This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Automobiles and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58Auto-archiving period: 60 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Automobiles page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Automobiles Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

This page is not a forum for general discussion about automobiles. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about automobiles at the Reference desk.

Category:Mid-engined vehicles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Is Supercars.net an accepted source? This is their self confidence level:

"SUPERCARS.NET DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Supercars.net and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk." Eddaido (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say that there is anything special about their disclaimer. You will find something like that ony any website due to legal regulatories. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be reliable, but the question is, reliable for what? It appears to be a blog where one or more people comment on things they found on the internet. I don't see any evidence of reporting, such as traveling to a place, or contacting a subject for an interviews. They post links to YouTube videos made by others, but they don't appear to test any cars themselves. Are the blog posts subject to fact checking or editorial oversight? No evidence of that. Do they ever post corrections? Do they name their sources or show their work? I don't see evidence of that. So in the end you could cite the site only for opinions and analysis, or WP:RSOPINION. If the authors are respected and have been around a long time, then you could argue they are recognized experts. But they aren't producing original research or practicing what we normally think of as journalism. If I were to cite a post in an article, I would not just footnote it, but attribute it by name, WP:INTEXT, e.g. "Richard Owen of Supercars.net said that this was one of the most famous cars of..."

If I'm just myopic and someone finds evidence that the site does check off the boxes given above, then that would be reason to call it a reliable source in a more general sense, not limited to opinions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They say they have published Supercars since 1996 which I suppose earns credit but they do ask for submissions and as Dennis points out there's no evidence of fact checking. I know we require the date of access when citing online sources so backtracking could be done but am I old-fashioned to be wary of unverified internet publications? If you use Google books at least you will find hard copy somewhere - almost certainly and the same with other archival sources from works like magazines first published in print. It seems to me to be far more courageous to write and publish a book (on which you might be pinned down and cross-examined) in the hope that it sells and is respected than to give something away free. And also why should the blogger's opinion be respected more than that of any WP editor? Eddaido (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Owen was apparently a chief designer at Jaguar, and has a design firm. He is cited at Jaguar XJ220 but the footnote doesn't mention the COI. Owen is probably a recognized expert acceptable within the bounds of WP:SELFSOURCE, but the other contributors at supercars.net, I don't know. The other founder Daniel Guillamot [1] doesn't seem to have any particular expertise in the automotive industry. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the very same Richard Owen? At the foot of the article linked from WP Jaguar XJ220 to Supercars as a reference he seems to describe himself thus. "ABOUT THE AUTHOR THE CAR NUT My first appreciation of cars came when my first boss took me for a drive in an old air-cooled Porsche 911. I don't remember what model year it was, but I do remember I became addicted to all things automotive from that day onwards. I’m an enthusiastic car nut who geeks out over tuned supercars, obscure classic race cars, automotive memorabilia and just about anything else car related." If he was chief designer for the unmodified car (he describes the standard headlights as "clunky" - unexpected comment from the chief designer) he would surely have said so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddaido (talk • contribs) 00:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The designer's headlights are always more elegant than on the car that they produce. The executives will insist on replacing the special shape with off the shelf reflectors and lenses, or regulators will have certain requirements that mess up the lines of the car. He's probably just saying the "director's cut" is better.

Regardless of who he is, the thing about a reliable source is that it speaks for itself when readers see it. We shouldn't have to talk anyone into trusting it. Any source that raises questions every time it is cited is usually more trouble than it's worth. The footnotes are supposed to inspire confidence, not doubt. What fact are we trying to cite here? Why not just replace supercars.net with some other source? Given their lack of original research, it seems likely that any fact that is found only on this site, not published elsewhere, is untrustworthy. And it it is published elsewhere, cite the other source instead, so we don't have to fret over it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A WHOIS shows they keep their contacts private. The domain was registered in July of 1997, but I have no idea if it has changed hands since then. Looking around at little things doesn't really give me that WP:RS vibe. Essentially, I would agree with Mr. Bratland, that quoting as opinion would be marginally acceptable but they don't appear to truly vet their information and this isn't really journalism in the technical sense. More of an aggregate of information from other websites with some experienced opinion thrown in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that someone added owner's manual links to Lincoln Town Car and Lincoln Continental. Are these acceptable? --Vossanova ^o< 13:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the manual is provided in the external link (as a PDF for instance), I would say that owner's manuals are even citable sources since their purpose is providing information on the vehicle they belong to. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they are not. The problem is that unless it is the car manufacturer themselves publishing the manual, then it is copyright infringement. We can't link to others who publish information they don't own. If the site is the manufacturer, then it is fine, otherwise no. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usually manuals are printed book(lets) and citing them would hardly be copyright infringement. On the other hand, how could we ensure whether the provided information in an external link is a copyright infringement or not? Are we supposed to check this? What if the site is allowed to provide the original owner's manuals? If the external link links to an obviously illegal site, I agree that we should not provide it. But usually the manufacturers provide their own manuals, and, as you said, linking to them is fine. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we aren't sure about the ownership, we don't link. Copyright policy is very strict here, likely as strict or stricter than BLP policy. But yes, if you want to link to chevrolet.com to a manual for a chevrolet, that is fine, but no where else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An apparently inexperienced User:Githek has swapped Infobox brand for an infobox company - this is not a company. Or is it? The same editor made many other changes in the contents of the infobox. I've never had any interest in the article knowing nothing about the product. I just thought there might be other lurkers prepared to disagree with Githek. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, readers can't see the infobox's name. They only see the fields displayed. It matters a lot less which infobox is used, than the lack of fields in the options: key_people and previous_owners would be useful in both infoboxes. I'd focus on making sure all the most relevant information is in the infobox, adding fields to these templates as necessary, and not worry about the company vs brand question. Mini is a word that triggers a lot of emotion from some, so seek compromise. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments. I plan to do no more than I have done - bring it to the attention of anyone interested. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The What Wikipeida is not policy says under WP:NOTSALES "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention... Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products". We aren't supposed to always give readers the kind of information you'd find in Consumer Reports or What Car?, "like model 1 costs $$$$ and model 2 costs $$$, but model 1 has xyz features." We routinely quote fuel economy, but not costs per mile. It's one thing to quote a reviewer who justifies why a given price is extraordinary and worth highlighting, but it's something else to give comprehensive dollar values broken down by model and trim level, locality, usage, etc.

