Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 7

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

message: We need to clean up the lists in some articles, as there is some "listcruft" in some of the articles, e.g. Volkswagen Pointer. We need to have a task-force that can clean this up, to make them more readable.
I'm starting on a few articles that have lengthy lists, anyone else able to help?? --SunStar Nettalk 20:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just going to suggest tagging articles with , but I see you've done that already.  It's not automobile-specific, but it's one way.  Also, if the toolserver ever comes back up (yeah right), I plan on keeping lists updated with all the auto articles that have  on them, all that have , etc...   (Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Articles is sort of useful now, but it will provide the backbone for these sort of future tools)  --Interiot 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are we defining "cruft" here? I can't find anything of the sort in the VW Pointer article. Are you talking about the list of year-to-year changes? Most auto articles have those. The Pointer one, however, is sparse and poorly written. --Sable232 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was instructed (in a peer review) that rather than have a list of specifications (which I think would count as listcruft unless it was very short), I should write it into paragraphs (see this diff ). I think information should be written out like that. James086Talk | Contribs 07:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles with lists in them 

message: Hi, I recently created a new category: "Category:Cars of England".  There's quite a few of them, and if anyone wants to help add the category tag to a bunch of english cars, it would be very helpful.  I've mainly been working out of "Category:Motor_vehicle_manufacturers_of_the_United_Kingdom" to find the cars.  Thanks, Riguy 00:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, is there any particular reason you've chosen "cars of England" rather than "cars of the United Kingdom"? Some British cars were built in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and in some cases the same models were also built in factories in England, so offering up "cars of Scotland" and "cars of Northern Ireland" categories wouldn't solve it. I think this category really ought to be renamed. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 02:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think sorting cars by country can be somewhat tricky. What about the Rolls-Royce Phantom? It's made by BMW, a German company. Still English? What about Jaguar? Belongs to Ford. Still English? What I'm trying to say is that your category needs to be phrased more precisely. Perhaps "Cars manufactured in Great Britain" would be better- otherwise we could categorize the Phantom as a German and an English car (which of course wouldn't that big a deal). Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was quite specific about "United Kingdom" and not "Great Britain" in my comment because GB doesn't include Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. And it's where the De Lorean DMC-12, at least, was built! – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 15:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. It should be United Kingdom and then it matches everything else. I suppose "Cars of England" could be a subcat but I see no point in that, it just adds to the difficulties mentioned above. Re-naming a category does not seem to be straightforward. Malcolma 17:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes UK is the best term but it should be "Cars manufactured in the United Kingdom," not just "cars form the UK," as identifying a certain car (e.g. Jag & Rolls) as British might be somewhat tricky. Modern corporations such as VW (Bentley) and FoMoCo (Jag) don't really have a nationality (unless pretending they do moves merchandise); thus adding the "manufactured" to the Cat's name ensures accuracies. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of thing trips us up every time.  Cars are made in little pieces all over the world and the final assembly will be some other place that may or may not be the historical place of origin of the marque - which in turn may or may not be where the company - or it's parent company is incorporated.  This is close to becoming an irrelevent question.  But if we insist on making these kinds of categories, it would be better to make them as broad as possible because that minimises the chances of this being a serious problem.  So I would definitely disagree with 'England' in this case - UK would be much better - but in so many cases just saying 'European' would much more accurate.  A car that's assembled in England from parts made all over the EU - in a factory that's owned by a German company...it's a European car - it's not German or British...but even that is vague.  My 'British-assembled/German-designed' car has an engine that's made in Brazil for chrissakes. SteveBaker 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactely, today's ologopolistic car industry can no longer be put in neat national categories-it's a globalized industry consisting of multi-national conglomerates. Their products (cars) reflect that; thus "European" is definitely better than just British or German, but as you said the parts that make "European" cars may come from places like Brazil. I think in today's globalized market place, national categories are somewhat of an antiquated notion. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Categorizing 

