This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Could we possibly get rid of some of the information in the Infiniti G20 article? The detail seems overly excessive. For example, do we really need a list of all the exterior color codes? Jagvar 02:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, please get rid of those color codes. In other words, go ahead and prune it. Signature^brendel 05:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering whether we actually do need that article at all, if you trim down all the colour codes and somebody's musings on tuning and relaibility, there isn't much left, and most of that would fit into the Nissan Primera article anyway. We don't have separate articles for Toyota Aristo or Toyota Windom.... PrinceGloria 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I also fell these paint codes are unnecessary....that's like something you find in a canadian tire manual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TotallyTempo (talk • contribs) 01:08, April 4, 2007.

Leave the article the way it is! And the color codes are helpful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.69.36.143 (talk • contribs) 00:30, April 4, 2007.

The issue at the heart of the matter here is simply that none of the information removed was in any way encyclopdedic in nature. The whole page read like it was a combination between a dealer's manual and a G20 tuning forum. If you really want to post this information on the Web, then post it on a message board, or better yet, create your own Web site. However, none of it belongs in an encyclopedia. See the articles on Infiniti G35, Infiniti M and Infiniti Q45 to better understand what belongs in an encyclopedia article. Jagvar 20:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also feel that if anything other article should be as informative as the G20 once was. Seemingly a sad day when greater amounts of information is a determent. Zoli Elo 02:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but although I can see a case for some of the information being deleted (i.e. paint codes, remote fob part numbers, and wheel bolt patterns), other parts that you deleted are completely legitimate. There is no set format for Wikipedia car articles; you showed three Infiniti articles, but I've found four others in about five minutes of looking with radically different formats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_Legacy (has accomplishments, world market and US release schedules, and external links similar to the G20 page's)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic (has sections on mods, awards, and racing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Supra (has a section on Appearances in Video Games, for crying out loud!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Escort_%28North_America%29 (has statistics on the ZX2 S/R's performance and has factory modification part numbers)

You don't have a leg to stand on for most of your deletions. I've restored a substantial number of them. I have modified the information and sections in a way that I think may be more palatable to you; if you have problems, do not resort tot he mass-purge vandalism that you did before; take up the discussion here first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.87.149 (talk • contribs)

Yeah I've been meaning to swap some stuff around on the Toyota Supra article, by swap around.. get rid of the "appearances in video games" section and just have a "Toyota Supra in popular culture" section that is an actual writeup and not a list. Have been extremely busy so if anyone else wants to you can! ren0^talk 07:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The sad truth is that most automotive articles here are rubbish and a dump for all kinds of fanboys and rather unprofessional editors who drop their stuff at random. This WikiProject is far too small for the time being to brush up all of them to acceptable levels, but when you look for good examples, do see about the Featured Articles (apart from the Maserati one, which strides away from the good standards a bit), and some of the GA's such as the Simca Vedette (for a longer article on a multi-generational car). Please remember it is an encyclopedia, not a dumpster for all kind of info. Some of it is simply unencyclopedic, and the role of Wikipedia is not to be a resource for pros or enthusiasts, but rather a general reference. We've got the "external links" section to link to more specialist sites for the readers to be able to gather more knowledge of the subject than would fit in the article. PrinceGloria 11:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The G20 article was rated at one time a "B" article as it just failed "GA." I feel that it was near the peak of all of the car related article. The more information the better on wikipedia is my stance on the matter. The mass deletion of information is often a travesty for the addition of information is so very costly compared to the easy of quick and dirty editing out.

