car as that (written as スポーツカー･GT, translated as sportscar/GT), plus listing its market competitor kills the claim off that it is a supercar.
Also, another issue with this article is the one about the "Media Appearances" section which that user don't not want to see it being killed off even if that section do not contribute to the article. I would love to say more, but that won't be a good idea.
For this case would Sports/GT be more suitable, considering the "similar to" bit listing its market competitors who are not supercars and should the "Media Appearances" section be purged off. Willirennen (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original discussion is here: Talk:Nissan GT-R#Car classification.  Just wanted to point that out since a few of my comments were misread, and, as a result, have been misrepresented here.~ Dusk Knight 20:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a meaningless debate. In terms of these descriptive nouns, the whole concept of car classification is entirely subjective. There is simply no right or wrong answer. You might as well argue the difference between a fast car and a very fast car. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is heading to another edit war, just check the discussion bit, also the Dodge Viper article is becoming deadlocked since one user believes the Dodge Viper and the Lamborghini Gallardo is a supercar. Willirennen 02:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that user:Wikiarrangementeditor has now violated the 3 revert rule and do need seriously reporting to WP:AN3. Willirennen 04:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supercar or sportscar/GT? (another eternal supercar debate episode: Nissan GT-R) 

message: Let me know what you think; it's my first major edit. (Since there was basically nothing to work with from the start, it's been built up pretty much from scratch.) First thought after the fact is that Dodge Trucks could probably be split into a separate page on its own and cut the size down a little, since the article now desperately needs some more photos to break up all that text. Also, there's a new page for Dodge concepts that I split out of the original. Most of the cars I added to that list need a page written for them, so if someone besides me wants a project... Duncan1800 (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Photos added as of yesterday morning, which makes the thing look much better if I say so myself. Is there any way the article can be upgraded from Start-class? I think that entire evening/morning's worth of work is at least B-class now. Duncan1800 (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, I think, though I'll wait for someone else to agree with me before upgrading it. It needs moar inline citations, though. Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 13:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually agree about the inlines, but I had already spent the entire evening on getting the thing reasonably complete and cleaned up. Feel free to tag anything you think needs a specific citation and I'll look into it. I was more concerned at the time with having the article complete, so I made a point not to have anything too loose in there. Duncan1800 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to slap s all over the article, because that looks ugly and I don't see anything dubious in there. I don't particularly want to mess up what is now a quality article (and excellent work on it, btw). I don't think it's urgent to add them; the main reasons, as I see them, are reader confidence and to stop unsourced cruft being piled on by people who aren't you, because this would mislead people into thinking your sources were consulted. Do it in your own time; I think the Some guy 1999, p. 32. followed by the list of sources consulted format would look better there; it also has the benefit of being easier to add, but whatever. Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 13:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major revisions to [[Dodge]] page

message: Ok, you Mopar buffs, gonna need a hand to expand and improve Fratzog.  Yeah, I know what it is, but I'm having a hard time flushing out the notability and references for it.  Thanks — MrDolomite • Talk 18:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there really much to be said about it? Might it be better merged into the Dodge article? Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 11:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with LC. If you're struggling for references, it may be because there just aren't any out there. I've seen plenty more logos in my time which are far more recognizable, which don't have their own pages. A previous AfD was cancelled, but if it hadn't I'm sure it would have ended up merged into Dodge. --DeLarge (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge. Malcolma (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fratzog]] 

message: I am considering creating this portal, and since we already have a Portal:Microsoft - why not one about Chrysler and its cars??
We could do the same for Ford, General Motors and VAG (Volkswagen-Audi Group).
It wouldn't be redundant to Portal:Cars, if anyone thinks that. Feedback is appreciated. --Solumeiras talk 11:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea, but you'd have to make sure enough articles are tagged properly for Chrysler LLC (especially since the recent "de-merger"). Also, are there enough articles on the people of Chrysler's history (chairmen, chief engineers, stylists, etc.) out there? I haven't checked, to be honest, but I believe WP is still light on automotive biographies in general. Duncan1800 13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a bad idea.  This portal (and associated project) already has too little effort, too few featured articles, too little interest in coming up with featured photos', Did You Know and On This Day entries.  The most recent "in the news" item is 10 months old!  The idea that we could take away some of the few people we have and somehow magically have enough effort to support both this AND another portal is crazy!  Right now, there are only two articles about Chrysler cars that have reached 'featured' status - are you planning on running them on alternate days?   It's a terrible idea - sorry.  SteveBaker (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Chrysler]] 

