Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 10

message: Looks like we've got a bit of a crusader on our hands. Ab7fh seems to be trying hard to promote his website, a discussion forum related to certain Ford-built SUVs, by inserting it in as many articles as possible despite repeated deletions due to enthusiast forums falling outside the guidelines for appropriate external-link inclusion. Yesterday he began taking his crusade to inappropriate areas by asking the fatuous and disingenuous question of why external links are permitted in Dodge Dart but not in Ford Explorer, Ford Ranger, etc. I attempted to explain the differences between adding bona fide external links and promoting one's own site, between external links that comply with Wikipedia guidelines and those that don't. He does not appear willing to understand those differences, and today deleted all the external links from Dodge Dart. I have restored the links, none of which is an enthusiast forum, and admonished Ab7fh not to repeat the vandalism. It looks like others have also tried to educate this individual without success, so I suspect he will attempt an edit war. Let's try and contain this problem before it grows larger, shall we? --Scheinwerfermann 04:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I posted on your talk page, this should go to ANI, hopefully for a speedy resolution and a blacklist of the spammer's site. --Sable232 17:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This happens - you can try to explain - but linkspammers always have a hard time accepting it.  They present dozens of somewhat reasonable-seeming arguments...but you can't let them do it.  Quote this at them: Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided.  I've been engaged in an annoying 'debate' with a linkspammer over on Mini. It's not the same guy - but it's really upsetting.  So: Revert as necessary.  You might try adding a wiki comment into the actual article asking people to discuss adding external links on the talk page beforehand...that might help.  But it's just like any other situation when you have a difficult editor...you just have to slog it out.  It might help to point out that these links aren't going to help his blog get up the Google pagerank because Wikipedia quietly tags all external links with some magic HTML that tells Googles search engine: "Please don't add Wikipedia's reputation to the pagerank of this link".  That makes us considerably less interesting to most linkspammers.  Oh - and if he points to another page with a link to a blog or a forum, thank him profoundly for finding this mistake and go in there and clean it up.  SteveBaker 03:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent crusader/vandal

message: If there is an article without a notice that it is supported by WikiProject Automobiles, do we just add the template and wait for a review, or must it be discussed. The article in question is the Caparo T1, although I am rewriting the article. Should I wait until after I have rewritten it? —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the template has anything to do with it.  The articles I maintain don't use the template (I really hate all of this kind of extraneous junk decorating articles these days) - but all three have been rated by the review process several times.  I just added them to the list in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment whenever I felt they had changed enough to warrant an upgrade to the next level (eg when I'd passed WP:GAC and WP:FAC).  Clearly it would be unfair on the people who do the assessments to overdo this - but I don't see any harm in making one rating request now (you should rate 'start' or 'B'), another when you make WP:GA (at which point you are clearly a 'GA' and maybe they'll give you an 'A' and go for the third after you pass WP:FA - which should be a mere formality since you know the article is an 'FA'.  Going for an early assessment (maybe even when the article is just a stub) allows the assessors to allocate an importance grade - that doesn't depend on how good your article is - but on how important the subject of it is to Wikipedia. (eg Automobile is a more important article than Bumper sticker no matter how well either article has been written!) SteveBaker 02:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm ... huh? Sorry, that was very confusing for me. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 21:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What he's basically saying is that there's too much talk page userbox graffiti on WP. A similar opinion is expressed by User:Doc glasgow: "Wikipedia has too many boxes. Userboxes were bad enough, but now we have the infobox virus, and dozens of superfluous navigation boxes spouting up all over otherwise decent articles. We have a multitude of boxes on talk pages claiming ownership by some project that typically has contributed nothing to that article, except of course the box." --DeLarge 19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - and I was also trying to convey the fact that the template has nothing to do with rating.  To get your article rated, you have to add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. SteveBaker 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. Thank you for clearing that up. I have added the articles to be assessed. =) —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 02:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supported by WikiProject Automobiles 

