Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 6

message: :At first, I propose the Task Forces I have though about, as I think they could pretty much cover most of the articles within the scope of this WikiProject. If you have a proposition for another Task Force, just add it below with a short description. Please make sure it does not corrupt the column layout by using the preview function. Should you have troubles with that, just leave me a note with TF's name and description and I will put it up. Please make sure there would be at least 100 (existing or possible) articles within the scope of the TF, otherwise it would be too ephemeric IMHO.
:I believe it is sensible to assume a TF makes sense if there are at least three people signed in. Also, I believe it is sensible to sign in to maximum two "interest" and perhaps one "maintenance" TF at one time (you can switch later on), unless you are sure you have time to participate in more. Finally, do not forget to sign in as reviewers to some other TFs, that's the only way it could all work! Bravada, talk - 11:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task Forces 

message: Bavaria, the fair-image poster has posted many fair images a long time ago, but had been stomped by Bull-Doser, IFCAR, etc.  IFCAR has posted many free images to replace the Bavaria-type images from Consumerguide.  Another fair image poster was ApolloBoy.  Bavaria's image business is beginning to erode now.  But on the Nissan Maxima page, the 2007 Maxima hasn't arrived in Canada, but I posted a fair image of the Maxima (from Consumerguide), which is only temporary.  The '07 Maxima is now sold in the United States, because it is BUILT there.  I've also been in the fair-image business, mostly for '07 models that haven't arrived in showrooms yet (excluding the Nissan Versa, on which I posted).  The Versa hasn't been introduced for the American market, but the Versa image was actually taken by me at a Nissan dealership.  However, most of my images continue to be free, and will now be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. -- Bull-Doser 04:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what was the point of posting this? Karrmann 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: File under "using the WikiProject talk page as blog" Bravada, talk - 18:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Images Are Dying On Wikipedia's Car Pages 

message: We got another GA! the Ford Taurus was listed as a Good Article! Karrmann 03:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Good News 

message: Two articles I ran across recently that I wanted more input on before possibly XfDing them.
* :Category:Cult Cars...   too subjective or not?  We have :Category:Luxury vehicles, but this seems a bit more subjective.  --Interiot 08:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops! Forgot about that one completely, I was to nominate if for deletion long ago. It is as POV as can be, and I can't see how "luxury vehicles" is more - there are fairly good definitions given in the "luxury vehicles" article, and if one sticks to them when categorizing, we're OK. But I don't see a good objective definition of "cult car" and therefore this category is going to be perpetually POV. Just look at it now - one of the cars tagged as "cult car" is (lo and behold) Plymouth Breeze. OK, I can even imagine a rationale for Plymouth Breeze being a cult car (there are surely some Breeze fans out there), but if the Breeze is a cult car, than what car is not? When I edit car articles, I mostly rely on sources such as fan and enthusiast sites, so I can assure you that even the most obscure and unlikely vehicle has a loyal fanbase. Given the many "Camry worship" pages I have come accross, I believe the Toyota Camry would be a perfect cult car, wouldn't it? Bravada, talk - 11:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep or not? 

message: * Trunking (auto)...  it's got reliable sources... it was even discussed by a legislature ...  It still feels like the sort of thing that nobody may remember in a couple years if it's mainly just local news hype with little real-world occurance. --Interiot 08:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trunking 

message: I've just been trying to edit these; and the articles are too technical even for me!
Can we try and clean them up and/or split the articles?? Mazda Familia is particularly bad! --TheM62Manchester 17:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what's so technical about them. I would start with working on actually putting some CONTENT in there, and we'll see how big the articles end up - perhaps then they might be split. The problem is that they do not cite any sources, so I'd work on finding some first and then trying to compose a nice write-up based on them. Bravada, talk - 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mazda articles 