message: Just to bring this one up I am having issues with this article concerned, I have removed the trivia and notable owners section but these have been reverted on 2 occasions as the editors disagree with how irrelevant it is, stating people other than you find this information non trivial. Just want to know what to do if it comes back, as I am within my 3 revert limit. Willirennen 03:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tesla Roadster]] 

message: why is the handbrake in a car a pulling action and in a tram system it is a pushing action to apply the hand brake?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.29.19 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  handbrake systems 

message: Someone has requested that editors of automobile content consider including the weight of vehicles in articles.  Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Automobile Weight.  Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree with this, as weight is a primary performance indicator besides the engine itself. I find that a lot of articles lack the weight, I don't know why they don't include it. --Leedeth 10:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vehicle weight 

message: I found this page while on WP:CLEANUP duty. I had a stab at it, but I thought I'd send it over here to see if anyone in this Wikiproject has a better idea of how to approach it. Manning (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Import scene]] 

message: I don't know if this is widespread throughout Wikipedia, but because I primarily edit auto articles, I've noticed it increasingly here: significant edits, such as reverts and major content changes, marked as minor. 
For reference, for careless WikiProject Autos editors:
"A check to a minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.
By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.
The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please, do not mark it as minor.
Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text.
Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an 'edit war' is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor." From: Minor Edit
IFCAR (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easiest way to avoid any complications, so far as I've noticed, is to at least use the notation box (under the main editing window) and describe what you changed. For me, anything beyond bug-fixing, spell-check or mild grammar issues counts as a major edit - but even when it's not, I make a note of what I fixed. And remember, it's always easy to do a history check... Duncan1800 (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto the above. Edits without a proper summary are far, far more annoying than edits flagged as minor which aren't. Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 16:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edits 

message: There is a discussion in progress on merging Saturn Astra into Opel Astra.  Right now the consensus is nearly evenly split between merge and no merge.  Additional discussion is welcome. --Vossanova o< 16:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturn Astra merge proposal 

message: Mercedes-Benz R170
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Mercedes-Benz R170 
 
Manufacturer Mercedes-Benz 
Parent company DaimlerChrysler (1998-2007)
Daimler-Benz (1997-98) 
Production 1997-2004 
Successor Mercedes-Benz R171 
Class Sports car 
Body style(s) 2-door retractable hardtop 
The Mercedes-Benz R170 was an automobile platform for sports cars produced since 1997. R170 models were originally sold as the SLK-Class and was based on the W202 C-Class. It was replaced by a new SLK-Class platform - the R171 - for 2005. R170 and R171 chassis production is handled by Karmann of Germany.
Vehicles:
1997-2004 Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class 
2004-Present Chrysler Crossfire 
1996 SLK 200 R170.435 engine: M111.946
1996 SLK 200K R170.445 engine: M111.943
1998 SLK 230K R170.447 engine: M111.973
2000 SLK 200K R170.444 engine: M111.958
2000 SLK 230 R170.465 engine: M112.947 
==>  The last line should read 2000 SLK 320 R170.465 engine: M112.947 
M112 is the 3.2L V6 engine, not 2.3L L4 engine, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.132.37.54 (talk • contribs) 03:28, December 24, 2007
:Fixed! OSX (talk • contributions) 10:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercedes-Benz R170 stub proposed revision 

message: There is currently a debate regarding the classification of the Nissan GT-R.  I feel that this debate has potential to effect other pages in the Wikiproject Automobiles domain.  More or less it boils down to when the "supercar" label should be applied.  As it stands we could really use more opinions.  There is a long discussion but I wrote a summary of my postion today and would like to see whether others agree or disagree.  The input of some of the members of this project would be appriciated. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional opinions needed

message: OK, so we kick off a new year in a few days time. What articles would anyone like to get to featured status in January?? If you can help me with one or two, I'll help you with any you're working on.
For me, these cars should really be featured articles....
* Chevrolet Blazer
* Vauxhall Cavalier
* Nissan Sunny (not the Pulsar which was called Sunny!)
what ones do you want to get as featured article candidates?? As it is, it's a tough job but someone's got to do it...
It would be good to get the more obscure vehicles to WP:FA status! --Solumeiras talk 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chevrolet Blazer is a dab page. --DeLarge (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to get Ford Taurus to featured status, but it always kept falling short. I am working on a major revision that may finally give it the final push. Karrmann (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: When someone actually nominates a car article for FAC (or even GAC), it would be nice to note it here on the Automobiles discussion page. This will allow experienced car article editors to check out the article and weigh in on the discussions. SteveBaker (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FAC]] - Featured article candidates 2008 