message: At the Eagle Talon article, one user with two accounts keeps inserting poor images of a heavily modified car, despite it being reverted by myself and another user. I've already reverted twice, so I can't do anything about it for a few more hours, so if anyone can get rid of the images for now or arrange for a more permanent solution, it would be helpful. IFCAR 17:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we are at it - do we really need a separate article for the Talon? FWIK, it was just a rebadge of the Eclipse... PrinceGloria 22:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New to this whole Wiki-editing thing, but I would agree that the Talon (and Plymouth Laser, for that matter) could be consolidated together. The three cars differ only in detail for the most part. --Duncan1800 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, the page is protected. Karrmann 11:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I filed a checkuser and sockpuppetry case against teh guy, as I have evidence that link MikeTSIawd and an IP to Spoolintsi. I just want anyone involved in this conflict to come and back up my claims, so we can get these guys blocked, adn hopefully end this conflict before it gets completely out of control like the Infiniti G20 or Amc Matador incidents. Karrmann 13:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, through the processess and talking to some freindly admins, the user and his sockpuppets that were edit warring on the page have all been blocked, and I am having the page unprotected. It looks like this dispute is over. Karrmann 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eagle Talon 

message: Today I went to the Eyes on Design car show and got many free licensed images of rare and exotic cars. They are under my commons category, and you can insert them into articles if you want. Karrmann 20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exotic car images 

message: Be on the lookout for any new edits made by 72.80.151.43.  They seem to be making mostly innocent looking changes regarding model years (most of which can be easily proven wrong), but they are slipping in some non-existent and sometimes offensive model names.  As you can see at Special:Contributions/72.80.151.43, this user has been very busy (and bored out of their mind, apparently :) in the last two days.  I normally don't bother warning anonymous users, but left a "test3" warning on their page given the number of edits.  If they try another round, I guess it's blocking time. --Vossanova o< 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to see somebody did notice it. I have too little time to take care of that, but this is certainly the return of our regular hoaxer. PrinceGloria 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's kill them and eat them. :/ Thanks for pointing this out. Lewis Collard! (natter) 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New hoaxer 

message: 71.50.23.127 19:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you don't try towing with it or put any unnecessary stress on it, the diesel engine will be fine.  GM built these engines on the cheap and didn't reinforce the crankshaft.  But since it's a diesel, people just assumed it was built for heavy duty applications.  Now this isn't a forum, so unless there's something about a particular article, try Yahoo Answers instead.Mustang6172 21:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep a full set of glow plugs handy. The car will eat them like candy. Also IIRC, there is no water separator on that engine which means that if enough water builds up, you can have hydro lock. Best to treat the fuel with some sort of additive, I know Standyne is a good one.--Analogue Kid 18:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  olds 350 diesel 

message: Hi, I just recently went to NYC today, and took 9 car pictures.  You can go to them @ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bull-Doser and click on an image to see. -- Bull-Doser 21:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is great to see that you're producing some halfway reasonable photographs nowadays. Just keep up the good work. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be back in NYC in 2 weeks, since my family went on vacation.  I am currently in Mexico City. -- Bull-Doser 05:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great! We absolutely need more photos of Latin American cars, like Chevrolet Montana/Tornado, Chevy C2, Ford Ecosport etc. PrinceGloria 13:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now, I am in Mazatlan, Mexico. -- Bull-Doser 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, but could you aviod shoting pictures of cars with passengers in them, who aren't aware that they're being photographed. The man in the Audi station wagon seems a little put off ;-) (It just doesn't make for a good picture) Also, try taking your pictures in such a manner as to reduce the glare. Your pictures have improved greatly in quality but please consider these two suggestions. Signaturebrendel 21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I Am In NYC