message: I went and found a bunch of articles littered with images of toys (such as NASCAR, AMC Matador, Dodge A100 among others) and a whole article dedicated to a single toy model of a car! (see Johnny Lightning AMCRebel which I changed to a redirect to Johnny Lightning. I think we should outlaw toy cr images, as they are littering articles everywhere. Karrmann 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd support prohibiting toy car pictures from real-car articles.  Articles specifically about toy cars should obviously have pictures of that toy car.  And there might be a very unusual case where a toy car is so notable that it's mentioned in the text of an article about a real car, and then a toy car picture might be appropriate there.   But I don't think a picture of a toy car is ever a valid stand-in until a picture of a real car can be found, and they're not appropriate for an article where there's no reliably sourced text that mentions toy cars.  --Interiot 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the images from their respective articles, only for them to be put back. I removed them again. Karrmann 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: <sigh> And thus the horror begins again.  Is there any way we can avoid another couple of weeks of this crap - we already know how it's going to end. SteveBaker 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess I was right.  It looks like someone has slapped an indefinite block on both Wiarthurhu and his Matador300 sockpuppet - I'm not sure what triggered it - but it's definitely justified. Hopefully it's all over and we can get back to writing an encyclopedia. SteveBaker 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Concerning Wiarthurhu.  (I inlined the gallery above, hopefully that's okay)  Yes, hopefully things will be returning to normal.  --Interiot 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toy car images 

message: I am still finding (and correcting) lots of inconsistencies in formats for units of measurement. Feel free to use my 'units' tab tool that checks and edits a whole article at once. You can accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. 
To get it to work, simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE). Then put an article into edit mode and just click on the 'units' tab. 
I would welcome any help in going through the articles. Regards bobblewik 06:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit formats 

message: I have corrected hundreds of examples of 'kph', 'kmph', 'km/hr'. The correct form is 'km/h'. However, it was reverted in one article recently. Can somebody take a look at DeSoto Fireflite please? bobblewik 06:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me...   it's an american car, so the mph should be the primary unit, I think?  (and the "rv" comment applied more to the edit before yours)  --Interiot 07:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you mention it, I see that the revert applied to the one before mine. Thanks. bobblewik 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes in an American car the primary measurements should be English with Metric in parentheses-the other way around for non-American cars (Why can't more Americans become friends with the metric system-It's so easy-really!) Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect use of 'kph', 'kmph', 'km/hr' instead of 'km/h' 

message: Sometime ago, I have proposed that we try to establish one comprehensive list of all the standards pertaining to individual car articles adopted by the WikiProject. As there were some voice of support, I have attempted to start a page like that @ User:Bravada/Standards. I have copied whatever I could find within WikiProject subpages and suggested some other standards it might be good to adopt.
What do you think about it? Feel free to suggest any changes/improvements on the talk page, as well as put forward propositions for new standards/policies (or perhaps for changes in exisiting ones). I believe the best way to establish a new standard is to achieve a consensus (i.e. a situation where there is no member against it). Let's see whether it works. Bravada, talk - 11:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards 

message: Should we include more info on these in General Motors/Ford/Volkswagen articles, as the vehicles are substantially different to US/Canada/Europe versions, e.g. .
At the moment I'm working on Volkswagen Apollo. --TheM62Manchester 13:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin American models 

message: I don't know if it's a rehash or not, but there's a discussion about metric/US units at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Units of length.  (just a heads up in the off-chance that it could change automobile articles... I can't follow it because I'm going to be offline for a day or two).  --Interiot 03:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I have made a redirect so that the discussion continues where it belongs i.e. in the Manual of style talk page. bobblewik 19:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units discussion 

message: If any need editing, I'll be free to help you. I was a former WoW sock using two WoW accounts ages ago but decided it wasn't fun any more copying WoW's actions, so gave up after just two goes at it - proof that Willy-on-Wheels-type vandalism isn't fun.
I decided WikiProject Automobiles is more fun, so if any admin reads this, don't block me, OK??
BTW, my name is Will and I'm from Toxteth. Always been into cars! --WillyofToxteth 10:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Leyland articles 

message: Due to a concern raised in the respective talk page, Ford Mustang has been listed as a Wikipedia:Featured article review. Main concerns are the validity of the original nomination due to a lack of info and the current model section is too "detailed" for it's own good. It's also noted at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ford Mustang.--293.xx.xxx.xx 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Mustang listed as a Featured article review 

message: WP:EL now explicitely says "forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself".  There was some discussion on this page before that WP:EL might have meant "don't use forums as a source, but it's okay to link forums in the External links section", but WP:EL has since been clarified to be apparently the opposite of that.  And articles are being cleaned up to that effect.   
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links to allow some leeway for subjects that have many fan sites...  to say that it may be preferable to link to a small handful of the best fan sites (eg. from 0 to 5 fan sites, depending on the topic). Anyway, I pretty much support this, and I may be doing a bit of sporadic cleanup along these lines.  --Interiot 11:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links, again 

