Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 3

message: It looks like the Mini article will be on the Wikipedia front page as 'Todays Featured Article' on April 17th.  I'm told that vandalism is a HUGE problem for TFA's - so it would be nice if we could get more people to help patrol the article for vandalism on and around that day.  Thanks in advance! SteveBaker 03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I have temporarly added the article to my watchlist. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mini]] to be on front page! 

message: Hi, I would like to bring attention to the peer review requests on the Lexus LS and Lincoln Town Car articles. If anyone has the time and would like to make suggestions on the two articles, I would really appriciate it. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer reviews needed 

message: Could someone with a keen eye take a look at the bio that I wrote for Edward S. Jordan (Ned Jordan)?  Stude62 15:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another peer review needed

message: So, there seem to be a large number of short articles under :Category:Automotive assembly plants.  Is there any chance some of them could be merged together?  If not, there's probably enough of them that we should create another stub category for them.  Duesentrieb's CatScan lists 72 that are <750 chars.  If there's no consensus on what to do in a couple days, I'll temporarily sort them into a separate stub category.  --Interiot 10:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, depending on the size of each stub, one could merge the stubs for a certain company in a certain country. For example, one could merge all the stubs for Ford Manufacturing plants in the US into one large article. Since I am, however, for having seperate articles, I seriously question whether such a merger is really that desirable. Otherwise a recategorization of stubs might just be enough. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If they're going to remain permastubs, then merging may be the best choice.  However, some are being expanded, so maybe they don't have to be merged ASAP.  *shrug*  Okay,  is proposed over at stub-sorting .  --Interiot 11:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think using  is probably the best solution for now. You're right, some are being expanded, but most are probably going to be permastubs. In either case I think the proposed category makes sense. Signaturebrendel 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto plants 

message: Since peer review comments on MINI (BMW) have dried up - I've moved it on to WP:FAC.  You guys are well placed to comment on it - so I encourage you to check out the entry.  Many thanks!  SteveBaker 15:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[MINI (BMW)]] is up for Featured Article 

message: Is this new stub compatible with the existing stub organization?  So far, we haven't broken things out by car types, we've broken then out by manufacture date.  If we further separated out , wouldn't we do something like  or , rather than making a stub that's orthogonal to the existing structure?  --Interiot 12:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|wagon-stub}} 

message: There are some articles that would benefit from infoboxes having multiple photos. Particularly in the case of badge-engineered identical vehicles (Dodge Caravan / Plymouth Voyager, Toyota Corolla / Geo Prizm, etc.), it would be more parsimonious to have two photos and one set of specs. I have seen this attempted a couple of different ways, and have tried it myself, but none of the results has been entirely satisfactory. What's the concensus on how best to handle this?
Scheinwerfermann 03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you link to some attempts?  If the problems are more technical, maybe a solution could be found...  --Interiot 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dislike placing multiple photos in the infobox personally.  It expands the infobox massively, often causing them to take up more height than the entire article.  I suggest instead using a gallery in the article.  --SFoskett 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think that in some cases multiple photos would be helpful as similar vehicles sold under different marques usually are differentiated by certain, often subtle, design elements (i.e. in the case of the Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon which currently features a Tahoe but not a Yukon picture). The problem is as SFoskett stated that multiple pictures in infoboxes could extend the infobox to an undesirbable extend and thus not only cause the infobox to become unsightly and somewhat uncomprhensible, such a long infobox can also cause very unsightly line-wraps as well; thus I am generally against having multiple pictures in one infobox. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Why does it have to go into the infobox?  In Mini (coming to the front page on 29th April!), we put a very 'typical' Mini photo into the infobox (which is only supposed to be an 'at a glance summary') - and attached other photos where the narrative of the article demanded them.  If you put more photos into the infobox, it's going to scroll the numerical and other data down off the bottom of the screen - which is less useful for people who just want to find a quick fact.  If you get into showing all of the varients then for some cars (Mini included) you'd need a dozen photos wedged into the infobox. We'd have needed Morris, Austin, Innocenti, saloon, Elf/Hornet, pickup, estate wagon, panel van and jeep to cover all of the main varients).  The infobox needs to be kept short and contain the bare essentials. SteveBaker 23:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point, we wouldn't put pictures of each body style of a car model in the infobox, so why put each brand variation of the vehicle in the infobox. Well, on the Chevrolet Tahoe article a picture of a GMC Yukon would be used as the article actually is about two different vehicles which are merged into one article due to their technological similarities. Here the idea makes somewhat sense. I am, however, still oposed to the idea of multiple pictures in the infobox as this would cause the infobox to be of undesirable length, besides the idea of an infobox which is supposed to provide a quick overview of the car would be lost if users would have to scroll down in order to read the infobox entries. Signaturebrendel 00:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple photo protocol in infobox?

