Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 1

message: Under the best 'be bold' tradition of Wikipedia I'm going to try and kick-start this project.  Editing automobile, hot hatch and The effect of the automobile... has attracted enough comments for me to know I'm not the only one with an interest in cars.
I'm fairly new to editing the Wikipedia, although I've floated around long enough to know a little about what is here and what isn't.  I would appreciate any guidance from more senior Wikipedians on how to set up a WikiProject - as yet there seems to be no article about this.
I know there are petrolheads and vehicle connoisseurs out there - please do put your names down and we'll try to get some good stuff going.
Thanks! akaDruid 15:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I noticed other Wikiprojects have announced their start on the announcement page. My boldness doesn't extend as far as editing that page - I would appreciate some guidance on that e.g. is there a announcements/submissions or similar page?
Thanks! akaDruid 16:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcement? 

message: There are a huge number of potential things to do in this project.  Here are some ideas I've had to get started with:
*Design a layout for pages covering individual vehicles, and select and example page showing the layout well.  We need a boiler plate text, something along the lines of 'This is part of the automobile series', plus navigational links etc.  Look at the ships and aircraft projects for more on this.
*Improve navigation between vehicle pages, manufacturers pages and header pages. Car classification needs work.  List of automobile manufacturers might be a good starting point for some work.
*Fill in some of the gaps.  There are some very major missing articles, of the top of my head: Caterham, Wolseley, Talbot, De Tomaso, Isuzu.  The list of important missing vehicles is huge too.
*Give advice on naming schemes for car makers and models.
I've made a quick start on a layout, see Jaguar E-type. akaDruid 12:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible 'To Do' List 

message: I added "Premier Automotive Group" to Wikipedia. The first sentence is: "Ford Motor Company owns the Premier Automotive Group (PAG), which is presumably a self-sufficient company that combines the business operations of Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo."
I'm not sure this is accurate; if not, perhaps a WikiProject Automobiles member could re-write it. —Vespristiano 05:10, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
I've done some work on the article.  In my understanding, the PAG is a division of Ford, rather than a company in its own right.  Additionally, someone had added Lincoln to the list of brands in the PAG - this is not correct.  Ford does sell cars under the Lincoln brand, but does not consider them part of the PAG. akaDruid 10:57, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Premier Automotive Group" 

message: Hi folks, I've set down a basic page on the classic Capri and made an assumption (based on a strong feeling) that the Capri was based on the Ford Cortina of the time.  Can anybody confirm or deny this?  I've struggled to find evidence on the web but I'm sure I read something along these lines in the motoring press some time ago.  This is worth checking as it was me who assumed Lincoln was still in PAG and was proven wrong!!  Thanks.  --Pete Richardson 12:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see anything about this, I would just leave it there until someone proves you right or wrong! akaDruid 10:39, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think I can confirm the Capri's origins.  Collectible Automobile for June 2002 has the car's history as a feature article.  It says that Ford was primarily looking to recreate the Mustang's success in a model suited to the European market: "Just as the Mustang had been born of the Falcon platform, a similarly utilitarian vehicle was needed to act as the basis for the European version...Such a car was available in the popular Cortina, produced by Ford of England since the autumn of 1962."  RivGuySC 05:39, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ford Capri]]

message: I put up a proposed automobile article naming convention in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Proposed naming convention - please look at it and comment/alter, thanks! —Morven 23:33, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed naming convention 

message: I just wanted to mention the following fun "list of..." pages.  More input, as always, is appreciated!
* List of automotive superlatives
* List of automobile model and marque oddities
Enjoy! --SFoskett 13:35, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
:Very cool! Just goes how many cool little corners of the WP there are. I'm gonna start dropping some edits on the first one I feel. akaDruid 14:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stuff 

message: Whaddya folks think of these?
--SFoskett 19:09, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
:Very nice; good work. SamH 19:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, quite interesting & creative. RivGuySC 21:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I like 'em! akaDruid 14:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, SFoskett! Also I like your use of the correct codes. Stombs 11:23, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
I also like them very much. So I made :Template:BMW cars. I'd approve a conversion of the Mercedes template: their W-numbers would work well in this format, although the sheer number of models might be better presented by splitting into sedans, sports and SUV. --Hotlorp 20:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timelines 

message: We usually have surprisingly little mangled prose in the car articles.  However, this one seems to have been machine-translated from Old High Martian: Chevrolet Citation.  I could improve it--that wouldn't be hard!--but it would be better if somebody that knows the model could tear into it.  I'm weak on compacts.  RivGuySC 02:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needing help 