message: Something which bothers me about infoboxes:  When generational infoboxes were recently added to MINI (BMW), the two photos  originally had very descriptive captions that said precisely what model year the car was - what the colour is called (not just "Orange" - which you can see - but "Hot Orange" - the official name of the colour).  When rolled into an infobox, the title of the photo disappears - and that important information is lost - to be replaced by (IMHO) less relevent data about the dimensions of the car, etc.
IMHO, there should be a way to retain the caption on these photos because there is valuable information there that would otherwise be lost to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 July 2007
:By hovering your mouse over the image the caption should appear on the screen, however a change could easily be made to the code in the infobox to display the caption down the bottom. BTW, would it be more appropriate to rename the article to Mini Cooper? OSX (talk • contributions) 03:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:OSX: No, the article is correctly named.  The article covers all three MINI models:  The MINI One, the MINI Cooper and the MINI Cooper'S.  The two 'Cooper' models are the up-market 'performance' versions.  People in the USA assume the car is called "MINI Cooper" because the down-market "MINI One" isn't sold in the USA and therefore all MINI's are Coopers here.  However, elsewhere in the world, they are all just "MINI's".  The MINI One is superficially very similar to the Cooper models - but it has a lower trim level and is much more fuel-efficient than the Cooper.  There is even a diesel version of the MINI One (called the MINI One/D). But the One is very basic - it doesn't even have air conditioning. For that reason alone, it is presumed that it would not sell well in the USA. SteveBaker 04:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree w/ OSX, a simply change in the infobox mark-up could allow for the caption in cases such as BMW MINI article to show. I'm a proponent of the gen infoboxes as they are an easy, consie way to convey some key generation-dependent info and give our articles a sense of unity. I think adding a simply option to enable pic captions on gen-infoboxes will resolve the probelm Steve pointed out. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is important info you can use   Orange Mini, I have used this if the picture shows some specials models, which needs explanation --— Typ932T | C  06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hovering the mouse over the image shows the caption, and one can always click on the image to see the full description. But I suppose the infobox could be modified to show the caption if it's necessary. --Sable232 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes and Image captions. 

message: The Bentley Azure (2006) page is just a very brief stub and requires expansion. Also, it needs to be updated, since the Azure is now in production, and this was written when the car had not yet been released.
I would re-work the page myself, but I'm incredibly swamped this week (researching and writing about cars for an actual paying job -- sorry, but work trumps wiki). If someone could take on this page as a project, I'd appreciate it. If not, I might have more time next week to have a go at it myself. Jagvar 04:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point of having a separate article? There is much more content, both in the article and to be covered, about e.g. the Corsa, and somehow it can all be contained in one article. I'd understand splitting if the article became unwieldly long, but in this particular case... PrinceGloria 14:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bentley Azure (2006)]] 

message: I am just asking as to whether it would be OK to update Template:Infobox automobile platform to mimic the look of Template:Infobox automobile. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be the only auto-related infobox which doesn't follow the standard look, so that seems reasonable. --DeLarge 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yep --— Typ932T | C  20:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! However, I removed the similar field as per previous discussion, and also the suspension fields as they are unnecessary, and have been removed from the other automotive templates. If anyone has any objections, feel free to reintroduce the suspension parameter. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Infobox automobile platform 

message: I'm back on this project after a wikibreak... good to be back!!
Unfortunately the hoaxer's returned, adding fake info to Dodge Spirit, and he created two fake articles which are listed at AFD - Ford Calrema and Eagle Skye.
Dodge Spirit should be watchlisted so we can revert this one easily. --SunStar Net talk 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this is a good opportunity to remember the importance of WP:V - always cite sources and require other editors to do so. Regards, High on a tree 13:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted both articles under CSD G3 as vandalism and closed the respective AFDs (Eagle Skye AFD & Ford Calrema AFD). I decided not to count User:TonyWonderBread's opinion based on his other edits and comments at AFD. Any more hoaxing and I'll be glad to see it off. On a more positive note, I'll be going to the Auto Salon motor show tomorrow, which won't be good for any production models, just modified cars. Are there any specific requests? I'll be taking my camera anyway, but if someone wants pics of something specific like Brembo brakes or a bolt on turbo just leave a note on my talk page. I'll be leaving at midnight UTC today so be quick! James086Talk | Email 13:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The hoaxer returns 

message: There are two merge proposals that have been sitting for more than a few months and haven't received many votes. I hope a consensus can be reached so the articles won't be frozen in time for another few months. Talk:Automobile layout and Talk:Vehicle brake. Leedeth 06:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old merge proposals 