message: I note the above discussion about task forces. I have a suggestion that we have a unit formatting task force. There is still plenty of inconsistency between how units are shown in articles. I have done many but there are still many to do. And more inconsistencies are created as articles are written and edited.
I know that several people are interested in consistency of unit formats. Would more people like to use my 'unitformatter' tool as a 'task force' or individually? If so, just let me know on this talk page, and I will help you get it going. Regards bobblewik 18:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit formatting 'task force' 

message: I'll defer adding this to the charger police car article to somebody else --matador300 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charger Patrol car picture 

message: Dear Sir/Madam.
I am Mohamed Nisthar from Sri Lanka. I am a Motor vehicle dealer dealing in a small scale here in Sri Lanka. I would like to contact the sales sections of motor vehicle manufacturing companies in South Korea to discuss about some kind of deal. I would like to findout whether I could get the e-mail address of such companies in Korea. Please send me the details to kiwiquicker@yahoo.com
Thank You.
: That's almost good enough to go on Wikipedia:Unusual requests.  --Interiot 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is, especially considering the purported nature of the business of Mr. Nisthar and his email :D I believe this is a pendant to the discussion about the scope of the of the Project... Bravada, talk - 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this is good enought for the unusual requests site. I went ahead and posted it there.Signaturebrendel 04:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deal 

message: Isuzu Impulse is suffering from some tedious external link changes. I've requested semi-protection from the admins, but I'm certain this will be rejected (it's not going to be considered bad enough) and I'm really just hoping for a stern word from an admin. Anyway, mentioning it here in the hope that you guys may also help to keep an eye on this. It's also a mediocre article badly in need of a photo of the 1980s car, and some further copyediting... – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are blocked for violating WP:3RR...  it primarily was a content dispute, and almost all of AE86er's contributions have been to the edit war.  --Interiot 14:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you believe it, the article is now back in the edit war with another newly created account two newly created accounts, and some new IP addresses :( – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets just protect the page. Karrmann 16:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor edit war

message: I was recently reading the Lexus article, and I was impressed with how it has turned out, and I think it could be good for a Good Article canidate. What do you think? Karrmann 00:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lexus 

message: Some  is trying to merge the Chrysler Sebring models into one article again. Shere your opinions about it on Talk:Chrysler Sebring (coupe) and Talk:Chrysler Sebring (convertible) Karrmann 12:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way is a mess and bad looking, plus the current situation is confusing with the sedan in the main page but not the coupes. I propose merging all info on the JA/JX cars into the platform article, and the same with the FJ cars, while leaving short nameplate histories with appropriate links under the nameplate heading. There is also quite a lot work to be done concerning all those cars. Bravada, talk - 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an opinion - while it may be better to keep them apart, a casual reader could inuitively assume that there's a central page containing information. so how about you cut out the personal attacks every time someone does something you don't like? --DeLarge 07:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chrysler Sebring 

message: It's not a barnstar, but it's still a nice award.
Please see User:LiverpoolCommander/WPAutomobiles Award for more details, and feel free to comment there! --LiverpoolCommander 08:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is - those are BORING, UGLY cars! (At least to my eyes!)...picking a particular car to use as an award is always going to fall into that trap - no matter which car you pick (Well, unless it was a MINI Cooper of course!).  So something a little less obvious (like a Barnstar made into a car key or something) is likely to be more appreciated by the recipient. SteveBaker 22:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to edit the picture; they were just generic pictures! --LiverpoolCommander 08:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New award 

message: It's abundantly clear that:
# We agree that we want/need an Automotive award.
# After more than a month, nobody else is going to come up with a suitable picture.
So I think we should come to a simple vote between the available choices. Remember - we can always choose a different image in the future if something better comes along:
Image:Automotive Barnstar.png | Vote: 1
Image:Barnkey.png | Vote: 2
File:AutomotiveBarnstar.png | Vote: 3
Image:ProposedAutomotiveBarnstar6.png | Vote: 4
Image:Question mark.svg | None of the above
Image:Oolong last head performance.jpg | Oooh look! A bunny with a pancake on his head!
Small variations on 1/2/3/4 are possible (eg the more distant and closer versions of choice 3) - but for anything significantly different, explain why you want something different and vote for "None of the above".  If you do have some other picture you'd like, please don't add it to the gallery above because it messes up votes that have already been cast - instead, mention it and vote "None of the above". SteveBaker 14:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No more votes?  Looks like a 5:1 verdict.  I'll put the decifion over on the Barnstar page.  SteveBaker 02:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos, Steve. Signaturebrendel 04:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So let's have another try at a Barnstar vote 