At Tesla Model S and Nissan Leaf, we have detailed tables of each model year, each battery option, city, highway and combined energy consumption, and quotes of dollar costs per mile and annually. Not every electric car article has this, but Tesla Model 3, Tesla Roadster, Tesla Model X, BMW i3, and Chevrolet Bolt all quote dollar values for operating costs, based on some number assigned for the price of electricity and gasoline. These street prices are mostly US-centric (naturally...) and only refer to a particular year.

Obviously prospective electric car buyers are eager to know whether they will save money or not compared to a gasoline car. But that is why price comparison and shopping guides exist. Wikipedia is not a price comparison or shopping guide. Given that we don't have tables of operating costs for petroleum vehicles, you can't actually compare the electric car costs to anything. And you can't convert the US dollar prices to Euros or other currency to see what you would pay in other countries, because the price of electricity and fuel is drastically different, due to different taxes, subsidies, supply and demand balances, etc. This is why that kind of detail is unencyclopedic: we have no hope of giving an objective and comprehensive assessment for each model of car.

It makes sense that broader articles about electric vehicles in general would discuss the economics of the cars, particularly tracking the changing costs of operation and ownership over time as technology and supply changes, because that's not a shopping guide. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree on that. In my opinion, the fuel price has a big impact on the cars people actually purchase. In the US, where fuel is incredibly cheap, around 5-6 times cheaper than in Austria, nobody needs cars with Diesel engines. But over here cars with Otto engines that run on petrol are VERY expensive to fuel. If you really need a car, you would always choose a Diesel vehicle since they don't need so much fuel. Uncommon in the US. In the city I live the busses on the other hand have Otto engines that run on actual gas, not on petrol. Again, I guess that's also very uncommon. The tax paid on cars depends on the engine power output, while in Germany, it depends on the engine capacity. Since electric vehicles don't have engine capacity, there is no tax for them in Germany. This means we can neither compare electric vehicle prices nor internal combustion engine vehicle prices in any way. Operating cost for cars in general does not belong into any Wikipedia articles. There are exceptions, for instance in articles on historic vehicles. But those are just a few exceptions. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally agree, but I think we can still publish some metrics, like range, miles per kW, similar to gas. I just don't want us provide less information than for gas. If we have to err, I would rather err on providing more info than less, simply because the technology is still new and the reader is likely interested in these metrics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the Tesla article it seems we can keep the encyclopaedic information and simply delete the rows/columns (i count three total in 2 tables) which list the prices. That'll solve everything right? I agree completely that Wikipedia isn't a price comparison site. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Templates for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_5#Template:Comparison_electric_car_efficiency. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lepo1862 has just been on an editing spree and removed General Motors from a whole slew of Opel articles - around 40 or so.

This isn't my area of expertise (if indeed any area is,) but is this correct behaviour - there are no edit summaries to accompany the removal.

I've not discussed it with Lepo1862 either yet, but as I've tagged him here he should be made aware of the topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, GM is no longer the owner of Opel. Second, Opel is the manufacturer (See VIN-numbers of Astra, Zafira and Co.). I haven´t seen Skoda, Seat, Audi,... articles saying "Skoda Auto (Volkswagen)" or "Audi (Volkswagen)".--Lepo1862 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Probably prompted by the recent agreement to sell subsidiaries to PSA; see report here. Eagleash (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion about the notability of the car. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. To abbreviate revolutions per minute, should we use RPM or min^-1? I believe the former because it is more commonly used (in English) and therefore more likely to be recognised by the general public. (this has come up at the BMW E28 Talk Page, but really it is a policy issue and not specific to that car) Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rpm, absolutely, per COMMONNAME. min^-1 is impossibly obscure for a general audience. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, rpm is correct, even for automotive engineers. I worked for 5 years designing ECU's for multiple firms in multiple countries and I never saw or heard min^-1 in any specs, plans, discussions or emails. It was always rpm, events per second (usually for measurements taken on a generic oscilloscope) and quite often milliseconds or microseconds between events.  Stepho  talk  01:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't ignore the min^-1 notation completely. It's obscure but not unheard of. I've seen one or two on old motorcycles, and readers will probably run into them. If they're wondering if it's the same thing, Wikipedia should probably clear it up somewhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be useful to mention it in the revolutions per minute article. 1292simon (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rpm is mainly used in the US. Worldwide, SI and SI-derived units are used: s⁻¹, /min or min⁻¹. I saw dozens of engines and I read a lot of manuals and literature on engines and I never saw rpm. Literature on engines (for instance Die Verbrennungskraftmaschine by Hans List) does not use rpm. Die Verbrennungskraftmaschine is one of the most important series of books on engines. German engineers don't use rpm. As WP:MEASUREMENT clearly states we should use SI and SI-derived units in articles on non-American and non-British topics, we should use minutes. I do not understand at all how somebody who can actually read cannot know minutes. It is completely absurd. The time given in the signature on this talk page is given in hours and minutes. The sources for non-American or non-English vehicles do not use rpm. Since a lot of well known vehicles are German (Porsche, Daimler, VW, BMW, Audi, Opel, Sachsenring, Wartburg, etc.) the original sources don't use rpm for rotational frequency but minutes. WP:MEASUREMENT: "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units [or] non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI (...)". Therefore there is nothing wrong with using minutes in articles on non-American, especially German vehicles and engines. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is en.wikipedia.org, not de.wikipedia.org. Please stop this nonsense. Nobody is buying it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading non-English sources. Try Russian literature for instance if you dislike German. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist posturing is considered highly disruptive. Guidelines like MOS:FLAG and WP:ENGVAR exist precisely because editors attempting to elevate one country's conventions over another are toxic to the editing process, and so we strive to keep the status quo. You are deliberately upsetting the status quo, and taking easily-read articles and making them harder to read. You selectively quoted part of the guideline and deleted the last part: "...or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera)." This is dishonest. You've made clear that you don't care what conventions are used in English, because you think English conventions are inferior. Great. That's your opinion. You must go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and propose a change. Until the MOS changes, you should follow it.