message: This new Wikiproject has come to my attention, and I am very worried that it is going to do more harm than good. User:JoePane is listed as one of the two group members. For those of you who don't know, JoePane is a malicious (12-year-old) vandal who uploads copyrighted images claiming them as his own. I implore you all to please keep a close eye on what this group, and particularly what this user does in the days and weeks to come. If this user uploads any images, please list them for deletion immediately. Jagvar 01:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken some time to see what this 2-person "project" has done on Wikipedia, and it looks like all they've done is uploaded copyrighted photos, lied about licensing, and inserted lists of useless pop-culture trivia into several BMW pages. Can we PLEASE do something about this? Jagvar 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the latest images from JoePane and left a very clear note on his talk page  though it seems he will be away from Wikipedia for some time (he added a template saying he'll be away). As for the project I don't think there's anything wrong with it but encouraging Wjs13 to join WP:CARS instead might be more productive. James086Talk | Email 09:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject BMW and Mercedes-Benz]] 

message: So I was pondering today whilst editing the Buick Ranier article. What tense should we use when describing vehicles that are no longer in production? I see on cars such as the Chrysler Cirrus that we say "The Chrysler Cirrus was a mid-size 4-door sedan sold in the United States from 1995 to 2000;" But this sounds kind of funny in a sense. I mean it's not like the car died and we had a funeral for it. There are still plenty of examples on the road today. Should we say the Cirrus is a car? I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I figured it should be discussed so a conclusion can be reached and standardization across articles can be achieved.--Analogue Kid 20:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Chrysler Cirrus is a car which was in production from 1995 to 2000", as long as examples still survive. To make a parallel with yourself, I would refer to you in the present tense as long as you remain alive, but your birth or infancy would be referred to in the past tense. The car has not ceased to exist, only its production. Alternatively, you could reconstruct the sentence slightly, e.g. "The Chrysler Cirrus, a mid-size sedan, was produced and sold in the U.S. from 1995 to 2000." --DeLarge 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DeLarge.  I prefer this form: "The Buick Rainier is a mid-size SUV that was produced by General Motors".  The way I also see it is that as physical examples still exist which are, not were Buick Rainiers, then they are "present tense", and if production has now ceased, then it is "past tense". -- de Facto (talk). 20:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too - present tense.  These cars still exist.  I can't write about something that I drive most weekends in the past tense, it's ridiculous!  I might be inclined to shift tenses when discusssing cars that are literally only museum pieces - but for cars that people are still driving, you've go to stick to the present tense. SteveBaker 23:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I switched an entire article to the past tense because I was told to do so to meet Wiki Standards, which tense are we using? I aggree on present tense.  If an automobile is out of production even thirty years there are still enough left to classify it as "is" instead of "was" As discussed, some text will be past tense ie. The 1955 Chevy was available with a 265 V8. This is past tense only because sentence discusses the cars previous avaialibility. They still exist so...Many 1955 Chevy Bel Airs "have" 265 V8s. Articles should be in present tense mainly because in past tense the reader might assume a particular automobile might not exist (at all) when in fact it does, regardless of how many. are left.Vegavairbob (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A tense situation 

message: I noticed this a few months ago and it annoyed me at the time, but I've been neglectful about ever doing anything about it and I should really try and kick-start some debate.
In October 2006, User:Samstayton moved MR layout to RMR layout, saying "The mid-engine design is of two types. Rear-Mid engine RWD/AWD and Front-Mid engine RWD/AWD. To avoid ambiguity new title has been added." He also moved FM layout to FMR layout at the same time, with an identical edit summary.
Without wishing to debate the differences in these layouts in great detail, how much are these article titles original research? The RMR layout page has eight external links in its references section, and I can't see "RMR" or "rear mid engine" in any of them. MR layout, on the other hand, is a term I've heard many times, probably most significantly in the context of the Toyota MR2. About half of all the inbound links to RMR layout seem to come via redirects from MR layout as well. Is there anyone else who's seen the term "RMR layout" used regularly elsewhere, in reliable sources we can cite? Or does a revert of the move and some tidying up (e.g. fixing the  template) seem like a better alternative? --DeLarge 22:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automobile layouts 

message: Hi, I hope you don't mind, I added the  template to the discussion page of the article about official state cars. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official state vehicles 