message: Is ghostriding a well-defined phrase?  My gut feeling is to AfD it as a neologism, but I wanted to run it by you guys first. --Interiot 12:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, I think it's a real term.  It's a neologism in that it's a relatively newly made up term for a new craze...but it wasn't made up by the person who wrote the article.  It passes the 'google test'.  You can find a dozen ghostriding (or ghostridin') references.  Hopefully a few well deserved Darwin awards will fix this.<sigh>. SteveBaker 23:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the google hits consistent with the definition given in the article?  (or with each other?)  The google hits that I could find seemed to use ghostriding to mean a wide variety of things, often unrelated to the current article.  So I was wondering if someone more hip than I had heard it consistently used in real life or something. --Interiot 23:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this be under movie stunts, the only place I have ever seen a person exit a moving vehicle is in action movies. Otherwise I think that this article which essentially is a defenition of a slang term should be moved to the wikitionary or for that matter deleted. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  The Google hits are indeed completely consistent with the article.  There are MANY videos out there of stupid people opening the driver-side door while the car is in motion - stepping out so one foot is on the window-sill of the door - the other is on the driver seat.  More adventurous people then either jump onto the ground and run alongside the car while it's rolling down the street at maybe 5mph - other people climb onto the hood or onto the roof while the car is still moving with nobody behind the wheel.   There are multiple movies of cars slamming into trees and telephone polls...you name it.  These appear to be ordinary people - not stuntmen or actors.  Sadly, this is all too real and the term "Ghostriding" is indeed the most common term for it. Geez...idiots. SteveBaker 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this stub should be merged with the Stupidity article. ;-) Signaturebrendel 19:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sanity check 

message: As the current discussion page has reached 64 posts (65 posts if you count this one), I would like to archive the first 50, as was done in the first archive. Any suggestions, comments, objections? If there are no objections I will go ahead and archive the first 50 posts in a week (Afterall edits can always be reversed). Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have at it. Stude62 01:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - do it. SteveBaker 03:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty I went ahead. Thanks for your input. Signaturebrendel 05:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving of discussions 