message: I put new head images in the Ford Escort (North American) and Mercury Sable, and IFCAR reverted them. I am wondering, are they ok as head images, or was IFCAR right to revert them? I just want this firgured out so an edit war won't break out between us. Karrmann 10:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid the guideline says explicitly "front 3/4s", so those photos you made are nice for your private collection, but nor for WP :( Bravada, talk - 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the 3/4 view is more informative and better as a lead image, guideline or not.  The existing Mercury Sable was pretty good.  The existing Ford Escort was not so good, but was still more informative than a front-on shot.  --Interiot 15:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the new Mercury Sable image up because Bull-Doser's one is not very clear and full of noise, and I thought mine would be better. Also, they have 3/4 view of both the Sable sedan and wagon, wo I don't see how it's really hurting. As For the escort, We outta just remove that image of the white one, it is not of very good quality. Karrmann 18:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite it being a good picture the head image you chose for the article does not show a 3/4 view. I does not give a reader a really good idea of what a Sable looks like aside from its grille. As this is your car, why don't you just take another picture of its showing it with the 3/4 so get we get a side-view of your beauty ;-) It is a high quality pic though. Nonetheless the 3/4 is important. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I uploaded a new picture of my Sable, is this one better? Karrmann 19:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, no. There's more background distractions, the shadows and reflections are more obvious, and it's still more head-on than the original. Since we have a perfectly good photo already, what's your obsession with replacing it. And why delete the Escort image? It's not perfect, but it's not bad either. --DeLarge 19:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a very good image. It is full of noise. Karrmann 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid your photo of the Sable (the new one) is certainly not of higher quality than IFCAR's. Since this is a car belonging to your household, apparently, why don't you wait for the time of day when the car would not be in the shadow but would be well-lit (do try to avoid overexposure and reflection - evenings close to the sunset time usually give good results provided your camera can handle it and the car is on the proper side of the building :D ). Bravada, talk - 20:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The perhaps best way to take picture is to take lots of them. Just take as many pics as you want and later you can look for the best one on you computer. Don't worry about minor faults, after-all there're editors like me who take pics by other users and photoshop them up a bit. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note some relevent irony: Karrmann was recently complaining that I was replacing free images IFCAR 21:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because your images were of worse quality than the previous images. Karrmann 22:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "O wad some Power the giftie gie us, To see oursels as ithers see us" --DeLarge 23:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We definitely need 3/4 view shots - it's more important to provide information than to be beautiful.  Minimising background distractions and cropping fairly closely are also good things to do.  If you use JPEG, crank the quality up on your camera and don't reduce it anywhere else - but if the quality is already set fairly low, don't increase it because it only makes matters worse.  Try to have the sun behind you when you take the photo - never *ever* on the far side of the car.  When you get it into the computer, play with the gamma settings - you can almost always improve a photo by setting the gamma nicely.  It should be obvious - but if possible, wash the car before you take the photos!  Attacking the photo to remove distractions in the background is hotly debated - but I do it all the time.  There is a shot of a red car on the Mini Moke page that had a truck and a bunch of police caution tape and cones in the background - all of it was wiped out with judicious painting.  The resulting photo is much nicer! But we probably shouldn't be messing with the actual car itself...that's a bit naughtier! SteveBaker 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup, I second all that.  I also enjoy doing cleanup in Photoshop.  It sounds like there's a number of us, so if anybody wants a photo to be cleaned up, post the largest resolution you can, and drop a word here, somebody should be able to help out.  (this is highly encouraged...  sometimes a slightly-off picture can be improved a surprising amount if the right tweaks are done) --Interiot 00:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Bravada/Photos or, better yet, here - I have only uploaded those that I have GIMPed myself, or those that I believe there is any chance of salvaging, but I can upload a lot more that I found too hard to do anything with myself. Do also check out www.delest.nl - I am uploading photos from there whenever I have time, but their resources are vast (and free!), so there is still a lot of material to upload and work on! They deal with classic cars, so you can find photos of cars it is quite hard to photograph round the corner there. Bravada, talk - 00:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, photoshop can really help w/ the background IMHO. Here's kind of an "extreme" background noise reduction I conducted recently-all I used was the Blur tool for 2min: . As for your pics Bravada, most of them are actually quite nice. One thing I do like to emphasise in this discussion though, again is the 3/4 rule-its really important for the reader to get the idea of what the car acutally looks like. Signaturebrendel 03:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also note that it's good to use a relatively high quality setting when saving JPEG's...  original file size isn't really really important, since thumbnails are usually what's displayed to the user.  Bravada...  definitely, you've taken a lot of good pictures.  Do you have the original or a higher resolutoin version of :Image:Ford Vedette Coupé 1950.jpg?  If someone has some (a lot of) time, some of the background bits can be cloned out, but there's some noticable JPEG artifacts in that version of the picture that I don't want to make worse by modifying and resaving it.  --Interiot 14:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of JPEG quality is a subtle one.  The JPEG file format uses lossy compression.  In order to make the file smaller, it actually messes up the image.  That's different from (for example) PNG image compression where the image always looks perfect no matter what compression level you choose (the cost of higher compression levels is slower image compression times).  But for JPEG, every time you load the image, do something to it, and save it again, you cause the compression algorithm to throw away more information from the file.  This can be a subtle problem.  For example, if you load up an image that was saved at 50% quality - then save it at 60% quality, it'll look WORSE - not better!  Once a JPEG image has been saved at even 100% quality, there will be data losses.  The best way to deal with JPEG is to use it as little as possible.  If your camera can save '.raw' or something - then use that - do all of your image processing in PNG and when you FINALLY write it out, consider using JPEG because it's a lot more compact than PNG.  What's bad is to keep doing little tweaks to a JPEG image, loading and saving and loading and saving over and over again.  That can really mess up an image...don't do that!  SteveBaker 15:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ford Vedette is the original image, IIRC, I haven't done anything to it. For Garage De'l Est images, you can always see the original image by clicking the link in the description page. I am afraid they are not of highest quality themselves, but since their intended use in WP is for infobox pictures, I guess they can do, and something can still be done for them to display well in the 250px format. I admit, though, to fiddling with jpegs (saving a jpeg as jpeg etc.) concerning my own pics :( I still have the originals for most of them Bravada, talk - 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head images 