message: Is there anything that dictates the formatting for timelines of the modern vehicle lineups (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Modern_North_American_Toyota_vehicles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Acura, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Modern_North_American_Nissan_vehicles). Some people are adding MY2009 vehicles to that timeline (citing WikiProject:Auto as the reason), yet no MY2009 vehicles have been officially announced. All the 2009 vehlcies on those timelines are based off of speculation, rumours, and/or "insider" statements, as opposed to actual PRs from the companies themselves. 
Butterfly0fdoom 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people just love to ignore WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. WP guidelines and policies seem to be an optional extra for a lot of project members here... And as far as I'm aware, this WikiProject's never laid down any rules about timelines/templates, so I'm not sure what people would be "citing". Do you have any diffs to clarify as I can't see any? Regards, --DeLarge 01:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: K. Well, this IP address (69.140.35.242) keeps adding MY2009 to some templates. I've reverted the Toyota template too many times, and I only found out the Nissan and Acura ones are mucked up, among templates (I think the Pontiac one has MY2009 speculated, as well).Butterfly0fdoom 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not a lot you can do besides reverting, given the infrequency of that IP's edits to templates in general: 5-6 times per month. As for guidelines, this WikiProject doesn't need any -- everything's already covered at WP:CRYSTAL. --DeLarge 19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Vehicle Lineup/Timelines 

message: Can someone who knows about Nissan competition cars have ago at cleaning up the March R article which seems to have been very slightly translated from the Japanese. Alternatively, is it beyond hope. Malcolma 10:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, not this again. It used to be at Nissan March Superturbo R, which I tagged for merging with Nissan March Superturbo in November 2006. This was finally done on May 13 2007 by User:Radagast83. The author of Nissan March Superturbo R then created March R two days later. I'll just merge and redirect all over again. --DeLarge 10:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  March R 

message: Just to let ya know, we Wikipedians like to wish you a happy 21st to the oldest automobile (photographing more than 20 a day) photographer on Wikipedia. -- Bull-Doser 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh?  You are wishing yourself a happy birthday?!? SteveBaker 14:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's just taking the initiative. Happy Birthday.  vlad§inger  tlk  18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy Birthday Bull-Doser! Enigma3542002 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll drink to that, Happy Birthday. James086Talk | Email 03:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy 21st To Bull-Doser 

message: I have just placed Ford Taurus up for peer review. I would really appreciate it if you guys would please give me any info I can use to improve this article. You can leave your thoughts at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ford Taurus/archive3. I will really appreciate it! Karrmann 06:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Taurus peer review 

message: Per a discussion with 4u1e; we've agreed to put the article on peer review; feel free to comment on possible improvements that could be made here. Thanks. Davnel03 15:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Brabham BT19]] 

message: Seeing as everyone is advertising their car related peer reviews why don't we add a section to the front page that contains them all, just add one when you create a new request? Also please check out Wikipedia:Peer review/Ferrari P4/5/archive1 cause that's also had no replies other than the JS. James086Talk | Email 00:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer reviews 

message: 67.38.21.216 00:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1957 chevy 4 dr convertible 

message: I wanted to get an idea as to the communities feeling on where to draw the line on individual pages for individual trim levels.  I placed a merge tag on EK9 Honda Civic Type R as I feel it would be best to merge it into the Honda Type R page or perhaps a new Honda Civic Type R page.  There are some pages for single generation singel trim level vehicles like the AE86, but personally I that that unless the model has a life of it's own like the Sprinter there is no need for pages dedicated to a individual trim level of a single generation. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This trim level page sould be merged to Honda Civic Type R page.--— Typ932T | C  07:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That particular page should be merged, as it isn't an encyclopedia article -- it's simply a photo gallery and list of specifications. That's what fansites are for. --DeLarge 18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the below VW Golf GTI discussion for my 3 cents on that, as I believe they are relevant. Thanks! PrinceGloria 19:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge or Seperate

message: Hi, I don't intend to keep the experts among you from proceeding to contribute more important informations - but there are four questions regarding four-door hardtop styling cars I asked on the Hardtop discussion page some weeks ago. I'd be pleased to receive answers.
Cheers, joeditt 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardtop-related questions 

message: FYI, I've proposed :Category:Bandini for deletion. Discussion here. DH85868993 10:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category proposed for deletion 