message: I was wondering what we should do about concept vehicles? i think they should have some sort of template similar to the future products one. a lot of the information is heresay or read in magazines and just put up here with a photo. 
a lot of the articles are also lacking information. so i think there should maybe be a stub template for concept vehicles. please share your ideas.
ren0talk 05:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this one --T-dot 14:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about making it more general?  eg.  or something like that.  --Interiot 14:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that template already exists as "future automobiles" (aka "upcoming automobiles") - (see a few paragraphs up).  The distinction is - "future" or "upcoming" vehicles are strongly indicated for production in the near term (1-2 years) while concept cars are more speculative, further out, or they never entered production. --T-dot 14:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see the need to use a concept template. Most of the times, concept cars are made specifically as an exercise for stylists or to showcase a brand new piece of technology, but the car itself will not be the basis for a particular model. As long as we begin the text, as something like "The Volkswagen GX3 is a concept car created by Volkswagen", with a link for concept car, I don't see how potential readers can mistake these for real road-going cars. --Pc13 15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very Good Points.  The upcoming and concept vehicles templates were requested by other users, and thus created.  If there is consensus among the majority of concerned and interested users that either (or both) of the templates are not required, and add no value to the Project, then they can and should be deleted.  I think the real intent here was to try to warn readers that the information and specifications posted on upcoming and possible future automobiles may be very speculative and should not be considered "final".  There have been a number of reversion wars over these issues, and compromises, like these templates, are being worked out and tested.  Thanks for your input. --T-dot 17:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For vehicles that are actually in development and expected to be released at some not-completely-specific date, there's lots of precedent for that.  For vehicles that aren't currently in active development though, I agree that we probably don't need a template for those articles.  --Interiot 17:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree that a special template for concept vehicles is not needed. Usually it states right in the first paragrpah that the subject is a concept vehicle. Besides concept vehicles are not usually subject to speculation as are future vehicles. The template for future vehicles exsits as a warning since an article on future vehicles, unlike an article on concept vehicles, features descriptions of events that are planned by have not actually taken place. Articles on future vehicles feature speculatory content that is sbuject to change, as is the nature with any article concerning planned events. Articles on concept vehicles on the other hand describe a vehicles that was actually built and goes into further detail concerning the reasons for the production of the vehicle. The difference is quite simple, a concept car is a vehicle that was actually built and the article concerning it, should not feature as much speculation as an article on the planned production of a vehicle. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose: The text of the proposed template says that the article may contain text of a speculative nature - this isn't really likely.  Many concept cars existed far into the past - and so long as the article talks about the actual concept car - and not some hypothetical model that might come out of it - then there is nothing speculative about it.  You can write an article about a concept car - such as Lincoln Futura - that was around in the 1950's - you can say lots of things about the actual concept car (which in this case was turned into the Batmobile!) - without saying anything speculative at all.  So whilst it might be useful to have a concept car template (I'm never very convinced of the value of such things) - it most certainly SHOULDN'T give the impression that the article is automatically badly written (because it's speculative) - when in fact it's a perfectly good article about an actual object that really existed and about which certain verifiable facts are known. SteveBaker 21:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Defenitely, there should always be a press release by the manufacturer, as many publications speculate on the nature of future automobiles. Only if GM states that there will be a future Saab should there be an article. Take the Lincoln MKS for example, while Ford has not yet anounced a production date, they have anounced the future production of the MKS. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concept Vehicles

message: i have done some heavy editing in that article and i keep seeing people adding bullshit to the MKV section. they are trying to pass the information off and say its a "future vehicle" when it is not, and it never will be until toyota says otherwise (or they surprise us). then they go off and say blah blah, lexus. and try to say lexus will have the new sportscar (which is most likely true). lexus is a different marque of cars and shouldn't have info in the toyota supra article (obviously). then aside from that, i think toyota is smart enough that they WILL NOT release a new supra with a V8. they have always been straight-sixes and i'm willing to bet toyota will keep them that way (if they ever do release a new one).
so what should i do about this? i'm thinking just to remove it, and maybe add a section titled "future generations" and state that "toyota has continued to state there will be no more additions to the toyota supra line". (i have references.) maybe add some other things in there about how lexus is where toyota is putting any new sportscars. ideas? agreement? ren0talk 00:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Toyota Supra]] article

message: I'm new to wikipedia.  How do I join this wikiproject (it is my area of expertise)?  Also, could someone please explain how the "Pages needed attention works" section works.  Bok269 01:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just sign you name on the project page in the "project members" section and you'll be all set. The "Pages in need of attention" section is merely a list of articles that need to be improved. Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We can discuss it right here, or you can just add articles to the list. Thanks for joining. Signaturebrendel 22:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I join? 