message: I notice the recent creation of :Category:Vehicles with boxer engines which purports to contain vehicles where "...the horizontal piston layout classifies them as boxer, horizontal or flat engines.". If the category is intended to include all flat engines, then is "Vehicles with boxer engines" a suitable name for it? Aren't there some flat engines which aren't boxers? Note that I'm not an expert in this area, so I'm happy to be corrected. DH85868993 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 180 degree V12 is maybe better say flat-12...so that article name could be with flat engines--— Typ932T | C  00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that flat and boxer engines were one and the same, but it looks like there's a small technical distinction. I'm not convinced that this category would survive the scrutiny of the WP:OCAT people, since I don't know how many of those cars use the engine configuration as a significant feature. Is there a category for V- W- or inline-engined vehicles? Even ignoring that, it should certainly follow the parent page's naming convention. I'd take this to WP:CfD and get it renamed to :Category:Vehicles with flat engines. --DeLarge (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Vehicles with boxer engines]] 

message: I just thought, some of you would like to know, that :Category:Supercars is on categories for deletion.--79.212.240.20 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: cfd for [[:category:supercars]]

message: As I have nominated these AFD these articles
*Club Peugeot UK‎ 
*Alfa Romeo Model Register
*Midwest Isuzu Off Road
*Desi Disturbance
*Street-Legal
there should be a guideline for car clubs and how notable are they as I believe none of these are notable enough to have an article here, trouble is there isn't any thats why I come here to tell you all to draw one up. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reason not to just judge by the quality and quantity of independent sources, as we'd do with any other topic?  I hate to see subject-specific guidelines being worked on when the general guideline will do the job. Friday (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The guidelines in WP:ORG sets a pretty clear standard - is there any reason to suppose that car clubs are some kind of special case?  I don't thinks so.  Hence: (as I noted in the AfD's) The Club Peugeot UK article is worthy of a keep because it's a national organisation that's supported by Peugeot as their 'official' club.  As for the others...yep, delete the suckers per WP:ORG.  The general rule is that national and international clubs with some sort of formal recognition that they are indeed the national organising body...are definitely notable.  Local clubs are not notable unless you can come up with a boatload of references showing that they are really significant in some other way.  Local clubs are notable enough to be mentioned within an article of larger scope, however.  So if you wanted to write an article about Isuzu clubs in general, then mentioning the Midwest Isuzu club as a part of a general discussion of such organisations would be entirely appropriate. (Incidentally: Moosato Cowabata doesn't appear to have created an actual AfD for Alfa Romeo Model Register (or if there is one, it's not correctly linked from the article itself) - that one is just a junk article - it's not even about a specific club and it contains zero information.) SteveBaker (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I had bee thinking if this to be kept, will this entitle me to create an article for my car club. I think there should be a criteria as there are now too many car clubs with many of these old "traditional" clubs are dying out in favour of the newer internet clubs who are simply nothing but an internet forum. My criteria is to allow for only long established (eg Club Triumph, established in 1954) and those who organise a national racing series (eg AMOC and FOC), that is one fo the few I can currently think of so far. Holding a show is not a good reason for inclusion nor is having a stand in a major car show as these are simply advertising the club. Willirennen (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already guidelines covering that, e.g. WP:ORG PrinceGloria (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car club notability issues 

message: Remember the 217 Ip guy who kept adding blatant POV to the GM Minivan articles? Well, he is now creating accounts and is using them to vandalise them as well as many editors userpages with a long, prewritten attack. I don't know how many accounts he has, but I am asking that you guys watch these pages so we can contain this guy. Just don't give him any special attention, because if we do, that will just provoke him to keep doing this longer. Karrmann (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Vandal on the Loose 

message: I am having some editing issues on the List of Bathurst 1000 vehicles list as after looking at the list, as I originally attempted to do add racing homlogation models as User:Falcadore intially allowed 2 race homlogation models (BMW M3, Volvo 240 Turbo) and another one I added on (Nissan Skyline GT-R) but not the others such as the Ford Sierra Cosworth RS500 and separate Toyota Celica Supra from the standalone Supra listing despite , stating that the former was never sold in Australia and what was known there despite some of them never being sold there such as the Sierras. Also every models of the Falcons, Commodores, Corollas under as a single line, when the 3 series BMW are listed separately. As I am heading to a massive debate over what car can be listed, should homlogation and performance models be listed separately, should this be done to an Australian view or to a worldwide view, how should this list be presented, and anything else, feel free to say what you think on the talk section here. Willirennen (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racing homlogation and performance models on List of Bathurst 1000 vehicles 