As I have added much of the information to the G20 article I do have a bias so I am refraining from reversions... But will state that I often heard that it was an often used resource and looked to as an example for other articles. Zoli Elo 18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a shop manual. --Sable232 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a tricky area. I think it's very important indeed that we have the primary article for each kind of car be an approachable, readable article that has the most relevent facts in a way that's easy to find - that definitely means no list of paint codes or bolt patterns! On the other hand, I think it would be rather handy to have a page with all of the paint codes, bolt patterns and such - my personal feeling is that a second, more detailed article could have much, if not all, of this insanely detailed stuff in it. List of Infinity G20 paint codes is a page that I would personally support. However, Wikipedia's policies say that pages like that do not belong here...I think that's a mistake - the amount of disk space such things might consume is pretty negligable - and if only one person per year finds it useful - then if someone feels the need to create it - so be it. But that's not policy - sadly. So - strip the over-detailed stuff out of the article - that's a necessity to make it readable and approachable - and if you can find a new place to put it - then do so with my blessing, but expect an AfD to descend upon you at some time in the future. SteveBaker 22:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the answer is starting a specialist Wiki for information bits not belonging in Wikipedia, such as e.g. Wikispecies. BTW, what about merging the article with Nissan Primera? This could also be a good reason to improve the latter, which is in a rather hopeless state now... PrinceGloria 23:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Nissan Primera isn't ingreat shape, but because the two are somewhat different animals (the G20 is related to the P10 Primera 2.0 sedan and the P11 Primera Camino 2.0 sedan, and there are many more versions of the Primera than that; additionally, the G20 has very different trim levels than the Primera, has a different history of model year changes, and even a different history of model years, as by the time the P11 came out in the US, the P11-144 was already out in Europe). I have stripped a lot of the "over-detailed stuff" out, but I'd like your opinion on other things to take out. I welcome discussion about what content should be in there, it's just vigilante purging that gets on my nerves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.87.149 (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

So it's not within "standards" to include useful information pertinent to a particular vehicle? Like it or not, Wikipedia is not the pinnacle of uniformity when it comes to the amount, quality, and style of information provided (for any topic, not just cars). It is nice to strive for some uniformity within a particular subject, such as having a front, 3/4 view as the primary picture for each car page. And no, we don't need "what if" scenarios for tuning and such - that's the stuff of message boards. But I think it begs to be asked, why can't the definition of "encyclopedia" be broadened here? Pick up an Encyclopaedia Britannica, and tell me how the G20 article is formatted. What's that, there's no such entry? Oh, that's right, most "real" encyclopedia's lack entries on individual cars or even car companies for that matter. Does that mean that an awesome resource like Wikipedia should be limited? I mean, wasn't that why this place was created in the first place, to make an unlimited resource of information? I guess not, though, since relevant information (like the paint codes) just doesn't make the cut. You know, when I was car shopping, those paint codes actually came in handy...good thing it was before they were cut out for not "conforming" with other non-standardized car entries. --MackOSU 06:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the right thing for you to do is to get gravely offended by the unfriendly nature of Wikipedia and start your own great Infiniti G20 site which would include all this useful information, which we will then gladly link to from the Infiniti G20 article! PrinceGloria 10:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but no, I'm not "gravely offended" by what's going on. I just think it's sad that there are people going around, picking and choosing, somewhat at random, what information they deem "unencyclopedic" in nature...on topics (like cars) that don't even show up in real encyclopedias. Is that not ironic? If we were to keep Wikipedia as "encyclopedic" as possible, we wouldn't have articles for individual cars at all. So since we've greatly strayed from normal encyclopedic content, why don't we just delete all car entries? Until all the car articles are standardized in content length and quality, I'm not sure why one entry gets picked out above others as not "meeting standards".--MackOSU 16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that unless I develop "tunning sections" in a multitude of wikipedia car entries it will be the case, sadly, that such sections are not the norm. Not being the norm seemingly on the wikipedia is ground for a regression to mediocrity. Zoli Elo 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests#WikiProject_Automobiles_newsletter_bot

What do you think of my suggestion of having a newsletter bot?? I thought it could be useful! --SunStar Net ^talk 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support a newsletter bot. Karrmann 19:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check the article's history to see what I mean. I really don't know what should the course of action be, and I don't want a pointless revert war and risiking breaching 3RR - can somebody help with that? BTW, Happy Easter everyone :D PrinceGloria 13:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted his edits and given a final warning on his talk page. If he does it again, report him and hopefully he will be blocked. I would also like to determine if the sockpuppets who have been creating hoax articles belong to him. I have traced the recent ones back to User:Hardlinger, and I suspect that Teddy Coughlin may be behing it all. --Sable232 14:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