message: I was thinking about what things the reader of an article about a particular car might be curious about. We have Infobox sections for "Predecessor" and "Successor" - which help you to understand what this design replaced - and what finally improved on it enough to obsolete it.  But wouldn't it also be interesting to know what other cars were competitors at the time?   That would allow readers to contrast other contemporary solutions to the same set of design problems.  Hence, (to take my usual example), the Mini article's template could add "Competitors: VW Bug, Fiat 500, Citroen 2CV, Ford Anglia".  That gives users a powerful navigational tool to find other, similar cars from the same era/price-range/performance-bracket.  SteveBaker 21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another idea for the Infobox 

message: The cut off date for this stub is given on the project page as 1900.  The standard date in Britain is pre 1905 as given at Brass Era car. I cannot locate a reference to 1900 in any of the articles but I won't guarantee not to have missed something.  Is there any reason for the 1900 date? Malcolma 08:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Veteran-auto-stub

message: I've joined this one, it's great to have a WikiProject on this!! --Sunfazer | Talk 10:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm new!

message: I'm trying to get Honda Civic to featured article status. This article is good so far, but needs a bit more work to get it on the main page. If anyone can help me, let me know here or on my talk page. Thanks! --Sunfazer | Talk 10:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help needed

message: I have 300 pictures of exotic cars (Enzo, Carrera GT, 1930s Rolls, Murcierlago, DB4, Ford GT + many more) which I'll authorize for use under the Creative Commons Attribution License v. 2.5 with the byline of "By Brett Weinstein (Wikipedia User: Nrbelex) taken at the Scarsdale Concours in 2006". I have a picture of (almost) any of the cars on this list (which is a picture in a Word file) so leave a message on my talk page with requests. Nrbelex (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: 216 of the images have been uploaded to this galley. Uploading them all here seems unnecessary so upload them here as you see fit. They are authorized for use under the Creative Commons Attribution License v. 2.5 with the byline of "By Brett Weinstein (Wikipedia User: Nrbelex) taken at the Scarsdale Concours in 2006" (see :Image:1957 Maserati 200SI.JPG for an example as to how the citation should appear). Again, a list of the cars is at . It rained that day so a few didn't show up but it was a good showing. Good luck! Nrbelex (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've downloaded them all and have begun identifying them.  The fun begins again!  :)  --SFoskett 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whew!  I have almost all of them identified now and will begin uploading soon.  Funny thing - some of them are NOT what they seem to be.  The supposed "Aston Martin DB4 Series 4 Vantage" is almost certainly a series 1 or 2, for instance.  Altogether some very nice cars there this year!  --SFoskett 14:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't thank you enough for going through all this work! The reason some cars are there which shouldn't be and some are missing is because the owners knew it was probably gonna rain and took some liberties with what they brought. It was fairly annoying but we still had a fairly decent turnout. Thanks afain, Sfoskett!!! Nrbelex (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Awesome. Thank you so much for doing that. I see you even started adding some to articles. Thanks again! Nrbelex (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exotic Car Pictures 

message: I'm new to Wikipedia.  I have noticed that many automotive articles don't link to the official site of the Auto/Automaker.  Should I add the link when I see it isn't there?  Does that violate any copyrights?  Bok269 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't violate any copyrights. Please go ahead and add the official manufacturer site to all articles that do not have it yet. Thanks for contributing and welcome! Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The Concept car page has a subsection titled "Some Concept Cars."  As the name suggests, it is imcomplete.  An idea I had is that whenever someone comes across, adds, or edits a page about a concept car, check the page, and if that car is not there, add it to the list, and add a quick description as with the rest of the list.  Bok269 20:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think that * should be the one that strives for complete coverage.  And, well, just about every automobile category is probably missing an article or two.  --Interiot 20:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, currently the Concept car article is linked from the category page. I do however think that the "Some concept cars" list is somewhat unfit for an encyclopedia as there is a much more comprehensive list of concept vehicles in the category. Having a half-done list may just be worse than having no list and only a link to the category. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that we should take a vote. It's bad policy to keep long and aspiring-to-be-complete lists within articles in general. I don't know whether there are formal policies dealing with that, but you will often see this as a reason for failing articles for FA or GA status. It just looks bad. The category serves the same purpose and is a much more suitable and easy-to-operate way to do it. Meanwhile, the Concept car article could surely use some enhancement, like sources and exapnsion in general. Why don't you devote some of your time to this? Bravada, talk - 15:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well put.  Also, VotingIsEvil, and forcing a mandate on the state of the article now isn't so good...  it's not like either solution is particularly bad.  But yes, if the article improves over time, it will likely eventually have to do away with the list.  --Interiot 16:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concept Car Page 