Disruptive nationalism, dishonest talk page comments, and ignoring wide consensus are likely to get you blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I would say that I may use "other units as are conventional" does not mean that I must use American conventional units in articles on German topics. The reliable sources don't use American units such as cc or rpm, as I explained earlier. The rule MOS:UNITS: In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (...) should be applied. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have different conventions for German topics or Javanese topics or Upper Silesian topics. If you wish to change the MOS to begin having variant conventions for each country, then go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and make that proposal. No less than four editors have told you not to use these non-standard conventions. Zero editors have supported this change. Please respect consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we don't. We have American and English conventions. In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (...). I don't think this is complicated. Which units are "other units as are conventional" depends on the topic; I explained that I would consider technical units other as are conventional when the topic is German. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SI unit would be Hertz. Not even minute is a basic SI unit, the unit for time is second. ⛐Boivie (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The minute is a SI-derived unit and it is allowed to use it with SI. MOS:UNITS: In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeated several times that is how you interpret the MOS. It's useless to go on repeating yourself. Five editors have told you your interpretation of MOS:UNITS is incorrect. Go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and they will also tell you that you are misreading it. You failed to convince a single editor, and have lost this argument. Repetition does not change that. Please accept it gracefully and move on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Authors who explain that minutes are "impossibly obscure for a general audience" cannot be stupid since their phraseology is not chosen badly – but the content does not make any sense at all, at least to me. I refuse to believe that English speaking people do not know minutes. I encountered Americans that would be completely overwhelmed when I tell them "In my place it's twenty-two-thirty-nine". However, the thing ist that they do not know hours greater than 12, the minutes aren't a problem. Therefore I doubt that English speaking people don't know minutes. Does that point out why the quantity of authors telling me that English speaking people do not know minutes does not matter to me in this case? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am so relieved that you don't consider me stupid, "since [my] phraseology is not chosen bad". My phraseology now must be so much better than in my days at my old alma mater, The Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

Jojhnjoy, why do you say rpm is an American thing? As an Australian who has worked in the automotive industry designing ECU's for Australia, Canada, India, Russia and Sweden, rpm is a well known term in all those countries among engineers. Also, from reading magazines from the US, UK and Australia, rpm is the normal term used for enthusiasts. I also have many Japanese brochures that use rpm as the only measurement for a spinning engine. Definitely a common term throughout the English speaking world. I can't say for the German speaking world but this is an English encyclopaedia, so that doesn't count anyway.

Secondly, why are you saying we don't understand minutes? rpm stands for revolutions per minute. Very hard to understand rpm if you don't understand what a minute is. You have constructed a straw man and then attempt to prove your argument by destroying your straw man.

Thirdly, many European tachometers display 'R/min', which is of course just a variation of revs per minute - the '/' is just a represenation of 'per'.

Fourthly, can you give us some links to English speaking references that show 'min^-1 that is meant for consumption by the average English speaking reader. My experience is that the average reader (who isn't trained in well mathematics) doesn't know what the '-1' means.  Stepho  talk  23:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you arguing that min^-1 is the appropriate unit for tachometers in an article on cars – but using an image about aircraft?

Should we replace the calibration on speedometers with knots as well? How is the altimeter in a BMW calibrated? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who added that image, not Jojhnjoy -- only to show that the convention exists. Because I think we should briefly mention it on the article Revolutions per minute. No other reason. From what I can tell, min^-1 is an affectation er, convention, used on non-German market cars by Porsche and sometimes BMW, and occasionally VW and Audi, when they're trying to seem different. It's not used by Italian, French, or Japanese cars or motorcycles. Even if it were, the normal practice in English language sources is to use rpm, and even it it weren't, the consensus on English Wikipedia is to use rpm. There's nothing wrong with min^-1, except that's not how we do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I consider rpm an US customary unit since it is neither SI nor SI compatible nor a technical unit. It could be anything, however, as far as I know it is Angloamerican. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess this might show that I am unfamiliar with it. Yes, it is well known among engineers. I already pointed that out in May. But the Wikipedia is not meant for engineers only. American, Australian and British enthusiasts my know it as the normal term for them, but does everybody else know it? The same is true for PS among German or Austrian enthusiasts when it comes to power output. However, PS is neither used in technical literature nowadays nor an offical unit. It is obsolete. I would not doubt that rpm is common in the English speaking world, however, this is not on an English topic and the Wikipedia is definitely not designed for native English speakers only. Even though I might have proven that I struggle at certain points, you would have to expect several non-native speakers to know English very well. Actually, those might even be the majority of all English speaking people worldwide.

• I am not saying that you don't understand minutes, I want to express that it seems like you would want to say that readers unfamiliar with the topic don't understand minutes and that it seems weird and absurd since it does not make sense and I am not really sure what to believe. I already mentioned it would be a contradiction.