message: I think we should make the members section into a subpage because it is getting too large. A subpage
(Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/members) and have a link to it on the main page should be fine. It's what other large wikiprojects do. Suggestions comments? I'll do it unless there are any objections. James086Talk | Contribs 07:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, no objections from me. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 07:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  CVG (my favorite larger wikiproject to imitate) has a category instead.  I'm not sure that I prefer one over the other.  --Interiot 07:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like using a category - it's all nicely alphabetize automatically - we could make sub-cat's if we ever wanted to. SteveBaker 14:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I got enthusiastic, made the category and added automatic categorisation to the userbox/template. I also made a template message for notifying users of the changes (just add  to their userpage. It will make a new section and sign for you. I have stopped now, just to be sure that nobody's opposed to what I'm doing. So, any opposition? James086Talk | Contribs 12:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 days and no reply, I think it's fair to say that there's no opposition to the category. I'm going to notify everyone on the current list of of users of the category. James086Talk | Contribs 04:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Members Section

message: I just finished the project's quality scale. So, next time you edit an article you can add the new project template: 

Best Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 07:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to rate the importance of the article aswell (see the Assessment Department) then use 

You can see the valid parameters on the Assessment Department page. James086Talk | Contribs 12:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality Scale complete

message: I notice that User:Senators has been adding Australian car articles: Ford BA Falcon, Holden VE Commodore and HSV Senator Signature to Portal:Cars/Selected article.  I have asked him to remove them because none of these articles has reached even WP:GA status - which is the minimum standard for selected articles on our portal.  Frankly, none of these articles comes close to GA quality and they certainly don't belong on our front page.  Some of those articles are marked as GA candidates on their talk pages - but are not showing up anywhere on the WP:GAC list?!?
I wonder if there is a better way to handle this than to just allow anyone to add an article to that page.  As a portal, I wonder whether we can in some way restrict editing privilages and institute a formal process for adding articles to the list.
With the addition of the Assessment Department - perhaps the duty to maintain that page should rest with that group?
SteveBaker 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well only articles assessed as GA, A-class or FA should be featured. I suppose the management of the portal feature article selection could be conducted by the Assessment Department, but of course anyone is free to participate in the Assessment Department. Of course, we could institute a formal process-I simply suggest that an article should be requested and listed by different users. Thus authors would be discurage from just adding their own articles to the list-another editor would be needed to make the call. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:Cars featured article status. 

message: I am proposing to move the Nissan 240Z to a new page called Nissan S30 to make it fairer to 260 and 280Z owners as I feel these two are always overshadowed by the former and were made to feel like the poor relative to the 240Z when they are the same car with all the US regulation crap
So what do anybody think? Willirennen 02:54, 15 December 2006
:I say it should be split into three articles; one for the 240Z, one for the 260Z and another for the 280Z. --ApolloBoy 04:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, they should stay in one article because they are all "the same car with all the US regulation crap." These are merely different generations of the same car. Splitting this article would be the same as splitting the Town Car article into four, one for the Executive Series, one for the Signature Series, another for the Cartier Series and another for the Ultimate Series. The Nissan 240Z article should be moved to Nissan S30 as it deals with different generations of one and the same car. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 07:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nissan 240Z]] page move 

message: :i am an avid car inthusiast even if i;m not an expert if anybody has a question about cars particulaily those in or formaly in the chrysler group.GuyDoe 20:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cool

message: I am going to remove some of the images from this article because there are enough good-quality ones as it is: I am being bold. I am doing this to other similar articles too! --SunStar Nettalk 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful.  I agree that having a gallery of random photos stuck at the end of the article (as is definitely the case with Mazda 626) is a bad thing - but I don't agree with "there are too many photos so lets remove some".  If the photos are an integral part of the article - and if each one adds some significant information or backs up a particular point - then it must stay - no matter how many photos the article ends up with.  But the captions and the location of the photograph in the text should make that clear. SteveBaker 02:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mazda 626]] 