message: Could someone with chart skills overhaul the Volvo timeline?  The date intervals are not to scale, and the current cars do not extend past 2006, as other manufacturer's cars do.  None of these vehicles have been announced to cease production.  Bok269 23:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have fixed the model spans, so that each current models runs until 2009, the end of the template, as in other manufacturer sites. The reason why the years look "uneven" is because some models have to fit their entire description within one year. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volvo Timeline 

message: I wanted to get some input on creating something like  to use instead of  on pages that are solely devoted to choosing between separate automobile pages.  WP:MOSDAB is somewhat strict in its formatting rules, and while I agree with them for general disambig articles, the style guidelines can be a little too strict for subject-specific articles.  WikiProject Ships has created  based on this discussion and others at WP:MOSDAB, and I think the same sort of thing applies to many auto disambigs.  This is a list of automobiles currently marked with , and the Mercedes articles stand out as ones that definitely would be a stretch to fit into WP:MOSDAB.  Anyway, it would take a bit of work to undo, so I wanted to run it by other people first.  --Interiot 20:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{automobileindex}}</nowiki>

message: The main wikipedia MoS on numbers, dates, and units is pretty useless when it comes to all the nonstandard units we use (cc or cm³ instead of mL, ci or in³ instead of, I dunno, fl.oz?, rpm instead of Hz, etc).  Do we have a standard or even a guideline for units anywhere?  It can be pretty confusing.
I've noticed a few de facto conventions, such as displaying the US unit for torque as ft·lbf rather than as ft-lb or lb-ft or common but horribly incorrect variants like "ft/lb" or "tq".
*What is preferred for metric units for torque?  N·m (common in Europe) or kgf·m (common in Japan)?  I suppose the source unit is best, but what about if the source is in a US unit?
*Do commas belong in engine displacements over 999 cc?  I never see commas used in English-language literature.
— AKADriver ☎ 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: actually ft.lbf is correct. see Foot-pound force. ren0talk 19:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine displacement and specs MoS? 

message: I am happy to inform you that Lancia Flaminia has just been promoted to Good Article status! This is in no small way thanks to Steve's generous contributions to improve the article and procure a free photo!
Thus, our still small collection of Good and Featured articles continues to grow, and I hope soon we will hear of more good news like that. In the meantime, I encourage you to nominate some better articles you know, and also improve other with references so that we could nominate them too! Perhaps we might also consider concentrating our efforts by means of something like a COTW. Bravada, talk - 16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Good Article! 

message: I created an article on ex-WRC driver Pentti Airikkala a while back, and in the course of creating Wikilinks I came across what I think is a bit of a problem.
All the individual events in the WRC calendar have their own articles (accessed by selecting on of the years listed on the WRC results page), but they include the names of the sponsors in the title. While this is accurate for recent years, it makes historical records erroneous. For example, Airikkala competed in the New Zealand Rally in 1979. The "live" page is Propecia Rally of New Zealand, but Propecia only came on board in 2001; in 1979 the sponsor was Motogard . I don't think it's encyclopedic to include the sponsors names in the title, but I think about 10 of the race articles are currently affected in this way.
As far as possible, I've checked the official website of each event to see what they call themselves, and I've double-checked that against the list of events on the Rallybase.nl website . I came up with what I reckon the articles should be called, and listed them on my userpage. However, I don't want to start renaming/redirecting manually without some discussion. Also, if anyone can automate the renaming process to cover the problem of creating numerous dead links all of a sudden, I'd be grateful for their assistance. --DeLarge 18:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think you should fix this.   We shouldn't have to repeatedly rename articles every time someone changes sponsorship.  Be Bold!  SteveBaker 17:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. Please go ahead and move the articles, unfortunately I don't have a bot or anything to help you get the job done faster ;-). Thanks for taking initiative. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Rally Championship problem 