• I have never seen r/min. However, from a mathematical standpoint, ${\displaystyle r}$ is a variable. To demonstrate it: ${\displaystyle r/min={\frac {r}{min))}$. Since ${\displaystyle r}$ is a variable, you could insert numbers: ${\displaystyle 1/min={\frac {1}{min))}$. I am used to the ${\displaystyle 1}$ instead of the variable ${\displaystyle r}$. Maybe I should explain what min⁻¹ means. Rotational frequency depends on the amount of time we use to measure the revolutions. Therefore a time unit is mandatory in this case. Let's choose minutes. Revolutions happen in this certain amount of time, so this must be a division: We measure the revolutions per minute. Let's say we have 1000 revolutions in one minute, this looks like this: 1000/min. 1000 revolutions per minute. We divide 1000 by a minute: ${\displaystyle {\frac {1000}{min))}$. Unit symbols represent the dimension of the unit, however, the dimension is 1 and this means we leave out the exponent, since: ${\displaystyle {\frac {1000}{min^{1))}={\frac {1000}{min))}$. But even ${\displaystyle {\frac {1000}{min))}$ looks a bit too big. To get rid of the fraction, the only thing we could do is turning this into a multiplication. But we cannot change the amount of revolutions or their behaviour. So the only thing we could do is changing the minutes. So, we remember the exponent and we can use a cool trick: ${\displaystyle {\frac {1000}{min^{1))}=1000min^{-1))$. And the fraction is gone. But let's get back to the variable ${\displaystyle r}$. As we insert the number of revolutions, it vanishes. If we would leave it, there wouldn't be anything to do with it. Therefore, it is gone.

• I have a lot of English material on engines, engineering, vehicles, etc. that uses min⁻¹. But I understand that readers would possibly not know what a negative exponent means. That's why we could use x/min instead. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Please correct me if I'm wrong"? You are wrong, and everyone is correcting you, but it's like talking to a brick wall. You cite not one source, and you don't care what the MOS says, and you don't care what consensus says. You're totally unwilling to collaborate. Wikipedia requires collaboration. Why discuss any further until you agree to collaborate? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I never cease to learn things on WP. Til this discussion, I had never seen or heard of rpm rendered min⁻¹, & had it been offered in isolation, I'd have had no clue what it meant. I'll allow, being Canadian, most of the automotive magazines we get here are published in the U.S.; however, C&D, R&T, & VWT (or was it VW&P?) all routinely dealt with European products. They never once, in my experience, used anything but rpm. If you are seriously considering rendering rpm in Hertz, stop right now. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who corrected me by telling me rpm is not an American unit? What is it if it is not US customary? Is it orignal research? Which sources do I have to cite for what? Of course I care what the MOS says: "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera)." Sorry, but you don't seem to understand this. It says the units for ALL OTHER ARTICLES = NON AMERICAN ARTICLES WILL BE SI UNITS (cm³ for engine displacement!). OR NON-SI UNITS OFFICIALLY ACCPETED FOR USE WITH THE SI (min⁻¹ or /min for engine rotational frequency!). OR SUCH OTHER UNITS AS ARE CONVENTIONAL (DIN-PS for German vehicle power output!). There is NO EVIDENCE for your idea that I have to use American units in articles on German vehicles. Please read carefully: "other units (...) (such as (...) (rpm) for ANGULAR SPEED, hands for heights of horses, et cetera." This means that you may use units depending on the topic, for instance, measuring the height of horses in hands, or English railway tracks in miles and chains OR: German historical vehicle torque in kilopondmetres. BUT THERE NO SENTENCE THAT TELLS ME I MUST USE RPM FOR ROTATIONAL FREQUENCY. IT SAYS I MAY USE IT FOR ANGULAR SPEED. You know the difference between angular speed and rotional frequency? For me it is a form of respect that I assume that you know what you are talking about. Instead, you put me in charge of being dishonest. Andy Dingley made fun a typo I made. Does that help? I am willing to collaborate. But that does not mean that I am willing to surrender to absurd demands. What I understood is that you think that the general audience would neither understand /min nor min⁻¹. I would understand that some people don't understand min⁻¹ but /min is definitely self-explanatory. Everybody understands it. I would even say that min⁻¹ is self-explanatory as well. That you never heard of min⁻¹ or /min does not mean that they are uncommon. If several authors keep telling me that they don't know min⁻¹ it does not mean this is evidence for the claim that the general audience would not know it either. It just makes me ask myself whether you read scientific publications on that topic or not. Maybe the engineers I talked to were weird since they all used min⁻¹ or /min in their English publications. (I just read A promising solution for a variable compression ratio). You don't want /min since it is your opinion. But that is not important. Plase give actual rules that tell me that I have to use rpm. Give me reasons and evidence. Not opinions and absurd claims. Stop making demands of me. The MOS:UNITS says: "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units [or] non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI." I will use this rule. And by the way, cc is not SI either and must not be used. (PDF page 32) Es ist nicht zulässig, für die Einheitenzeichen und -namen Abkürzungen wie (...) cc (für cm³ oder Kubikzentimeter) (...) zu benutzen. Der korrekte Gebrauch der Zeichen für SI-Einheiten ist verpflichtend.. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-American attitude, claims about SI, etc etc have all been repeatedly argued by Jojhnjoy at Talk:BMW 5 Series (E28), without anyone else agreeing that it should be min-1. Hopefully Wikipedia policy arguments aren't "won" by just getting the last word in until all dissenters are fatigued and give up?? 1292simon (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's indeed a terrible thing when, "policy arguments are [only] "won" by just getting the last word in until all dissenters are fatigued and give up": Talk:BMW Goldfisch V16 Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not anti American. But please stop forcing [insert any fitting adjective] units on topics where they don't belong. Everbody uses and understands SI units. If [insert any fittig noun] don't use or understand them it does not mean that every non-American article automatically needs these units. The argument "readers would not understand /min" is absurd and not reasonable. MOS:UNITS encourages me to keep using SI whenever a vehicle is German. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