message: As this lot has been nominated for merge and nobody suggested it, therefore I have to bring it up here, I would like to suggest a page merge for Suzuki Vitara, Suzuki Sidekick, Geo Tracker, Suzuki Grand Vitara to Suzuki Escudo as these are the same car sold in various countries, so what do you think. Willirennen 13:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - We talked about this kind of merge at some length further up this page.  I'm strongly in favor of it. SteveBaker 01:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Support - Definitely merge, which will give you plenty of material to replace the dreadful Escudo article which is currently there. --DeLarge 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of page merge suggestions, does anyone have any opinions on Eagle Summit and Eagle Vista into Dodge Colt, or Daewoo Gentra and Chevrolet Aveo into Daewoo Kalos? IFCAR 14:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Offering a more Oriental perspective, since they're badge-engineered Mitsubishis shouldn't they be merged with Mitsubishi Mirage? And the Dodge Colt page looks like it could be turned into a disambiggly page directing to à la Mitsubishi Sigma (pointing to the Galant or Mirage articles). --DeLarge 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The downside I see to merging into the Mirage is that it could bloat the sections that relate to the generations with dozens of variants. Also, it would split off the wagon version of the Colt/Summit, which was a different Mitsubishi. IFCAR 15:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page merge suggestion for [[Suzuki Escudo]] 

message: Anyone else interested in a Drag Racing project?BMan1113VR 09:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to propose this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport. James086Talk | Contribs 09:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree you should take it up with the Motorsport Wikiproject. If there is a go ahead I would be interested in joining up on a Drag Racing Project. ren0talk 09:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: propose new "child project"

message: For people writing articles about current car models, I found a great website with data on weight, sizes, accelleration, etc, etc for a bazillion cars:
http://www.conceptcarz.com/default.aspx
...really handy for filling out those infoboxes!
SteveBaker 01:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but try to find a car magazine (or auto brochure) first as some of the information is incorrect or poorly researched.BMan1113VR 05:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the three cars I knew enough to check on, the data was spot on.  But obviously I can't say whether it's all that good...and in all cases, you don't want to rely on a single source if you can avoid it. SteveBaker 12:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Global Auto Index is more accurate, as they get their data straight from the official press-releases. Unfortunately it doesn't have many models whose production stopped before 2001. Histomobile is somewhat accurate for older models, but I'd recommend using the Automobil Revue yearbooks, if anyone has any. --Pc13 16:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of car data 

message: I'm having a hard time finding any guidelines on how many vehicles should be in the similar field of the automobile infobox. I'm finding articles with anywhere between 1 and 15 vehicles (which seems mighty excessive) and would like to know if there is a desirable (or better yet, defined) number of vehicles to include in the similar field. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three is the generally accepted convention, but if there are fewer truly similar vehicles, one or two or none would also be fine. IFCAR 00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I figured and, actually, I think I remember you bringing up this subject before. I think it's a good guideline to go by, but it's sometimes hard to get this across to other editors. Is there some place this is documented so that I could refer to it when asked? If not, how do we go about starting documentation for guidelines, specifications, and nomenclature such as this? Roguegeek (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked for a written clarification of this, but I only remember finding out from someone else as well. I agree that there should be more official guidelines so everyone doesn't need to make up his or her own rules. IFCAR 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None is also an acceptable number - some cars are truly unique. SteveBaker 06:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar vehicles 

message: I noticed a new article today: Pontiac GR-Series. However, this appears to be a crystal-balling. 
We need to watch out for these crystal-balling articles a bit more, as I've just seen this one today, and can find no sources on it.
It's on AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pontiac GR-Series. Anyone else seen any crystal-balling in car articles that should be removed?? 
Thanks, --SunStar Nettalk 16:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  seems to be creating a lot of these stub articles, which have no sources cited. Please check them, and add references if possible! --SunStar Nettalk 16:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also add  to the list as well. --SunStar Nettalk 17:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some crystal balling in the Toyota Supra article. The Mark V section. I'm never sure if it should be removed. I mean, I have personally sent an e-mail to Toyota asking about a future Toyota Supra and they have always said "There are no plans at this time to continue the Toyota Supra". Thoughts? ren0talk 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pontiac GR-Series]] and [[WP:CRYSTAL]] 