message: Great idea, Bravada. That would actually be an intereting project to have articles that list the vehicles for a given market. Do we already have such an article for the US and Canada? Otherwise I'd like to create one and the names Cars in America or List of cars in America arn't used. I just got through creating the List of largest passenger vehicles in the United States,and am thinking about creating a Cars in America article, similar to the Cars in Mexico article. The article I am proposing would however be in a table format like the main table on the List of car manufacturers I recently created. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid we don't, and I believe this could be both very informative and a convenient place to gather all important facts that don't fit anywhere else. I also believe Cars in Japan could be very informative, given all the peculiarties of the market and industry there and how they influence Japanese (and other) automakers. I believe mentions of the American definitions and distinction between cars and trucks, CAFE, EPA, NHTSA and IIHS should go in there, perhaps also the UAW issue. Oh, btw, is this Cars in America or Cars in the USA? I'd say it would be more convenient to have it as the former, as Canada is different enough that discussing all the differences would merit a separate article. Bravada, talk - 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I was thinking, Passenger vehicles in the United States as we defenitely would have to include SUV and trucks as roughly 50% of vehicles sold in the US are light trucks. I'll start the list but it'll take a while. Please contribute! Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Passenger vehicles in the United States]]

message: I think auto shows is a topic poor in information. There is information about some auto shows but the pages are full of red links. I think we need to put more attention to these, don't you think? 
For the moment, I created the article for the Mexico Autoshow:)Fluence 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto shows 

message: I have recently expanded the Talbot Tagora article considerably and started wondering whether it might be a good candidate for GA or even FA. Before I put it through formal "general" peer review, I would like to ask for your opinions first. In particular, I would appreciate native speakers' opinions on (and corrections to) the language and style, as well as all other general remakrs regarding the suitability of this article. If you find errors concerning factual accuracy, please do provide a better reference if you can! Feel free to edit the article accordingly. Bravada, talk - 14:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have decided to move the review and discussion to the article's Talk Page, as I think it is a more approporiate place. Please post your reviews there - thanks! Bravada, talk - 11:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talbot Tagora]] - peer review 

message: Hello.  As some people already know, I have created a Holden template, but I need some additional people to look at it before I make it official.  Some people have already commented on it, but I need some others to look at it.  Please bear with me, as this is my first attempt at a template, so I need all the opinions I can get! -Daniel Blanchette 01:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine so far, just alphabetize everything and it's good to go! --ApolloBoy 00:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holden template 

message: I am interested in making units consistent and have taken part in discussions here. I have created a simple tool that makes the task quicker. If you want to use it, feel free. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'units' tab to press in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making unit formats consistent 

message: We had a quite sunny day today, so I decided to go for a walk and grabbed a camera. I took some photos of my neighbourhood, including some cars unsuspecting owners left unguarded in the area I roamed. Two of them (car pics) are even actually OK. At first I was very proud of myself and the possibility of contributing to Wikipedia this way, but after I came home, edited and uploaded them to Commons, my enthusiasm faded - especially after I compared them to the pics illustrating the articles on the subjects at present. I would be grateful if you would spare a moment and look at my photos page and tell me what you think of them - preferably on teh appropriate talk page. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 00:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I a new Take Me Higher? 