message: Any Hyundai experts among us? I found a comment on the Toyota Corona page by a 150.204.50.38 which turned out to be bogus (viz. that there was a Toyota Alexia), and noted this user's rather major entry on the Hyundai Elantra. I'm not that au fait with the model, but knowledgeable enough to know that 2001 certainly wasn't the launch date for the countries which called the older Lantra under the Elantra name (e.g. Canada). The writer lists UK models, and I shall be interested to know if they are correct. Corrections there are welcome. Stombs 12:01, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Sources of information: www.autoweek.nl for Netherlands, various UK car websites for England and www.consumerguide.com for USA cars. Hope this helps. Apologies for the vandalism.  82.42.151.164 Jan 19, 2005
:Thank you—I knew of these but I wasn't particularly passionate about the brand and probably wouldn't enjoy writing it! I might see to this—depends how frustrated I get with the Elantra info as it currently stands. Stombs 00:47, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
::OK, all done at Hyundai Avante and Hyundai Elantra, but both are stubbed. Stombs 01:10, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering at what we should use as a standard for naming convention among Hyundai Models. For example, there is currently a Hyundai Accent (the American Model) page, which also describes the current Verna (the Korean Model) - the reverse is true of the Hyundai Avante (the Korean Model) page, which describes the Elantra (American Model). There is also a seperate page describing older American Elantras and European Lantras - where this is essentially the same model as the Avante/Elantra of modern day. I'm wondering how we should organize these - should there be seperate pages for Korean, American, European models, or one page per model for all of them - and if that is the case, how should we name that single page? GHoosdum 15:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Using different pages for Korean, American and European models wouldn't be good, since there are very few differences of the cars designated for different markets. But what do we call them... ? The 1995-1999 generation of Accent has to be placed att Hyundai Accent, because (as far as I know) it was sold under that name both in its home market (Korea), and in most major export markets. With the newer generations it is difficult, when it was called Verna in its home market, and Accent in most other parts of the world. Similar applies to Avante/Elantra/Lantra. We can exclude the Lantra name, since it was only used in some European countries for the first generation(s). So Elantra is the name used in most parts of the world, and Avante in the car's home market. --Boivie 20:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that seperate pages for each model would be a bad idea. Perhaps migrating (and redirecting) all models to the Accent and Elantra names (in these examples) would be better, since that is the most common naming convention on these cars worldwide (and would therefore be known to more people)? That would also allow us to merge into one article instead of the current two for the Elantra/Avante/Lantra models. This exercise sure is a lot easier for Sonata, which seems to have the same name in Korean and International markets... ;) Any other ideas - should I perhaps post this suggestion as a pilot project on the current Avante Talk page?  GHoosdum 15:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's largely agreed here that the home-market information is "base" so there can be no accusation that Wikipedia is biased toward any one nation. If we adopt a European convention for a Korean car, we'd alienate American editors; and vice versa. The fairest solution globally is to use the home market, as Autoindex does. Stombs 11:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyundai experts?

message: I noticed that there are two pages for the Aston Martin V12 Vanquish. The more developed one is called Aston Martin V12 Vanquish. However, there is also a page simply called V12 Vanquish about the same car. Can anyone fix this? Perhaps remove the second page? Jagvar 15:12, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
:Sorted. The V12 Vanquish article didn't conatain any info that the longer article didn't already have, so I just turned it into a redirect. SamH|Talk 23:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Pages for V12 Vanquish 

message: I wonder if we should try to request certain types of photographs, since so many are wide-angle shots that are substantially inferior to commercial photos of the same car. (E.g. the Ford Mondeo image) We don't need to be this bad. Perhaps by "suggesting" certain types of photo in the template (I'm thinking side view, front view, rear view, front 3/4 view, rear 3/4 view) we could start a flow of good submissions. If all these images are submitted, perhaps the template could display the side view and link to the rest, to avoid clutter and allow photos of other submodels to be shown. I'd also like to remind photographers to try to stand a good distance away and zoom in, rather than use a wide angle. And try to be as dead-on exact side-on etc. as one can manage. With well populated data, we could automatically generate nice collections of car profiles, rear ends, etc. --Hotlorp 20:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree.  I uploaded the image of the Ford Mondeo (it was my third Mondeo of six!) as something to fill a gap - I intended it to be replaced with a good quality image at some point.  Back to the point, I'd suggest a standard image of front 3/4 view, taken from standing height, car pointing to the left. We also need to be careful of background - e.g. car parks and people's houses is not good... Any other suggestions welcome! --Pete Richardson 14:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a quality standard is most important as well as background standards. The picture should be taken in a way that the neighborhood and background are not well recognizable. There should however be some artistic license as to the perspective from which the picture is shot. Take the following picture I posted on the Ford Panther Platform page. Gerdbrendel 00:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardize photographs?