More hoaxing: [1] (took care of that, though the article itself needs a major rewrite). I guess it would be good to go through the "contributions" of URL 23.218.46.5... PrinceGloria 23:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Ġ

...this time, as Havel Stre3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

He's created the following hoax articles:

• BMW 5-Series Coupe
• Talbot Solara (2008)
• Opel Aveo

and added bogus information to the Peugeot 407 article, which I've just removed.

Looks like we have our own automotive version of MascotGuy. Maybe this should go to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser?? --SunStar Net ^talk 10:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fasho, and the articles should be speedied ASAP. It is really upsetting to see people finding it amusing or rewarding to be disruptive in such a childish way... PrinceGloria 11:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The last two are speedied as sub-stubs that obviously don't check out. Is the BMW 5-Series Coupe really clearly a hoax as well? (I'm not familiar enough with it, and the words are unfortunately difficult to Google) And filing a checkuser request is probably a good idea. --Interiot 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The E60 5-Series Coupe is the E63 6-Series. Given that hoaxer's hoaxes usually do come in all-hoax series, I wouldn't give it any credit just because BMW's alphanumerics make it look more confusing. It is speculation anyway, so it doesn't belong in WP (it would if there was a manufacturer's press release referenced). PrinceGloria 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to do something about this hoax business (RFI is gone, don't know what else to do at the moment). We have a line of sockpuppets making hoax articles, and a user adding misinformation to articles. Hopefully we can get a checkuser run. If all these users resolve to 23.218.46.5 (which is most likely Teddy.Coughlin's IP) we can have this twit taken care of. I won't have time to do this until Monday. If anyone thinks that's too long to wait, go ahead and do it yourself. --Sable232 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it's up. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hardlinger. --Sable232 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just did a complete update to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/NewArticles, based on an automated query... could a few people check out the most recently-created articles, and make sure they're properly referenced? Thanks, --Interiot 03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey everyone. As per our discussion in this group, I removed the long list of paint codes from the Infiniti G20 article a little over a week ago. Ever since then, I've bombarded with complaints from two users in particular. I am pasting the most recent complaint below. I'm past the point of caring about the paint codes. I'm not going to get into an argument about something so trivial.

Here's the most recent complaint I've gotten. Now, I'm leaving it up to the rest of you to determine what does and does not belong on the Infiniti G20 page. I'm done editing that page from here on out! Jagvar 16:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why you find it necessary to remove useful information from a particular article, such as the paint codes for the Infiniti G20. Last time I checked, this is a "free encyclopedia", and as long as information is relevant to a particular car (or any other subject) I'm not sure why it should be eliminated so it matches other similar articles. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that biased or non-cited information needs to be kept in check - but if one car's page has paint codes, and another's doesn't, does that mean that information suddenly becomes "superfluous"? When I was shopping for a G20, I happened to find those paint codes very helpful, as it was information that I couldn't find anywhere else. And your assumption that such information is the stuff of "owner's manuals" is incorrect. My car's owner's manual says nothing about the other colors available. Was it hurting Wikipedia or the G20 article itself to have said information included? Of course not. Unfortunately, even the most ideal, user-created Encyclopedia has to suffer from those who think that they rule the place or should go around regulating the information provided - even if it is useful to only a handful of folks out there...give me a break.

Last time I checked, a "real" encyclopedia, such as Britannica, doesn't even have individual car entries, much less entries for each manufacturer. In contrast, a "car encyclopedia", such as those books that focus on a particular era or manufacturer's history, tend to include the information that you would deem "superfluous" - because that info is important to car-nuts.--MackOSU 06:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just noticed that the paint codes are back. I'm not removing them this time for my reasons stated above. There's one heck of an edit war happening on the G20 page. Jagvar 16:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also see User talk:Sable232#Wikipedia is not a shop manual and my reply at User talk:MackOSU#Another G20 reply.