message: I've been accused of "vandalism" on Toyota Camry by User:Angry Aspie (here, here and, if you count an anonymous IP edit, here). My edits? Converting a 300px thumbnail image in an infobox to the standard non-thumbnailed 250px, and removing this photo (taken by Aspie and uploaded within the last 24 hours) with the previous Commons image, which doesn't have a huge pole in the way. Since I've already reverted twice in the last 24 hours, and since, according to Aspie, he'll "keep reverting until the vandal stops", I'd appreciate some assistance in restoring order to the article's layout. Regards, --DeLarge 02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, the commons pic is better, I'll keep watching and will report Angry Aspie if he breaks the 3RR rule. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 03:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toyota Camry 

message: I am currently on Editer review, and I thought that since I work on car articles the most, I thought that I would be best getting my feedback from here. So if you any feedback, please post it! Karrmann 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First bit of feedback would be spelling. It's "editor". ren0talk 22:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editer review 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Does this project cover trucks?
If it does, is there an infobox for trucks, like the Template:Infobox_Automobile?
If it doesn't, is there a project or portal for trucks?
Rotten Stone 13:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, a truck is not an automobile - so technically, no we don't.  However if you need to discuss pickup trucks, here is probably the best place - and sticking to the project's standards is probably a good idea in the absence of anything specifically mentioned.   If, on the other hand, you are talking about large (18-wheeler) trucks - then no, we can't help. SteveBaker 14:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your prompt answer. I should have pointed out that I was thinking of medium and heavy trucks. Does anybody know if there is a project about trucks? I can't find any. Rotten Stone 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the (relatively few) truck articles I've edited, I've found there tend to be a handful of editors interested in that particular make, and not a unified group. You might be successful in trying to drum up some volunteers to help out (or answer queries) from the talk pages of individual trucks and manufacturers. – Kieran T (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input. Though I'm neither a trucker, nor a genuine truck freak, and though I'm also fairly new as a registered user, I still might try to start a project about trucks. I guess that most of the guidelines for such a project could be copied from this project with just minor modifications.  Rotten Stone 13:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trucks?

message: The Ford Taurus is a FAC again. Please leave your feedback here. Karrmann 23:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Taurus FAC 

message: I was patrolling the 'Article Creation Requested' page just now and someone suggested an article on Curb feelers - which I created (I wondered what those things were for - you see them on the sides of the police car in the movie cars).  Anyway - the photo desperately needs a photo.  Does anyone have a picture of a car with those little wires sticking out the side of the body close to the ground?  I think they are mostly found on cars from the 1950's with white wall tires. SteveBaker 06:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK - I found one - but I could use something with a tighter close-up. SteveBaker 07:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curb feelers 

message: ok guys get yer camera's and try to find one of these ancient clunkers around, the photo we were using for the article was removed, I talked to the creator of the photo, and he only had rights for his website and couldn't extend them to us.  I've checked the internet, there don't seem to be any photos we could use so we gotta get one. I saw one of those the other day on hastings street in vancouver biritsh columbia, but I don't have a digital camera TotallyTempo 18:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1978-1982 tercel

message: The Mini Moke article is up for Good Article status - if anyone feels like reviewing it (or accepting or rejecting) - please head over to WP:GAC.  Thanks!
SteveBaker 17:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MiniMoke is a Good Article Candidate 