message: Looks like we should remove all photos of Fords from Wikipedia (as a protest if nothing else!):
   http://www.adrants.com/2008/01/ford-slaps-brand-enthusiasts-returns.php
SteveBaker (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should jump to that conclusion.  They must have been planning to sell the calendar as I can't imagine a way you can copyright all non commercial images that contain your product.  Unless Ford specifically asks Wikipedia to remove the images I see no reason to take any kind of action. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a link to one car club who took the time to get the details of Ford's policy:  http://www.ricehatersclub.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=25901  - it does kinda looks like Ford is only going after people who are making a profit from selling photos...but what they actually say doesn't limit it to that.  It's really getting silly when you can't take a photo of your own car!  I agree though - I wasn't being entirely serious when I said that we should remove them all. SteveBaker (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read somewhere that Ford was suing a old Jaguar car club that was creating a callendar of club members vehicles manufactured in the 60's, before Ford bought Jaguar, claiming the same thing. Ford and their Detroit brothers GM and Chrysler are starved for cash, and it seems like their lawyers have been given marching order to "go get the money however they can". How can they now claim copyright infringement when people have been taking photos of their purchased vehicles since the very beginning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddike (talk • contribs) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further reading suggests that it's TRADEMARK infringement they are complaining about - not copyright.  In that case, we're probably OK here on Wikipedia because we aren't using the images to sell anything.  I can't imagine they are doing this for the cash -  they are issuing cease and desist - car clubs are desisting (nobody wants to fight Ford!) - so they aren't going to make a penny out of it, in fact, it's costing them money to have overpaid lawyers write letters. SteveBaker (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford claims it's copyright infringement to photograph their cars. 

message: Comments are requested at Ford Mustang regarding this image.  I feel it is not up to quality standards especially for a info box when other images are available, but others disagree.  Page is currently protected so I would like to resolve this soon. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems extremely obvious to me. Aftermarket headlights, wheels seem aftermarket, not the best angle, distracting black background, and unnatural lighting. Many better images exist. IFCAR (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that this image is not very flattering to the Mustang. There must be better examples available. The vehicle seems to have an unpleasant "rice" appearance and the aftermarket items don't do this vehicle any favors. Using this image as the infobox example is hysterical. The image of the red Mustang is much better but still isn't the best. There must be an example in Wikicommons that shows the vehicles profile better than the images being used. The dark background implies that there is something to hide and that this vehicle looks terrible in better lighting. Eeewwwhh. Cut the sucker.(Dddike (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what we have been trying to do, but an IP and an account (who we believe to be the same account) kept trying to force the image into the article, so now the page is protected so we can't get rid of it. Karrmann (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There already are better pictures. The current problem is an edit war in which a user keeps removing them. IFCAR (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So send a message to the admin who protected the article.  Calmly and carefully explain why this image violates the WikiProject:Automobile guidelines on car photos ("No after-market equipment allowed" is your best approach since the other reasons are primarily aesthetic and therefore open to debate) and is misleading to our readership.  Have him/her (a) change the photo per this guideline, (b) admonish the miscreant/sockpuppeteer to stop doing this and apply a block if necessary and (c) unprotect the page. SteveBaker (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ford Mustang images

message: "I'm not criticizing the project, I'm just trying to get enthusiasm for it back... all comments welcomed! --Solumeiras talk 10:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Raokman, you may have some good points, but it's difficult to lend you much credence given your own uncooperative, uncivil behaviour and unwillingness to properly sign your comments on talk pages ("signed raokman" does not constitute signing your comments). Coöperation works when everyone coöperates. Complaining about the lack of coöperation is dicey if he who complains is not coöperating. Self-critique can be difficult, but please take a few moments to think very carefully about your own contributions. Improvement starts at the individual level, and spreads throughout the community. You say there's not enough coöperation. You may be right. Do you think there are ways you could be coöperating more effectively?  --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep editing my comments on discussion pages?  Especially when you edit them badly?  Signed:  Raokman...by the way, if I sign my name, and Wikipedia provides the IP address, date and time automatically, what exactly is wrong with that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.222.9 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Repairing hierarchy is not considered editing the comments themselves. Sinebot doesn't always automatically sign comments, and Wikipedia protocol is for each commenter to sign his own comments. This has been explained to you numerous times...can you tell us what your objection is to hitting the tilde key four times at the end of your comments? --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many generals, not enough foot soldiers