message: I must confess to being uncomfortable with the increasing use of magazine covers to illustrate articles.  
For one thing, how solid is a "fair use" claim here?  I suspect that using a magazine cover to illustrate an article on a magazine would be no problem, but to illustrate articles on cars and engines?  I have a feeling that this might be pushing fair use a little too far.
For another, the images contain a lot of extraneous stuff and don't necessarily illustrate the article all that well.  
Any thoughts? —Morven 18:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
:I gotta agree that they're sort of ugly and contain lots of extraneous info.  But it is a way to get a picture in, and it sounds like fair use to me with the low-res images being posted.  I'd be happier with these than the clearly-copyrighted PR images also being used.  --SFoskett 20:49, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
::Actually, my reading of fair use says that the PR images are a lot less likely to get us into trouble.  PR images are released free to the press to publicise products.  Since they are being used for exactly that purpose, to describe the products, it would be hard for someone to argue that they were being infringed upon.  —Morven 22:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
:::OK, I concede that press photos are probably OK under fair use.  However, I feel that really-free contributed photos are still preferrable.  User:Rajwa has been contributing many press photos, which I applaud as a valuable contribution.  However, some existing free pictures have been replaced by press photos.  See Cadillac SRX and Chrysler Pacifica for example.  I feel that, as a policy, we should prefer free photos to PR photos unless the free shot is really bad...  Thoughts?  --SFoskett 15:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
:::: The reason I've been "upgrading" photos here and there is, (at least to me) obvious.  A blurry (as the Pacifica shot was) low-res photograph of a car forlornly sitting on a used car lot versus a properly lit, professionally photographed high resolution photo that has clearly been formally released by the copyright holder for "fair use" within the media is preferable to me both in aesthetic terms as well as being inherently more "educational" given the higher level of detail afforded.  I composed my own image tag that I thought expressed the reasoning of intent for use of press kit photos, but have recently discovered that I could have used the pre-made  tag instead.  Given the implicit wikki-approval that the  boilerplate tag provides, I can't begin to imagine what the perceived difference in "free-ness" to which you refer to actually constitutes.  I'll admit the bad photos give the Wikipedia a certain home-spun ad-hoc charm, but as a referance source for the ages, the higher quality of the professional images better serves current and future Wikipedia users.Rawja 21:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "fair use" magazine covers to illustrate articles 

message: We have aviation and car articles where triple units are used, for example (kW, PS, hp SAE) or (km/h, knots, mi/h). We appear to accept this convention. However, an editor amended the Manual of Style to say multiple equivalents including metric are cumbersome and shall be avoided. Thus we have opposing conventions.
*I questioned the use of that phrase and others. See Permitting removal of metric units: inconsistency in the Manual of Style.
*I then made a proposal that would eliminate the clash. See Suggested rewrite of 'units' section in Manual of Style
Please feel free to join the discussion and raise the issues of aviation and car articles. Bobblewik  (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple units are currently forbidden by Manual of Style 

message: There is a quote of an increase in power from 170 to 172 hp in Hyundai Tiburon. I think that the power is exactly the same (see the kilowatt values). This is the sort of problem we face throughout Wikipedia with ambiguity in power units. Fortunately, the source value is first and this helped me to identify the error. Can people check those figures please? Bobblewik 11:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity in power units misleads editors/reader to think power is different? 

message: The article on Transportation is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.--Fenice 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: :If you wish accept or reject the proposed national origin naming convention for automobiles, add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support the national origin naming convention. This is the most logical, least ambiguous, and least confusing choice. Blank∅</span> 05:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: :Even if the naming convention is rejected, certain cars may still be moved by consensus.  For each car, add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
Chevrolet Lacetti -> Daewoo Lacetti
*Support move. Blank∅</span> 05:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Pages moved to Daewoo versions as requested and double redirects fixed. Take care! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Descision

message: Found lots of photos of old British lorries and cars under cc-by-2.0 at http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/by-2.0/tags/lorry/ - I have got the Sentinels but thought someone'd be interested in the rest of them. Dunc|☺ 16:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flickr photos of old lorries 

message: I was in the process of re-doing the Volvo V70 page when I started thinking about what to with the similar S60 and S80 pages.  As these car share the same platform, doesn't it make sense to have the platform page containing ALL info, with the models based on that platform re-directing there instead?  I.e. using the V70 as a template, make that generic for S60 and S80, then merge with the platform page?  Obviously, this approach wouldn't work for all platforms, e.g. the Ford Mondeo and Jaguar X-Type are quite different, but when the S60 is merely the saloon form of V70 it seems daft having two distinct pages to maintain!
Any thoughts?
--Pete Richardson 14:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, Boivie, and the 460 page should be merged into a 400 series page. Stombs 02:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of platform page for core information 

message: Hi there, I am one of the users who posted from 82.42.151.164 as an anon IP contributor. I will be making some useful contributions, like on the Ford Focus talk page.
Leave a message on my talk page if you want to talk about cars or anything in general with me. --Astwell1986 11:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user 