message: Well, I saw that somebody inserted images of Police package Taurus' in the Ford Taurus article. Well, as a member of the Taurus Car Club of America, I noticed that the images are ripped scraight from the TCCA Encyclopedia, though the uploader claims that he created the images. I thik we need to look into this. I'll go and alert the TCCA. Karrmann 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gen II Police Package image is from the TCCA, but I don't believe the Gen I is. Keep in mind that it is possible (though unlikely) that the uploader of these images was the person who provided them to the TCCA in the first place. --Sable232 17:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's not so unlikely - look on their 'Credits' page.  The TCCA do credit Wikipedia for "providing research resources" - and a GFDL image is fair game for putting onto their site. SteveBaker 18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, he claims that he created the Image recently, though it has been in the TCCA encyclopedia for quite some time. Karrmann 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if you have proof, list the proof that you have.  Ask the guy specificially when he took the photograph.  If he claims to have taken the photograph (say) a month ago - then use the 'wayback machine' to look at the TCCA website from two months ago (or a year ago or whatever) and see if the photo is still there.  If it is, tell the guy he's mistaken and revert the image - getting an admin person to delete it permenantly from the site if possible.  Certainly you should take these actions BEFORE notifying the TCCA because we don't really want to get them upset with Wikipedia if we can handle this internally.  If on the other hand, you can't find the photo on the wayback machine from that long ago - then we have to assume good faith and let the photo stand.  If you are still convinced it's not his picture then you could maybe look at the image metadata to see what kind of camera was used, see if he knows that.  Check the metadata on the TCCA site's photo to be sure it hasn't been tampered with.  Look at the metedata on other photos this guy claims to have taken - does it look like they were all takein with the same one or two cameras or are they all different?  That's usually a dead giveaway! SteveBaker 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are both different sizes, the one of the first gen looks like it's scanned. Also, the guy claims he took the image in December(the G2), the image has been on the TCCA long before then. Karrmann 19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Taurus 

message: I've got a new digital camera! If you want any photos of cars that are European, leave a request at User:SunStar Net/Car photo requests and I'll try and get it! Make your request like this:
1. Chevrolet Aveo --~~~~
One question - should I upload them to Commons or just to here?? Thanks, --SunStar Nettalk 13:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I took a look at "The Truth About Cars" which claims to be an automotive review site. I looked at some of the reviews and I am wondering how this source is reliable. The articles are nothing but baseless opinion, written out like a stand-up comedian's show. The articles are comprised almost entirely of wisecracks and give no real information about the car. Any information gleaned from these is found in other, more-professional reviews, and you don't have to wade through incessant one-liners to find it. I would be disappointed if I was reading an article here and then found that as a cited source.
Should we really be citing a source like this when we have plenty of (more or less) trusted sources like Consumer Reports, Consumer Guide, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc? --Sable232 14:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TTAC is auto humor, the American version of Jeremy Clarkson. It's not an encyclopedia source. IFCAR 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, its a humor page and not an authorative institution. The page consists of a bunch of guys who thought "Hey, let's get together and make a web-site with car reviews." Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Truth About Cars" refs 

message: Are there any specific articles that need pictures?  The Washington Auto Show is next week, and I can fill some requests when I go. --Aude (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Focus on new designs, ones that aren't on sale yet. I'll be there as well. IFCAR 02:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of tomorrow, I am going to the Montreal Auto Show.  There are about only 250-350 cars there.  I will continue to be there, however. -- Bull-Doser 03:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of my photos are on commons - :commons:Category:2007 Washington Auto Show.  I notice that User:IFCAR posted many similar pictures, and I'm not about to go into any articles and remove/replace them.  I do have more that I can upload, but not sure it's really worth the effort at this point. --Aude (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo requests

message: I took many pictures at NAIAS, many which I uploaded adn added to their respective articles. Ther are more than I uploaded, I just saw no place where Wikipedia could use them, so I didn't waste my time uploading them.
You can see them here Karrmann 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAIAS 