message: Since motorsport often involves cars, with the exception of bikes, and some obscure sports, there is quite an overlap with WikiProject Automobiles. This presents problems when it comes to article tagging (talk page banners with quality & importance). For example, Lotus Mk1 might be appropriate under WikiProject Automobiles but other cars like Ferrari F2007 would probably not be appropriate. To quote the scope of WP:CARS though, the goal is "to compile articles on all types and classes of automobile, automotive parts and technology." I think we should establish a guideline and try to draw a line as to what types of cars should & shouldn't be counted. Discuss away! James086Talk | Email 12:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution is quite simple. WP:CAR should cover any stock autos and their technologies and parts. WP:Motorsports should cover all vehicles used in motorsports, be it cars, trucks, motorcycles, dragsters, or snowmobiles. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To expand on that, if a road-going version of a race car exists (for example, Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR), then I'd put that under Automobiles AND Motorsport.  A race-only car (Chrysler Viper GTS-R) should fall under WP:MOTOR (or one of its subsidaries).  I also agree that Formula One cars (or any formula cars for that matter) which share no road-car relation should fall strictly under the various motorsports projects. The359 19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. That's perfect. There may be a few overlaps like Dodge Vipers run at Le Mans, but by and large the two projects will remain seperate. And if there is some overlap, so be it, this won't be the first example of it. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there is no problem with some overlap, it certainly happens a lot with WP:MOTOR due to their being so many smaller subprojects. The359 00:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 359's suggestion sounds sensible. I hope that doesn't mean we won't continue to help each other though? ;-) And we have to remember that all systems of categorisation are wrong. You can't help it, there will always be items that fall into more than one category - the trick is to remember that the categories are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Here endeth the pontification. 4u1e 16:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We've been through this before.  A race-car is not necessarily an 'Automobile'.  A long while back (you'll find it in the archives somewhere) I looked up the word 'automobile' in over a dozen different dictionaries and one common part of most of the definitions was that an automobile is designed PRIMARILY to transport passengers and driver from place to place and has between 2 and 6 seats.  A formula one race car is clearly not an automobile under that definition - and indeed we don't include those kinds of cars within our project.  Ditto for motorbikes, pickup trucks, mini busses, go-karts, etc.  Some cars are dual-use though.  Plenty of street cars are used to race - and lots of race-cars eventually become supercar-type street cars in order to meet homolgation rules or whatever.  In those cases, the article will be supported both by Project Automobile and other projects...this should come as no surprise - lots of our articles are already supported that way (eg all of the Australian car articles are also supported by Project Australia as well as us).   This is generally no problem - the only issue that bothers me is in the realms of article quality assessment.  Clearly an article may be rated important to us - but unimportant to the other project(s) or vice versa...no problem with that...but if one project rates it 'Start' grade and the other says it's 'B' or something - then maybe we have a problem because this could be confusing to readers and people like the Wikipedia CD-ROM folks who use those ratings. SteveBaker 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quality gradings probably shouldn't differ in practice - as stub is a stub in anyone's language. In practice while there may be some differences we're unlikely ever to be more than one level off, and surely that can be dealt with by discussion between projects? GA and FA are determined elsewhere anyway, so it's only Start, B and A that we could be disagreeing about (and personally I find A is of little use in practice. By the time you've got a GA through a proper assessment all remaining effort might as well be focussed on FA) 4u1e 23:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is an automobile? 

message: I put the article Ford Taurus up for FAC. You can lend your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Taurus. Karrmann 00:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only see the previous discussion. Was a new entry made?--Analogue Kid 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah - but it seems to have been rejected with just one comment...the dreaded "I don't like the quality of your prose" thing...which nobody ever knows what to do about. Here is the archived "discussion": Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Taurus/archive4. SteveBaker 17:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guilty of being the one who administered the coup de grace, I'm afraid. Some of the prose stuff is very basic -  a couple of specific examples were raised at PR and not fixed. That's why I thought the best solution would really be just to get an external copyeditor in to do a thorough job. Try the WP:LoCE if you don't have any other resources to call on, but you'll probably have a wait on your hands and the result may not have the depth required, since structural work is needed as well.  I've not got time (yes, that old chesnut) to go through the article in the depth needed. I'm happy to go through a sample section again with Karmann or someone else, to go through specific examples of the general points, if that would be helpful. Drop me a line at my talk page. Cheers. 4u1e 23:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and listed Ford Taurus at WP:LoCE. With a bit of luck someone will have the time to go through it. Cheers. 4u1e 09:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Taurus FAC 