message: Hi there,
I've joined Wikipedia these days as a contributor and, despite having to find my ways around all these new to me issues, have already created a couple of new pages. And there's quite a lot of stuff still to come.
I've been working for 23 years as a motoring and motorsport journalist, so there's quite a lot of material available and I believe I can make a nice contribution to Wikipedia.
I'd be interested to join likeminded people here and therefore would like to join the project and see if I can help getting some of the pending stuff done.
Best regards
--Vee8 08:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you need to join is just add your name to the "members" section of the main WikiProject page! Cheers! Bravada, talk - 14:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would like to join 

message: FYI & for those who care: It looks like the Wikipedia 0.5 folks have worked their way down to the Transport category and are now actively assessing articles for inclusion into the CD/Book based version of Wikipedia.  They are aiming to collect only around 5,000 of the best/most-relevent articles so it's quite an honor to be included.  They already made a 'nominations' list and are working down it checking each article for suitability.  It looks like they only nominated older Featured Articles in the automotive category: De Lorean DMC-12, Ford Mustang, Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9, Mini & Talbot Tagora - it looks like all of the FA's from about 6 months ago were included - but none of the more recent ones.  Since Ford Mustang and Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 have since lost their FA status, I'm betting they won't make it - leaving just three car articles with a shot at Wikipedia 0.5.  So far, (according to Wikipedia:Version 0.5 FA Review) the only ones they've formally accepted for 'Transport' is Bicycle and the Mini article (which is how I found out about it) - I presume De Lorean DMC-12 and Talbot Tagora will make it since the grounds for rejection of FA's is if they are not general enough (and if Mini is sufficiently general, I don't see why any other reasonably well-known car should not be) - or if they are no longer considered to be of FA quality (unlikely).  They add a template onto the article's talk page when it passes their examination and they tag a specific version of the page to be 'frozen'.  The only other problem issue is that they have to remove all 'Fair Use' images because the company that'll be producing the final Wikipedia 0.5 insist on that (another good reason to avoid 'Fair Use'!). SteveBaker 13:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.5 