message: I've always perceived a problem with Template:Auto ft.lbf, for it generates a unit notation that is not only incorrect for the application, but also not appropriately formatted. As described in Foot-pound force, ft•lbf is the formal notation for "foot-pound force", the unit of energy, while lb•ft is used for "pound-feet" to denote torque. In practice, lb•ft and ft•lb are used interchangeably to denote torque — though many physics professors over the years taught me that lb•ft is to be preferred — but ft•lbf is not used to denote the torque output of an engine or motor except on Wikipedia, as it seems. Is this the right place to propose that the unit label produced by this widely-used template be corrected? Thanks. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although not being an expert in these kind of things, I would agree; I´ve never come across the ft•lbf unit, and I do own hundreds of US/english-language car sales brochures that all seem to use lb•ft. My two cents only. --328cia (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sticklers for propriety insist on ft•lbf even though it is not common usage. Personally, I have never seen that outside of WP. It seems that somehow there would be confusion, even though we're referring to the output of an engine so it shold be clear. In prose I avoid the issue by saying "xxx lb•ft of torque. --Sable232 (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the first time I've read there was at one time a band of sticklers baselessly insisting on the incorrect unit (ft•lbf) some time ago. It seems for the moment they are in retreat, perhaps making trouble elsewhere. I don't especially like your proposed solution; there is no good reason to introduce spurious redundancy by saying "215 lb•ft of torque" any more than there is to say "145 hp of power" or "15 km of distance" or "60 hr of time" or "305 in³ of volume". All the templates currently output the correct unit (lb•ft). If somebody cares to challenge the use of the correct units, s/he can discuss it on the talk page and obtain consensus. If it becomes necessary to bring in arbiter assistance, there are provisions for that, too. For the moment, "all quiet on the Western front" — perhaps it'll stay that way and we can focus on more important things. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine torque units: '''ft•lbf''' vs. '''lb•ft''' 

message: Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects. 
Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.
If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project 

message: An IP user is insisting on versions of the Dodge Durango article that put two images in one infobox and a poor image in the head infobox. I think I already violated 3RR on this without thinking about it, so if someone else could settle this I'd appreciate it. IFCAR (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IFCAR has misrepresented my concern. See the talk page for a discussion and this diff in particular  Also, the headbox image was not my proposal, but another user's  I look forward to cooperating and collaborating with all of you!-72.93.80.5 (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodge Durango image concern 

message: The following car and engines articles had links to energy crisis.  I'm not sure if there is important material in the list, so if there is anyone who knows more than me about engines, car history and fuel efficiency who could transclude at the least the basic innovations and technical points from these articles to the energy crisis page, it would significantly add to the article and be appreciated. 
Mazda Wankel engine, Mazda Rotary Pickup, Internal combustion engine ,Stirling engine, Chrysler L platform, Chrysler Cordoba, Leyland P76, Pontiac GTO, Chevrolet Impala, Dodge Monaco, Bristol Type 603 - Shiftchange (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda fail to see how, except on the most basic level (in that those cars generally are regarded as having poor fuel economy), any of those articles relate directly to the energy crisis. By that reasoning, you could add about 75 percent of Detroit's output in 1973-74, a good number of other Aussie cars of the same period, and a wide range of similarly-timed European exotica. In short, I don't suspect there's much in those articles that will help the energy crisis article. As for Stirling engine, it certainly qualifies as a more efficient design for a powerplant, but it doesn't relate much to cars and isn't that widely used anywhere else (so far as I've been aware). I'd be more in favor of removing the tag from those articles, actually, since it's very subjective. Duncan1800 (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automobile links on Energy crisis 

message: There is now couple of new templates to conversions, some examples:
** results in 
** results in 
** results in 
** results in 
*Torque
** results in 
** results in 
I think we could swap Auto templates to general convert template in auto articles (in most cases)? only difference is that we have convention (Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions) that says we dont use commas eg. in millimetres...the convention page should also be rewrite to give clear instructions... what do you think?
--— Typ932T | C  12:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New conversion templates available 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page since the article falls under its scope and so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Gulf Oil and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. I left messages for the main contributors to the article so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gulf Oil GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

message: This former user is getting all his automotive-related images tagged for deletion. I just started to save some of them. I suggest that others on this board continue to do so. ----DanTD (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User talk:Stude62]] 

message: General Motors is going through a lot of back and forth editing over how 2007 results are affecting its world status...is this a good place to ask for more eyes to look at the various sources and discussions over what should be included in the intro paragraph? Here's a discussion I started on the talk page: Talk:General Motors#Editing warring over 2007 results. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 03:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eyes on [[General Motors]] 

message: Max Mosley, head of the FIA, is currently on peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Max Mosley.  One weakness that I am conscious of in the article is Mosley's role outside motorsport. The FIA supposedly represents motorists and motoring organisations worldwide. If anyone would care to comment on or add to the article, that would be great. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review - Max Mosley