message: I've recently created :Category:Racecar constructors. I'd like some advice on whether it should be a subcategory of :Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers or :Category:Car manufacturers or both.
A corollary question: I've also created subcategories for relevant countries, e.g. :Category:French racecar constructors - is it appropriate for these categories to be subcategories of the relevant "Motor vehicle manufacturers of <country>" category, e.g. is it appropriate for :Category:French racecar constructors to be a subcategory of :Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers of France? Thanks. DH85868993 23:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New categories 

message: I think that there should be a new 1 series article for the US version, the current 1 series focuses highly on the European version, any advice, I'm open to suggestions, thanks.
Current 1 Series article- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_1_Series
Laxplayer630 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why there should be new article?, or how much these versions differs from each other? edit the current version to suit us specced car or make new section to us spec differencies..--— Typ932T | C  20:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 1 Series Article? 

message: I've created a list at User:Crazytales/desk/Automobile articles needing images. Add to it to fulfill our dream of conquering the world illustrating every car article on Wikipedia! —Crazytales (o rly?) 15:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of cars. Malcolma 18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, didn't even know about that category. THanks for bringing it to my attention. —Crazytales talk/desk 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I was looking at some of the articles in that category (specifically, I went through all of the articles that started with the letter 'D') - quite a few of them do have perfectly good photographs already (I cleaned up the tags on those), some seem to be asking for photographs for every single varient of the car - and whilst that's a laudable goal, I'm not sure it warrants making the article part of the category.  What's the plan here?  Should this category be used for articles that already have a photo but just need more?  I think we almost need a second category - one for articles with no photos whatever and another for articles that have photo(s) already - but which would be more complete if they had the complete set.  From the point of view of people who might actively go out and hunt for pictures, the former list might direct our efforts more accurately.  Furthermore, there are a lot of those articles that don't have a Wikiproject Automobiles tag on them - we ought to make an effort to try to find and tag articles like that.  If we want to comprehensively improve car articles, we first need to find them all! SteveBaker 15:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automobile articles lacking images 

message: Yes, I've submitted another and I was hoping to get some feedback. People here know more about car articles than your average editor so I hope someone has time to take a look. The article is Koenigsegg CCX and the peer review is here. Thanks, James086Talk | Email 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Peer Review 

message: Well, looks like Lotus L-12 has stolen car pictures from the Internet and uploaded it to his Wikimedia Commons account. Is it okay if we block him? -- Bull-Doser 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the issue needs to be raised at the Commons. Get links to the original photos, and then have them deleted from the Commons as demonstrable copyvios. Also, please consider posting at User talk:Lotus L-12; it's not considered polite to have such discussions without alerting the user in question. --DeLarge 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car Picture Hoaxer 

message: :File:1981 wagon.jpg has been tagged for deletion.  I suspect all three images on Chrysler Town and Country (pre-1990) have the same problem, as they are replacable and the article doesnt cover the cars in the images in great detail.  Anyone want to replace the images or expand the article sufficiently to bolster the fair-use claimed. John Vandenberg 12:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And another : :File:79_LeBaron_Salon.jpg John Vandenberg 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image fair use 

message: This has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 11#Category:Classic vehicles. I only noticed this by chance. You may want to contribute to the debate. --DeLarge 17:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's heading for a delete - I agree with the rationale and added a Delete of my own. SteveBaker 17:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It was deleted...and rightly so IMHO. SteveBaker 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Classic vehicles]] 

message: What is the PSA company structure, now Peugeot SA (is there Peugeot SA company?) has same revenue as PSA Peugeot Citroën, are Peugeot and Citroën just PSA brands or are they independet companies as listed public in infobox?--— Typ932T | C  08:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They shouldn't have. While the Peugeot family runs the PSA Group, Automobiles Peugeot is, like Citroën, a brand from the PSA Peugeot Citroën Group. --Pc13 15:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSA Peugeot Citroën 

message: New article I have created from Requested articles, would appreciate it if someone could look over it, rate it etc.  --carelesshx talk 03:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Peugeot Concours Design]] 