Judging by the above, I'm not sure there's much point engaging in the conversation, but just for the heck of it: this is the English language wikipedia, and it's a general encyclopedia, not a specialist one. Using min-1 will cause huge confusion for the vast majority of readers, and the MOS appears to specifically cover the case of rpm being the sensible choice. As a British reader with an engineering Masters degree and reasonable familiarity with cars, while I understand the min-1 notation, it's just not gonna be comprehensible to the public at large. 4u1e (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the MOS appears to specifically cover the case of rpm being the sensible choice." No. In this case, it does not. Please read carefully, it says: The primary units chosen will be SI or non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI. Since minutes are allowed to use with SI, that means that minutes are totally acceptable. Everybody knows them. Stop saying the general audience would not understand that since rpm contains minutes and claiming that rpm is understood and min is not is a contradiction. Everybody who is capable of reading knows how to use fractions and division as well. Other units as are conventional can be used, but it says "rpm for angular speed", that does neither mean "rpm for engine rotational frequency" nor "minutes must not be used" nor "the general audience does not know minutes". The rule is clear for non-American topics: Use SI or SI compatible or everything which is uncommon but fits the topic (for vehicles: Technical units). Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Everybody who is capable of reading knows how to use fractions and division as well" Not strictly speaking true, as my kids can attest. And you're not proposing using fractions or division, but rather index notation, which is far less common in day-to-day usage. Quoting - rather than paraphrasing - the MoS, the rule for non-American topics is to use "SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic." My experience of reliable English language sources for motor vehicles is that rpm is the conventional choice. Remember that the most appropriate sources for an article like BMW E28 are not likely to be engineering texts, but rather more general articles on the car in question. 4u1e (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jojhnjoy, your argument is hard to follow as you seem to have changed your goal. You started out by wanting us to change rpm to min^-1. As said above, the layman has no idea what that means - true in English and I'm reasonably certain also true for laymen who speak other languages. It ain't gonna happen.

Now you have swapped to /min (although technically it should be r/min or revs/min). This has some merit and can't be dismissed out-of-hand. However, the term rpm is so well known in the English speaking world that it is like asking us to replace "dog" with "canine" in all articles. Possible but you would have to make an extremely good case for it. Pointing to German technical texts and saying this applies to layman articles in an English encyclopaedia isn't a very strong case.

Above you gave a long paragraph telling us that ${\displaystyle min^{-1}={\frac {1}{min))}$. It was over long for engineers and unclear for laymen. It made the point that laymen are unlikely to understand it with an explanation and almost guaranteed to not understand it without an explanation. It comes back to laymen not understanding what the -1 means.

You said "from a mathematical standpoint, ${\displaystyle r}$ is a variable". r is not a variable but is a unit (1 rev is one cycle is 2π radians. Which is why the units under discussion should be rpm vs r/min vs revs.min^-1. The r (or revs or cycles) is important.

You pointed that there is a difference between angular velocity and rotation frequency. Just like the difference between normal velocity and speed, the main difference is the velocity form is a vector and includes the direction of the rotational axis. In a vehicle we are only concerned about the magnitude of the rotation and the vector is not relevant to this discussion.

You keep saying that the argument is between American customary units and SI. This is a false dichotomy. There are plenty of non-SI units that not American. It could be argued that rpm is an SI derived unit because it is derived from cycles (or radians), which is allowed in SI and from minutes, which is an SI derived unit coming from seconds. And as a non-American, I am mildly insulted that you keep saying that I use American customary units (normally associated with (pounds, gallons and miles).

You have said that the speech of English technical discussions among engineers doesn't count because non-native English speakers may not understand it. But then you point to German technical literature by engineers to support your case. If the speech of English engineers is not suitable then why would the speech of German engineers be better?

You have said that Germans don't understand rpm but want us to change to min^-1 which most native English speakers don't understand. If we have to support only native German speakers or only native English speakers on English Wikipedia then obviously we have to support the English speakers. But of course we also look for a middle ground where we support both.

You have said that you have not seen r/min on dashboards. This is extremely common on European cars. Germany has a lot of European cars, so this should also be common in German. A quick look on Google images will give you plenty of examples from most of the major European manufactures.

Now, so far this is just a lot of acrimonious talk with no actual resolution. From the above you can see that min^-1 will get no support at all, that r/min might only get limited support, and rpm has a lot of support. For articles that you think German (and other) readers will have trouble understand what rpm means, you can make rpm link to revolutions per minute. This is the standard way that most Wikipedia discussions on terminology end amicably.  Stepho  talk  23:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong the most common usage is (ought to be) what governs? The proposal for replacing "dog" with "canine" as a matter of accuracy does have (notional) merit, but falls afoul of terms like "lapdog" (because, AFAIK, "lap canine" has exactly no currency). It seems to me min^-1 is insufficiently commonplace to replace rpm, even if it is technically more accurate, for the same reason. (I confess, I'm now deeply conflicted at being on the side of the more common term, rather than the more technically accurate...) Sybil ^{talk to us} 02:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not change my goal, I said you could use either /min or min⁻¹. I might be mixing them up a bit but there is also no difference between 2 × 3 and 3 × 2 when you consider the result only.

That's an interesting point you made there, but the "r" is not a unit. What would it stand for? It is an auxiliary unit. Rotational frequency is the amount of rotations that don't have a dimension in a certain amount of time. Therefore, no "r" as a unit is needed.

I know what the difference between angular speed and rotational frequency is. Still this is not a rule that tells me that I must use rpm and must not use minutes. As far as I understand, people tried explaining that the general audience would not understand minutes which is completely absurd.