message: Wikipedia:Navigational boxes is a policy proposal that might impact some of the larger automobile templates.  I don't know whether it will have much support, but it's something to be aware of.  --0x845FED 15:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of navigational boxes 

message: I'm proposing a move so that tyre redirects to tire (US spelling). This parity (with the article still in US spelling) might be a good compromise for this UK invention. Please see Talk:Tyre. Widefox 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tire and Tyre 

message: ...me on history pages. I changed my user name to gain more privacy and will now be known as BrendelSignature (my signature in reverse!). Same user, same edits ;-) Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just so you recognize... 

message: I'm slowly working on uploading photos I took last January at the Washington Auto Show to :commons:User:AudeVivere#Cars.  I started out in the Ford exhibit, taking pictures and good notes to help me keep track of what vehicles are what model, year, etc.  But, soon gave up on the notes, due to lack of time and too many cars.  In the end, I was able to visit most of the exhibit areas, except for General Motors and Chrysler due to time constraints.  Also, aside from knowing a bit about hybrid cars, I'm not a car expert.  Between that and missing notes for most of my pictures, it's taking me a bit of time to figure out what kind of car is in each picture.  Maybe I can just upload a bunch of photos and people here can help me with labeling and categorizing them?  Also, I'll add that my pictures are generally fairly good or okay quality (but not great), given the lighting conditions.  I'll be back this January to get more, probably better pictures. --Aude (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned a few sections above, but you can always dump things in commons:Category:Unidentified automobiles, and somebody should comb through there eventually.  --Interiot 19:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out this category.  I have uploaded ~70 photos, placing them in commons:Category:AudeVivere-cars, which I made a subcategory of "Unidentified automobiles".  Thusfar, these include Acura, Aston Martin, BMW, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Infiniti, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lincoln, Mazda, Nissan, Volvo, and some others.  Have many more yet to upload, including Volkswagon, Porsche, Audi, some classic cars, Bentley, Ferrari, Lexus, Toyota, and perhaps others. These don't match up to the professional promotional photos, but could be helpful. --Aude (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with photos?

message: Recently departed Bravada emailed me because he wanted to mention that the website http://www.delest.nl/ contains many photographs of classic cars whose owner allows for their use for any purpose. He said it would be a shame to waste that, but he was the only person who uploaded photos from there, so he wanted to remind the wikiproject that it's a useful resource.
--Interiot 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened, was Bravada driven away by teh whole Wiarthurhu fiaasco? Karrmann 19:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was mainly I guess the fair use image affair. He felt that is efforts were counter-productive in relation to some of WP's policies; thus making WP too stressful and negative of an experience. Signaturebrendel 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Bravada 