Ultimately, the issue is that the supposed goal here is for articles to reach FA status. A list of paint codes, engine upgrades, features, etc. will undoubtedly prevent that. I was told that two of our FAs, Mini Moke and Talbot Tagora are "obscure cars of little or no consequence on the American car market." Anybody ever wonder why articles on popular American-market cars tend not to become FAs? Maybe (in part) because those articles are riddled with useless fan-club info? The paint codes need to go. There is a website showing the actual paint chips for almost any car. The engine upgrade section unarguably has to go, because Wikipedia is not a How-to guide. If someone wants to have the G20 article protected for a while while this get sorted out, it might be a good idea. Asian cars are well outside of my experience so I'll leave it alone for now. --Sable232 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been through this before with the Honda CRX article. I removed the offending information. If they continue to put it back, I will request that the page be protected with teh information removed until we cna finally meet a compromise with these editors. Karrmann 17:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a moment to look into this a little deeper, and users who keep insisting that the paint information stay are members of the Infiniti G20 message board G20.net[2]. Their own discussion about what's happening with the G20 article can be found here: [3], and, as I understand it, they are pretty upset because they've been using the Wikipedia article as a resource for tuning and upkeep of their own G20s. I'd hate to think that we are denying this information to G20 owners who want/need it, but I still can't see how a general encyclopedia is appropriate for this kind of niche market information. So how can we reach a compromise that makes everyone happy? One idea that comes to mind (and this is just one idea, mind you): couldn't the folks over at G20.net add a page to their site with all the color codes and tuning information, and then link to it directly from the Wikipedia article? That idea makes a lot of sense to me, but I want to hear what everyone thinks, including the people at G20.net. Jagvar 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Paint codes are unfit for an encyclopedia article. They make us look unprofessional. Now, if the paint-codes are so important to this group of G20 owners, they could move them to userspace here on WP-for example the paint-codes could be moved to User:G20Enthusiast/G20_paintcodes. They could of course also open a geo-cities or freeservers site and list them there. In any case there are a gazillion ways to list this info on the net w/o compromising the integrity of the G20 WP article. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, more of this forum trouble. Seems like every time a change is made that an enthusiast site doesn't like, they sit on their forum and complain about it for a week. A certain Ford Ranger forum sent its members on a spam drive a few months back, and I finally diffused it by telling them they need a tech section in order for their site to be included.

Most automotive clubs have their own encyclopedia of information. TCCA and TTCCNA are a couple that have very expanisive ones. If the G20 guys want this info, they can host it themselves, not here. And they can put a link to all that at the bottom of the page.

Either way, I'm not dealing with this directly. It's out of my experience and I don't feel like trying to ward off being harassed by these people, because we know that's exactly what will happen. All I'll do is request that this be protected as it sits so it can be dealt with in a civil manner. --Sable232 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh well - I guess that's what WP rules are for, no need to engage in lenghty discussions. As I said above - if you don't like Wikipedia as it is to spare yourself some negative emotions. Sometimes, something good might actually be borne out of that. An anecdote that just occurred to me is that reportedly James Ward Packard started his own automobile company after buying a Winton car, which he found faulty in many ways, and which Alexander Winton refused to fix in a rather unpleasant manner - so Packard thought he could do better himself! So, all the G20 fans reading that - just start your own better Infiniti G20 site (wiki or not) and show us! PrinceGloria 22:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. I also think that this issue shows the importance of putting down some more specific rules and standards concerning automobile articles in WP.