Maybe I am wrong when I say that rpm is American. But it is neither SI nor SI derived. People from several countries I asked were unfamiliar with it. The only person who knew it was an engineer.

I pointed to German engineers that published something in English. But I never mentioned literature in German by German engineers. Interestingly though, I expect German engineers to use minutes in German too.

If you say that English readers would not understand min⁻¹, I hardly believe it but we could still use /min. I seriously doubt that someone would not understand it.

r/min is extremely uncommon on European dashboards. Instead, at least German vehicles usually have 1/min: BMW F15, BMW E39, BMW E30, VW Lupo 3L, VW Golf VI, VW Passat 35i, Daimler V126, BMW E30, VW Golf II, Porsche 993, to be continued... Mercedes-Benz NG: min⁻¹. Please provide a European gauge cluster that has r/min.

Why wouldn't you want to use something everyone understands? That would be way easier than linking rpm. And still. I am asking for a clear rule that tells me that I must not use /min in engine and vehicle articles. MOS:UNITS allows me to use minutes in articles which are not about American topics. As far as this goes, nobody has strong arguments. When it came to MOS:UNITS, new rules were invented (rpm for vehilces is not mentioned there) and other rules were ignored (primary units are SI or units allowed with SI). I was put in charge of being anti-American and nationalist, trying to elevate one country's conventions over another. Just to make this clear: I am not from Germany. Comments such as these are unacceptable. Some of the arguments here were not strong but rather irrational. Telling me that the general audience would not understand /min is absurd. Some "facts" were even invented: "You have said that you have not seen r/min on dashboards. This is extremely common on European cars." (WP:NOR.) You provided indicators that among English speakers, rpm is common. But there is a difference between evidence and indicators. I also explained (therefore indicated) why minutes are not uncommon. Then I was told that this wouldn't be evidence. Yes, it is no evidence. But telling me that rpm is the only common term, that /min is not widely understood especially when considering that minutes are widely known, is neither. Why did you tell me about your engineering Master's degree? That does not help the discussion and to me it appears like you would want to express that you need a University diploma to understand the easiest Mathematics. The dog and canine example does not make sense here since again you pretend that minutes are extremely hard to understand. Something which would get much closer would be replacing hood with bonnet or vice versa. But in my opinion, a better example you could make here is replacing centimetres with inches, cubic centimetres with cc or cubic inches, kilograms with pounds; etc. since among native English speakers some units are common. Replacing "mm" with "in" in German vehicle articles would be considered inappropriate as it would be "elevat[ing] one country's conventions over another" even though native English speakers would understand that better. (I met Americans who would not understand that 1,75 m is height, that's why I assume that.) Replacing "/min" with "rpm" is the exact same principle. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone does not understand "Power at 1/min" and "Torque at 1/min". When I see it I start wondering 1 of what per minute? Then when I see the numbers below (66 kW (89 hp) at 5500) I would understand you mean 1 revolution per minute. But why the 1? And why not writing revolutions (or the common abbreviation for revolutions per minute)? ⛐Boivie (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Why wouldn't you want to use something everyone understands?" That's what we all want - you think min^-1 will be more widely understood, while others believe that rpm is more easily understandable. Always remembering that it's an English language generalist encyclopedia. So, how do we prove it either way? 4u1e (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. However, read the article "Frequency": Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time. The occurrences of a repeating event are not defined since they lack a dimension, they are a dimensionless quantity, therefore no "unit" to tell that this is a revolution is needed as the minute already indicates that this is frequency. The 1 is a simple placeholder. You could of course replace it with r or whatever. Assume the given frequency is 1000 min⁻¹. When we have 1/min or r/min, the actual frequency would always look like this: 1000/min. You would not write 1000 1/min or 1000 r/min.

I assume that 1/min is widely understood. It is clear that it refers to "x per minute". --Jojhnjoy (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your assumption is wrong - for this target audience. What units are "conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic", in this case general articles about cars? 4u1e (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I assume that 1/min is widely understood". At least seven editors are not willing to make that assumption, and you're not going to change any minds until you cite some evidence.

We sometimes display 100.0 hp (74.6 kW), and other times use 100.0 bhp (74.6 kW) or 100.0 PS (73.5 kW). Some readers won't notice the difference, but many will, and they will rightly interpret hp and bhp to be two different things. PS and hp look about the same and are casually treated as interchangeable, but it would be a mistake for a Wikipedia editor to do so. If the source gives us 100 PS we have to convert it to express it as hp or anything else. If a source gives us 100 hp, it's a mistake to change that to 100.0 hp. We have an implicit agreement with the reader that these subtle differences matter. Why else would we express it in two different ways?

Now, if we express engine speed in two different ways, some readers won't pay attention to the difference, but some will, and they will logically assume that min⁻¹ is a different kind of thing than rpm. Now we have to hope that they go somewhere and discover that they are actually redundant, and equivalent. But if they don't, we have created a misconception. And for what? Why? What is the benefit of introducing min⁻¹? We gain nothing.