message: Your project is really great, but I think that "Automobiles" is too vague. Its an enormous subject, and should be split into smaller sections.
Here's my proposal: First, "Automobiles is Split up by Continent. Then by Country/or Region. Then By Brand, and eventually by decade (or at least divide past models with present ones). So, the Automobiles Wikiproject would become an umbrella for other projects that become more and more specialised. 
It would be much easier to control, though we still need the "Automobiles" project so that we can have the same standards and guidelines for all the articles.
: This is actually a terrible idea.  The trouble is that there are only about a dozen active contributors here (look back up this page and count them!).  If you split the project up into 12 chunks there will be about one person per chunk!  Also (as previously explained) there are about a dozen ways to slice the pie.  Why slice by the continent where the car was made?  Why not by the type of car (sports cars, SUV's, luxury cars, etc)?   Why not by the era in which the car was made (Current, classic, antique, brass-era, etc)?  No matter which way you slice it, a significant section of the 'membership' will feel that this is the wrong way to slice it.  I have no interest in writing about European cars - I have no interest in writing about cars from the 1950's.  I want to write about small sporty production cars.  That would mean that I'd have to sign on to every one of your microscopically sliced projects in order to cover my interests.  If this project was too large and unwieldy, I'd agree with you - but it's not...quite the opposite in fact.  Furthermore, our present discussions are leading more towards INCREASING the scope of the project (eg to include pickup trucks) than to decreasing it. (Oh - and please sign your comments with four tilde's: ~~~~) SteveBaker 14:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The top comment truly does contain a bad idea. Such WP projects would be superfolous and understaffed. Of course, if enough users love editing Lexus articles, we could have a Lexus sub-project- but only if there are enough users. Otherwise such proposed change would only lead to further complicating things and seemingly splitting up the work effort of a very functional WP project into various less functional WP projects. At least that's what I get from reading it. Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:SteveBaker and Brendel; auto manufacturing is now far too globalised to categorise it primarily by continent or country. How would you pigeonhole the Toyota Aygo, for example? A Japanese company badging a car built in the Czech Republic (alongside the mechanically identical but "French" Citroën C1 and Peugeot 107) for the European market? Or how about Lonsdale - a Japanese company sets up a marque building cars in Australia exclusively for the European market to circumvent local import restrictions? Given the amount of activity in this project, or at Portal:Cars, I don't see a need for further subdivision. --DeLarge 17:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automobiles Wikiproject is too vague 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I would like to draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bmwx506.jpg. User:JoePane has tagged this photo as his "own work," when it is clearly a BMW promotional photo. Could an administrator please take care of this? Jagvar 02:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out this guy's talk page - he clearly does this kind of thing all the time.  SteveBaker 05:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the subject, could someone check the images on the Toyota Solara page? They're in the Commons as being used with the permission of scionlife.com, but I'm almost positive that at least one is a Toyota image and two of the others look suspicious as well. I left a note at the Solara talk page, but I didn't get a reply there. IFCAR 13:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Linked without comment: User:Joepane IFCAR 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:JoePane]] aka [[User:Joepane]] lying about authorship of photos

message: Does Project Automobiles have a talk page banner to identify Project Automobile content, and let new editors know you exist? While I am currently occupied with Project Motorcycles, I have done some Daimler pages, and was just wondering.Seasalt 11:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do, just use the template:  SteveBaker 22:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banner?

message: Good Day to you all,
if you need any photographs of Euro cars (everyday cars, that is, no exoticars), just drop me a line on my talk page. 
Be aware, though, that I´m situated in Alpine Germany with lots of snow about to fall anytime soon...show rooms, of course, are always a possibility.
Would be glad to help if there are any specific needs.
--328cia 03:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Euro car pics

message: Please see the talk page for discussion. I am working on making this a featured article, if you have any comments, then feel free to let me know. At the moment it's got a  template on it due to concerns about the article, but if you've any other comments about this, feel free to help me. Thanks, --SunStar Net 11:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Volkswagen Golf]] 

message: Hi guys. I have tweaked the old {photoreq template to accept a parameter to asign stuff to more spesific subcategories. So far I have created :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of cars (took the liberty of adding  to it, hope you don't mind) to add an article to it just put  to an article's talk page. The template also take an optional "of" parameter you can use to describe the request in more detail in the tag itself. Hope you can find some use for it. --Sherool (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and you can subcat as needed if you type for example  it will add the page to :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Japanese cars (which have to then be created and added to the parent category as apropriate. --Sherool (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car related photo requests 

message: We are running two groups of Categories, "Category:Automobiles by country" and "Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers by country".  At present they both contain a mix of models and makes. 
My assumption is that "Category:Automobiles by country" is for individual models from that country and "Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers by country" is for car makers.   If this is correct I will add a note to the categories and do some sorting. 
(Without re-opening the debate about automobile v car v motor vehicle and what constitutes country of origin, I hope). Malcolma 13:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to reopen the debate AFAIK...  automobile manufacturers often make a wide variety of vehicles (eg. Honda makes automobiles, motorcycles, tilting three-wheel motorcycles, quads, ...), so it makes sense to put the manufacturers themselves under a more general heading.  And if they have a subcategory specifically for automobiles, then that can be located in both places (somewhere under motor vehicle manufacturers by country, and somewhere under automobiles by country).  --Interiot 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Automobiles by country and Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers by country

message: I have recently been quite busy expanding and improving the WikiProject United States which I founded a couple of months ago. Thanks to another user my project now has the 1.0 Editoral team's assessment scale as seen here, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Assessment. I think implementing the same quality scale for this project wouldn't be a bad idea. What do you think? Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree too. --SunStar Nettalk 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. --Sable232 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Unless someone beats me to it, I should be able to start up the assessment department this week. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality Assessment Scale