message: I took about 150-200 pictures from the Montreal Auto Show, mainly mainstream and low-end luxury cars.  I took the '08 Mazda Tribute, the Hyundai Veracruz, the Mazda CX-9 and various debuts.  I will be debuting about 10 today, with the rest later. -- Bull-Doser 01:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a picture of teh CX9 I took at NAIAS, though it is not very good, so I didn't upload it. It's at a good angle adn all, but people are in it, adn a doors open. Karrmann 01:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine's even better.  Look over here. -- Bull-Doser 02:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry man, but those images aren't very good. Crooked angles are good for artistic images, but not good for encyclopediac images. Karrmann 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These fall under "better than nothing", but can hopefully be replaced. IFCAR 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my CX9 pic will probably prove more useful than BD's. I'll upload it adn let you be the judge. Karrmann 03:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Cleaner, better angle. I'll see if I can get one without people in it next week, too. IFCAR 03:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, that one will go in the article. It was hard to get one without people though, cause it was grabbing a lot of attention. That is the clearest it got, at least when I was at the Mazda stand. Karrmann 12:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No I didn't.  I used an HP Photosmart digital camera. -- Bull-Doser 14:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found that if you go up to one of the official-looking people 'minding' the car and tell them that you are taking a photo for "the car's official entry in Wikipedia - the online Encyclopedia" - then they'll clear people away from the car for a minute or so in order to let you get a good shot.  They just naturally assume that you're some kind of professional journalist.  But PLEASE - avoid turning the camera through funny angles and turn your flash on (don't leave it in 'automatic' mode). SteveBaker 16:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used flash, thats how my images turned out so clean. When I took the dealer pics, I didn't use flash, so thats why they were so blurry. Karrmann 18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone would wanna go to the Montreal Auto Show, it lasts up until Jan. 28 at le Palais des congrès de Montréal. -- Bull-Doser 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just please don't take skewed angle pictures. I know you thought it would make them look edgy and fancy, but unfortunately it does not. So please, Bull-Doser continue to take regular up-right images (they're best for use in an encyclopedia). I'm sorry I have to say this but pictures like this are completely un-usable. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When there's no alternative, nothing is unusable. IFCAR 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well sometimes that may not be the case. A really low low quality image may actually take away from an article and make us look totally un-professional. Signaturebrendel 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Meh, I'll just head down to a Saturn dealer and take an image of another OUTLOOK to replace that piss poor on e. Karrmann 21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good deal. Signaturebrendel 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Saturn dealer about twenty minutes from wheere I live. Next time i'm in teh area I will get a pic. Karrmann 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures From The Montreal Auto Show! 

message: I am going to go around and add infoboxes to all the seperate automotive subsidories, such as Lincoln (automobile), Scion, Pontiac, etc. Karrmann 19:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget to change the infobox of the Nissan Skyline, which has still got an outdated infobox. -- Bull-Doser 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have anything to do right now, so I'm gonna fix the Nissan Skyline box. Give me an hour. ren0talk 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DING! pizza's done. ren0talk 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Didn't you read a word I said? I am not doing cars or upadting infoboxes, I am adding infoboxes to car brands! Karrmann 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes 

message: As I was messing with the Nissan Skyline article, I noticed that when you right align an image and you have an infobox template it places the image below it. Is there a way to allow the image to just be placed to the left of the infobox or no? (for example small images.) ren0talk 17:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, you just have to align left next to an infobox if you want the image to stay where you put it. IFCAR 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is warned against in the Manual of Style, since it can result in a very narrow column of text for people on mobile devices or with other small screens. Remember, Wikipedia pages are like HTML in the old days: they're intended to convey a hierarchy of information, not to be a form of DTP with precision layout control. – Kieran T (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WikiProject Autos conventions ask for images to be as close as possible to relevant text, so one of the standards must be chosen. IFCAR 02:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, your point makes sense, and this is a common conflict in various subject areas. Personally I think infoboxes are a layout pain in the neck and would be better as a sort of introductory table horizontally, but that ain't ever going to happen. Since the "don't squeeze" advice comes from the Manual of Style, and is soundly grounded in general internet accessibility we might be better following that — also because I suspect most Wikipedians would vote that above the stylistic suggestions of an individual project in terms of authority. It's different when it's an issue regarding the project's subject matter, but internet accessibility and page layout probably aren't part of ProjectAutos... ;-) – Kieran T (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Right aligning images