We have no evidence that min⁻¹ is universally understood by English readers, but we have overwhelming evidence that rpm is. We have reason to think that using two different notations for the same thing could mislead some readers. We have no sources who say English language readers find min⁻¹ to be more clear (and "1000 /min" is just gibberish). We can't even say that min⁻¹ is true SI. We'd have to use radians or Herz, both non-starters. We have identified no benefit to using anything but rpm, and we have identified a risk. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

I asked an American, she understood 1/min. Since I don't live in the US, I cannot test this further. Which units are "conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic, in this case general articles about cars", depends on the origin of the vehicle. For instance, the Template:Infobox automobile gives two options: American or British English with either imperial or metric units. German vehicles such as BMWs always go with metric units such as SI or technical units. Therefore, neither cc nor rpm make sense since they don't fit either of these. Interestingly, MOS:UNITS says "or such other units as are conventional" which is supposed to mean that you could use kp·m for a torque figure for instance. But in this specific case, the majority of authors considers minutes to belong to the other units as are conventional; minutes are allowed to use with SI, they fit the article topic perfectly, the sources use them and in all German topic articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units and non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI. To me, using rpm on German topic articles does not make sense. Neither does using cc. These units are non-metric and non-SI. And as far as I have noticed, SI units are usually used for German topic articles. To know what an "rpm" is, you need to live in an English speaking country or need to be involved in engineering. On the other hand, "/min" is pretty easy to understand since everybody who knows how to read also learnt mathematical division in school and possibly knew minutes even before they went to school. Forcing rpm on articles where it does not belong is elevation one country's conventions over another. Authors that are used to Anglo-American units would accept metres in German car articles for instance since they know that metres are a unit of length, they would prefer inches or feet though. rpm and /min is exact the same thing. But with one difference: /min might be unknown among some authors and therefore they don't accept it and want to force their preferred rpm on other articles. Let's turn this model around: I don't try to force kilograms instead of pounds on American vehicle articles since it would be considered highly disruptive behaviour. And now think about forcing units such as cc and rpm on articles thatgo with SI, SI-derived and technical units.

When this is your definition of "evidence", then there is enough "evidence" that min⁻¹ and /min are commonly used since they have been around for ages. Possibly not in English speaking countries. But the English language Wikipedia is not meant for native speakers only, especially when considering that approximately 1 billion English speakers are non-native speakers. We would not introduce something completely new here. Minutes exist worldwide and actually the English Wikipedia would be the only Wikipedia not using them. And yes, minutes are non-SI, however, they are allowed to be used with SI. You might consider 1000/min "gibberish" but I consider it clear and understandable and even in the DIN 1301 it is the preferred way of expressing frequency. (The DIN has a noticable impact on other countries, for instance, the definition of the Pferdestärke according to DIN 66036 was copied by almost every country: 75 kp·m/s.) We could use rad or Hz, but for rotational frequency, time units are more common and also allowed. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I asked an American, she understood 1/min. " LOLOLOLOLLLOOL.... Nope. Nope. Nope.

Real evidence looks like this:

1. All popular automotive media use rpm. We can't find examples of the New York Times or Motor Trend or Cars for Dummies or What Car? ever using min^-1.
2. Common style guides recommend rpm. They have never even heard of min^-1. See The Associated Press Stylebook 2017 page 244 (try Amazon books preview). NYT Stylebook, UPI Stylebook. The AMA Handbook of Business Writing. Other editors (above) have pointed out that even automotive engineering publications do not use min^-1.
3. BIPM has never heard of this nonsense. It's not real SI, and even pseudo-SI would use radians or Herz, not "revolutions". No help there.
4. We have zero sources telling us we should stop using rpm and start using min^-1. We can't even call this a WP:FRINGE view. It would have to have at least one published advocate to rise to the level of fringe. It's a nonexistent question. Nobody is even considering it. Instead, we have exactly one Wikipedia editor who thinks it's a good idea. A good case would be to cite experts on automotive topics, especially communicating with the general public in technical writing or automotive publications, who say that min^-1 is better. What we have here is one editor who has a personal mission to change the way the world is, using Wikipedia as a soapbox. We call that righting great wrongs, that is, tendentious editing.

Now cite something, or let it go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you consider "evidence" is what I consider original research. There is no Wikipedia rule that tells me that I must use rpm and must not use minutes. Please provide this rule (though I doubt you can since it does not exist.) Instead, you tell me about your theories and try proving them.

1. "All popular automotive media use rpm." → English Literature does not always, non-English media usualy does not, the most reliable BMW sources do never at all. So, there is no evidence. You did not take in account scientific sources, I also provided an example.
2. "Common style guides recommend rpm. They have never even heard of min^-1." → You can read the DIN 1301 and the SI-brochure.
3. "BIPM has never heard of this nonsense." → Read chapters 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 4.1 of the SI-brochure.
4. "We have zero sources telling us we should stop using rpm and start using min^-1." → Read MOS:UNITS. Or to use your words: We have zero sources telling us we should stop using min^-1 and start using rpm.

Since you consider min⁻¹ "nonsense", keep using judging arguments (for instance saying that min⁻¹ is "nonsense") rather than factual arugments and don't come up with a Wikipedia rule that forbids using min⁻¹, I don't want to discuss this any further. Replacing something that is based on the information provided in the sources, not unknown in scientific (English) literature and perfectly fits a German topic article that has metric/SI/technical units already, with something you prefer because you consider the original "thing" nonsense, is something I don't consider helpful. If you want to cease elevating one country's conventions over Germany's and Continental Europe's conventions and worldwide standards, I suggest that you omit replacing minutes with rpm and cubic centimetres with cc in articles on German vehicles. Please feel free to keep using those for vehicles and engines made in countries that use imperial or US customary units. Best regards not from Germany, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. English Literature does not always"^{[citation needed]}.
2. The reason I mention the AP, UPI, Fowler's ect is because at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#External style_guides we are told that the MOS consensus encourages us to do so, when we lack specific guidelines. The accepted style guides universally support using rpm.
3. DIN 1301? The "SI brochure"? I'm interested! Tell me more. Give me a citation I can verify. Vague hints are not a citation. See #1 above. I will change my mind if you show me evidence. I've been wrong before and I'm happy to admit it. I read 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 4.1 in the SI brochure, and I don't see rpm expressed as min^-1. I see no mention of engine speed. Help me out. Where does it say it?
4. We have all read MOS:UNITS. If 100 editors told you you are misreading MOS:UNITS, would that change your mind? What if 1,000 editors all said you are wrong about MOS:UNITS, would that do it? Is there any hypothetical set of circumstances where you could admit that you are reading MOS:UNITS backwards. It says we prefer rpm. Everyone keeps telling you that. What if 1,000,000 editors told you it says we prefer rpm, would that do it? If you are never, ever going to admit it, even if 100,000,000 editors said you're wrong, then we might as well stop discussing MOS:UNITS. If this is some kind of religious dogma that is unfalsifiable for you, then it's outside the scope of discussion. And if you cannot accede to consensus, then you cannot edit Wikipedia. If the bottom line for you is that consensus means nothing, then your values are incompatible with Wikipedia. You're allowed to believe consensus is wrong, but you must be willing to respect it.