message: As the pop culture, look as we all are going to draw up a guideline asap, as the user:Dusk Knight wanted to see a guideline for them since I deleted a trivia list on the Toyota Supra article which didn't do him any favours as well as excluding anything that has to do with it being in considering IMAO, on the merit that it did nothing  to help its popularity, increase its sales, being the cover car of the game or became solely associated with the film as well as asking for a guideline. Like I said above, we could use WP:GUNS as a basis so when it would be possible to draw up a guideline to point it out to him. Willirennen 00:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've said this before ~ we don't need a WikiProject-specific standard. Just point him at WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#IINFO. If something's in a "trivia" or "...in popular culture" section (especially if it's uncited) it's fair game for getting exorcised. And citing something means demonstrating a degree of significance or notability, not merely verifying that it's true. We should be writing as few rules as we can get away with, and relying on the five pillars as much as possible. --DeLarge 21:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. The more general the rule, the more open it is to interpretation and "bending". It is hard to discuss with one's understanding a general rule differently than yours - you might believe he or she is wrong, but, at the end of the day, it's perception against perception. A more unambigious rule, precisely determining what is and what isn't notable, is hard to discuss with. Moreover, evidence shows that referring to WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#IINFO is not enough for many people - so, the need for the standard is not imaginary, but derived from practical considerations and requirements. PrinceGloria 09:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP Guideline 

message: How do I add International_DuraStar to the list so the link will work? I keep coming up with the edit page.--Lpimlott 02:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try International Durastar (without the underline between the two words) and the link will take you to that article. — CZmarlin 02:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's because of the capital S: International DuraStar doesn't work while International_Durastar does. Nevertheless, including an underscore instead of a space is poor formatting, unless it's in a URL. --Leedeth 01:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right about the capital "S" in the link ... I just did not notice it! However the actual name of the model is DuraStar. I added a redirect page so if someone does a search with the correct format, they will do directly to the article. — CZmarlin 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to list of IH vehicles 

message: The Daewoo Kalos article infoboxes now list the Pontiac Wave variant's height as slightly taller as the Aveo variant. Can somebody confirm whether this is some actual design difference or perhaps just difference due to equipment (e.g. tires). Secondly, do we list such minor differences in infoboxes? PrinceGloria 16:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Daewoo Kalos]] - mysterious dimensions 

message: I am bringing this up as I suggested a merger between the two pages sometimes in the summer, but there are some users objected to this as they see this as two different cars when they have the same bodies and same 4wd system. Do you think we should merge the Audi coupe quattro to the Audi Quattro page even if the former has everything including the same body and drivetrain sans turbocharger. Willirennen 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audi coupe quattro→Audi Quattro merge suggestion 

message: I don’t have a major or important suggestion, but it’s one to think about. Perhaps we should all set a more organized and consistent look and design, in the WikiProject pages, the templates, and such. I was thinking of reorganizing the Project page and better designing the templates. It’s nothing major, just something to do in the mean time. Some thing can prove to be useful. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 02:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking good 

message: Hi. I've come across a recently created article about Blippu, said to be a variant of the VIP style or Bippu Style of modifying automobiles; the variant appears to be the use of customised paintwork and lighting. While there are a number of ghits for "Bippu Style", I cannot find anything for "Blippu Style". Consequently, I doubt the notability of "Blippu" but I don't feel I know enough about the automobile scene to come to a judgement. Perhaps you guys would have a look at it please?  Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 09:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only sources in the article are for VIP style itself (they're already cited in that article), while this basically seems to be "VIP stle+custom paintwork", which really isn't worth its own article. Author was an SPA (User:Blippu), so I'd just redirect to the VIP style page. And, in fact, that's what I've just done. --DeLarge 12:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. --Malcolmxl5 12:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blippu 

message: See Ford Bronco III. It's barely comprehensible and was created by a known vandal. Thoughts? --Sable232 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete without mercy. Obvious rubbish. PrinceGloria 18:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probable hoax 

message: Template:Automobile layouts
Many of the articles in this template is just a mess. I'm wondering if we should merge all of the layouts into the engine position articles. It would make for easier editing and maintenance...etc. I don't think there is enough content to have all of these articles anyway. --Leedeth 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Long term, I feel the current solution will be the best bet. Eventually when this one-stop-shop article gets too long it will have to be split up anyway. Besides, if you merged the contents of all of them now, the main article would become too long, thus defeating the purpose. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automobiles layouts