message: Can someone give a clear explanation of image policy as it pertains manufacturer's promotional photos?  I can't figure it out.  For example, the tag on this  seems to indicate it's OK as fair use, but this  has an additional tag that says it's really not OK and can be used only temporarily at best. ????   RivGuySC 16:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're both OK. The Charger photo's additional tag notes that it should be possible to obtain a photo using a free licence, i.e. it should be possible to get someone out there to find a '73 Charger and take a picture of it so that Wikipedia won't need to use the copyrighted photo at all. --93JC 00:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But the exact same thing can be said about the '80 T-bird.  I don't see the distinction.  RivGuySC 02:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no distinction. The person who uploaded the '80 Thunderbird photo didn't bother to mark it with a "fairusereplace" tag, that's all. Check it now. ;) --93JC 16:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of manufacturer photos 

message: At talk:Volkswagen, there is a diskussion about naming VW model pages. I'd appreciate some input from other automobile interested wikipedians. --Boivie 12:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VW Golf vs. Volkswagen Golf 

message: Note for anyone who has used the example layout: there was a spelling error where "companents" in the data box should be "components".  Please correct any articles that you have used this layout with.  Thanks.  --Pete Richardson 13:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Error 

message: For the Class: section on the data table, I think we should have a standard of choices to choose from.  Car classification would be great, but it's currently a bit disorganized and possibly incomplete. There are many ways of classifying a car.  Is 'sedan' a class or a body style (which we should also standardize)? Should we go by purpose (i.e. sports car, offroader) even if the distinctions can be fuzzy? Is the Toyota Prius an economy car, a compact car, or a hatchback?  Even the EPA regulations seem a little lacking (but at least they're consistent).  Just a bit to think about :) PlatinumX 23:15, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Hopefully once Car classification stabilises a little we will have a better list.  I'm off there to have a look now :) akaDruid 10:18, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car classifications 

message: I've created a custom element for VW, so you can put  into the text, and it will come out as at the bottom of the example (only with the page you are on not linked). What do people think? akaDruid 17:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Custom Element 

message: Please modify your template to disambiguate sedan to sedan (car). Thanks. RedWolf 04:52, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
:It's done.  This template is 'work in progress' anyway, and not finalised, so anyone may modify or improve it. akaDruid 09:29, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sedan disambiguation 

message: I fail to see the point of the final line of the infobox.  We've discussed it before in random pages, but we have to decide here.  The final "This article is part of the automobile series" line serves no purpose - we can all tell it's an automobile.  Either we add a separate series for each marque (I like this idea) or we just kill that line.  Thoughts?  --SFoskett 02:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
:I have added marques on all Lincoln articles where the bottom line now reads: "This article is part of the Lincoln automobile Series. This way users have an easy link back to the manufacturer's page. You're right though just adding automobile is uneccesary. Gerdbrendel 19:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Automobile series" 

message: HI, I have just created two articles for the Lincoln MK9 and Navicross concept models and have noticed that the standard infobox I use for cars in production doesn't really fit the concept cars. I think a new infobox should be created for Concept Cars Only that features a spaces for the year when they were presented as well as the Auto Show where they were presented. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds ok. Another option would be to add some optional fields to the standard infobox, but then most cars wouldn't use them. Shawnc 18:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concept Model Infoboxes 

message: Casting about for information about aircraft conversions of automobile engines, I decided to be bold and create a new template for automobile engines. Information fields are based on the aircraft , and style is based on . Example implementations can be seen at Subaru EA engine and Suzuki G engine. McNeight 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Infobox automobile engine}} 

message: Each car article should have a Reference section. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: To conform with layout guidelines the infobox is best placed in the body of the article and an image used in the top right. Wikipedia:Infobox templates#Design and usage and Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box placement 

message: I have noticed that a number of articles on discontinued cars start like this: "The second-generation Saab 900 (also referred to as the GM900 or NG900 among enthusiasts) was a compact executive car". Because the car still exists it can't be a "was" and should be an "is". Because all the car articles state the years a car was in production, there is no need to differentiate between "was" and "is" regarding the actual existence of the car - the car "is", but it "was" produced during certain years. So, "The second-generation Saab 900 (also referred to as the GM900 or NG900 among enthusiasts) is a compact executive car, which was produced from 1993 until 1998." SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a particular pet peeve of mine; I try to correct it whenever I see it. However, what's the protocol for cars still in production? I would be inclined to write them the same way regardless, as it's easier to update once the car is actually discontinued. Duncan1800 (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed  To put it in simplest terms, cars don't go extinct.  Through careful wording, "is" can be used correctly without sounding too awkward.  --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Is" in place of  "was" for discontinued models  

message: I have requested background on vehicle categorization at WP:TRANSPORT, but it seems that project is moribund, so I extend an invitation to participate to editors active here.- choster (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  General issues with road vehicle categories