I didn't say "min^-1" is nonsense. I said "1000 /min" or "1000 min^-1" is nonsense. Such as what you have done to the BMW 3 and 5 series articles. If you said "1000 revolutions/min" or "1000 r/min" that would makes sense. But then, r/min is just a cumbersome way of saying rpm. The problem is, a "revolution" is not an SI unit. SI says we should use Hz or rads, and that's ridiculous. Instead, you simply leave the units out entirely and write, for example, " 55 kW (74 hp) at 5800/min". Nonsense. BMW doesn't make this error. They write, "...TwinPower Turbo engine generates 200 lb-ft of torque at just 1250 rpm". They use normal English terminology for English-speaking readers. Obviously. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

♠"At least seven editors are not willing to make that assumption" You can add me, if you haven't already. :)

♠"there is enough "evidence" that min⁻¹ and /min are commonly used" Commonly where? Because it's not common anywhere I've ever seen. And the "r/min" isn't exactly ubiquitous, either. It may be found on BMW tachs, but that's given context by the fact it's on a tachometer, which is not exactly the same as turning up in WP text.

♠The distinction between hp & bhp, IMO, is a good comparison. Most readers & editors don't even know there's any difference, & will use the two interchangeably. I'll confess not knowing what the difference is, but I do know there is one. I daresay most readers encountering rpm will at least know rougly what it's dealing with, even if not all know what it means. (I've run across a few people who don't know what psi means, but have a notion it deals with pressure, putting them in a similar class.) Encountering min^-1 for the first time, with no context, is a bit like dropping in .5c, with no link, & expecting readers to get it. Which leads to the obvious question: if min^-1 is to be equated or explained, isn't it going to be explained as equal to rpm...? Which kind of blows the need for min^-1, doesn't it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Folks, there comes a time when the best thing to do is ... nothing. My suggestion would be to stop responding. Resist the temptation to add one final point. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Bratland:

• As I said, this is what I consider original research. I could give you examples that prove my point. However, I don't consider it useful, though here you go: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. This does not prove anything, I know. But your claim is not provable either.
• But in this case, we don't lack specific guidelines. MOS:UNITS says that "units that are allowed with SI" should be used. That's what I am doing. DIN 1301 is rather a norm than a "style guide" that does not recommend but force you to use "1/min" without U or r. That's why you will find it all technical data sheets of German vehicles such as BMWs.
• The SI-brochure lists base units and some derived units. But you could basically combine several units. For instance, force (N) and length (m) give Newtonmetres (N·m). The SI-brochure does not mention N·m as the unit symbol for torque and the Newtonmetre is still a unit: "For example, the quantity torque may be thought of as the cross product of force and distance, suggesting the unit newton metre" But the important chapters I mentioned show that frequency could be expressed in time units (s⁻¹) and since minutes are allowed to be used with SI, you could also make min⁻¹. That's how it works and it is not uncommon.
• MOS:UNITS does not say that rpm must be used for engine rotational frequency and that min⁻¹ must not. (Empty) reasons, arguments and theories don't help here.

55 kW at 5800/min is no nonsense. Stop acting like you never saw that, since it appears in so many books and technical data sheets. BMW uses this in the technical data section of the E21 manual. If you would have looked that up properly, you would have noticed that this source exists, however, it cannot be retrieved online. Instead, I will link the E28 524td "short manual" here.

BMW gauge clusters have "1/min" and nothing else, even on models designed for countries with miles; as far as I know, older BMW tachometers had km/std for speed. Only a few older BMWs had a gauge showing th engine speed, however, I cannot find any good photographs showing them.

You made a very good point: I daresay most readers encountering rpm will at least know rougly what it's dealing with, even if not all know what it means. And there you say it: "knowing roughly" and "even if not all know what it means". Something everybody talks about and nobody understands. However, ss I said, /min is self-explanatory: Per minute. Even for those who live in countries where minutes are uncommon for frequency.

Something to add: Forcing units such as rpm or cc on German (or whatever) topic articles just because you dislike or not know the units used in these countries, the sources the article is based on and in some scientific literature, even though they are easy to understand, is what I consider disrespectful and toxic to the editing process. You don't try to improve anything here. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Any objections to marking this discussion closed with ((Archive top))? More than one editor has said they consider this resolved, and that they do not want to see it discussed further. We could repeat the entire thing with an RfC so that we can officially declare a consensus, but per WP:SNOW, that appears pointless, since it is nearly unanimous. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider this resolved but there is no point in contuning this since my point was declared nonsense due to personal opinions ignoring arguments and adhering to original research which would not help the discussion. I still recommend refraining from adding cc and rpm in German topic articles since they appear to be common for English language topics only and don't fit the other units used in these articles and sources, may remain unclear for some readers and might be interpreted as elevating one country's conventions over another which is toxic to the editing process. Best regards not from Germany, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There are several requests by editors with a conflict of interest over at Talk:Carvana that could use a review. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]