message: For what it's worth, body kit seems like an article that really obviously needs a picture.  I did a pretty quick scan of the commons/yotophoto/flickr, but didn't find anything (though most probably don't explicitely say "body kit").  If all else fails, this image (of a 350z Veilside body kit) might work.  --0x845FED 14:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, nearly every article about parts of cars (versus entire cars) is in need of a photograph.  I've been gradually  adding them where I can - but there is an enormous amount still to be done.  I recently added photos to Nerf bar, Intercooler, Supercharger...but there are hundreds of others that need help.  If you are interested in adding photographs, car parts is in much greater need than actual articles about cars themselves.  It's less glamorous work - your photo won't likely make it onto a featured article - but the actual need for photos that provide useful explanations is actually more important than just having a nice shot of a car at the top of each article about a particular model.  SteveBaker 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I enthusiastically second that.  I just think that articles on exterior features are more likely to be read by non-enthusiasts.  And exterior features primarily added for aesthetic reasons really really should have an image (and those pictures should be easy to get if someone is heading off to a car show soon).  --0x845FED 02:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious image request 

message: I have noticed (correct me if I am wrong) that we do not have many articles on the development of cars, such as prototypes and mules.  Also, we don't have one on Spy Photos?  Should I start them?  Bok269 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to start them you have enough info to do so, but be sure to check the copyright in case you want to bring spyphotos into the spyphoto article. Signaturebrendel 01:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd add that we don't want to go out too far on a limb. A couple examples spring to mind. We had an article running around called Ferrari 600 Imola or something like that; the car that came out was the Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, and some of the assertions made by that article didn't turn out to be correct, either. The car timeline table for BMWs also includes Z10 under supercars. BMW has not said it would build such a vehicle, and to my knowledge, most of the industry sources say that it won't happen, that a cheaper car (Z6 or Z8) is in the pipeline instead. It seems to me that we should stick to cars that are in production or have been shown at auto shows as concepts or prototypes. For example, the article about the Lincoln MKS is probably okay, since Lincoln confirmed they will build such a thing, and it will be very close to the concept version. But building an article just from rumours from one or two of the car mags is probably a bad idea overall. Otherwise we risk becoming too much of a gossip journal, eh? And most importantly, don't go copying images from Brenda Piddy or AutoBild or Motor Trend's guy, whose name escapes me, publish them, and say "this is the Cadillac so-and-so". No it isn't, it's a grown-up-schoolboy's fantasy of what it might be. Very UE, to me. Sacxpert 08:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope everyone will please be really careful with "insider information" - see Wikipedia: No Original Research and Verifiability. I don't want to be a "spoil-sport", but it's a shame when articles become so untrue that the media picks up on it and does one of those "Wikipedia promoting rubbish and lies" stories. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 14:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas for articles on a Prototypes/mules/spy photos 

message: I noticed today a few pages getting tagged with Category:Auto parts - which seems like a good thing - so I tagged a few more parts that had gotten missed.  Then I noticed some articles with  - and other articles with BOTH tags.  Shouldn't all articles about car parts (whether stubs or not) be given Category:Auto parts?   In many cases there just isn't much to say about a particular car part. My recent article Nerf bar is pretty much just a stub - but there really isn't all that much to say about a tube you bolt onto a truck to make a step!  If we don't add the Category:Auto parts tag to stub articles then people won't be able to find them when they look at the auto parts catagory page.  So I think stubs do need the Category:Auto parts tag - no matter how short they are. SteveBaker 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree, these stubs should be categorized, otherwise they'll be almost lost. All articles and stubs here on wiki should be categorized instead of letting them float around in cyberspace. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While we're talking about this - pardon my WikiIgnorance - but what's the difference between  and Category:auto parts stub?  Are they in fact synonymous - in which case, is one form preferred over the other? SteveBaker 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they are the same, a stub should feature the <nowiki> and articles with the 
<nowiki>Category:Auto parts. Perhaps, I misunderstood your question, nonetheless, an article or stub should feature one of the two as adding the stub template should automtically categorize the stub. Having both the stub template and category in an article or stub is overkill. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK!  Well, I've been doing a LOT of tagging - there are a heck of a lot of articles about car parts! SteveBaker 13:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for doing so! Especially as there are so many part stubs and articles is it so important to classify them. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 17:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. If all stubs and articles are classified, navigating through Wikipedia would be much easier. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category question