I am going to get the page protected without the offending information. This is getting old. An dI am sick of being attacked on my talk page over removing the information. If they want to piss and moan, then can, i don't give a flying fuck. But I am tired of them taking away from our editing and causing a giant uproar. This pages gonna be protected, we are gonna iron this damn thing out, and we are going to end this shit, rigth here and right now! Karrmann 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I find this language, tone and attitude unbefitting an experienced Wikipedia editor. PrinceGloria 22:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is against my usual form of editing and professionalism, but I find this dispute immature and useless. And I hate the way he personally attacked me for deleting the information. I just want this to end. I requested full protection, with a more convincing reason, so we can work to end this. Karrmann 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sable232 has made a good point above-if the G20 afficianados want to keep this info they can get a freeservers, geocity, godaddy.com etc... site and put that info up there. There is no need to have this info on the WP G20 article as it compromises the article's professional merit. Anyways, it seems that partial protection should do the trick. Signature^brendel 23:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't the group start an Infiniti G20 section under wikibooks:Category:Cars? There's already information there (eg. see wikibooks:Jeep Liberty/Accessories/Towing Hitches) that goes into much more detail than is appropriate for Wikipedia. Especially when the information is factual and verifiable, it's much better to frame the issue as a positive one (that information is more appropriate on wiki X or Y) than a negative one (we don't want that information here). --Interiot 00:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure that's another good alternative-using wiki books! Signature^brendel 00:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

They may protect the page. The usual admin is transferring the case to another admin. Hopfeully this time they will protect it. Also, I made some progress. I convinced him to keep the paint codes off. He is still stubborn. He still thinks that we are full of shit for applying "standards" to the article. He also still seems to be convinced that the point of a wikipedia article is to pack as much useless info in it as possible. Sigh... Karrmann 00:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I really want to remain even on the topic as I am clearly biased about the pant codes (which are not found anywhere including print material but on the wiki). I have no control over that happens over on G20.net... I understand that you are trying to help the wikipedia as a whole but to me it seems as if valuable information is being lost. Pant codes, common failure points, number produced are often more than trivia to many owners and car historians. My ideal would be that every car entry on wikipedia that has a sub culture in which modifications were common place would have a tuning section. There are a great many new owner's of tunable cars that are without a venue for base knowledge. Many forums are not apply formated for new users curious about what in general can be done to their car as veterans of such sites are often of the mindset that a basic topic should not be covered continuously. The G20 wikipedia entry I am certain has adding in the base knowledge of new owners and old owners alike. While it might have seem over detailed if such a condition is possible, it in fact really was basic. Having written much of the tunning sections I strictly went with common modifications and kept technical jargon out.

I do thank you for the time you have taken to write to me on this topic. Zoli Elo 05:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Karrmann I strongly suggest that you add more and delete sparingly.

Zoli Elo 05:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick of this crap. I'm going to start devising a draft for a set of standards that from now on are going to be followed. I don't care what does or doesn't go in right now, I just don't want to have to again deal with every group of hotshot tuners who think that Wikipedia doesn't give enough good info on modding their cars.

And the request for protection on the G20 article was declined. Our only options are to let them have their way or edit war until someone notices. --Sable232 05:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before - I'm an inclusionist - I'd like to see any and all true facts put into Wikipedia - disk space is cheap! However, we aren't going to get that through the Wikipedia cabals. I have a website http://www.sjbaker.org/telamom/colours/ that contains a photo of every possible paint combination for MINI Coopers - and a fellow enthusiast has this page http://www.minicolours.co.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi which does the same thing for the classic Mini. I strongly believe that both of those sites should be hosted right here on Wikipedia - it seems like a totally arbitary decision as to what information is "too detailed" because that is in the eye of the beholder. For me, a complete set of photos of every possible colour scheme for the car who'se club I run is an exceedingly useful resource - but I think the Pokemon stuff should be a single article - not a suite of 300+ articles as it is now. It seems no more logical to have article after article talking about mythical creatures that are only a part of some commercially popular card game than it does to have an article about every possible MINI Cooper colour. But Pokemon characters quite regularly show up as Featured Articles - whilst paint codes are deleted. But Wikipedia is an arbitary and capricious beast sometimes - and I don't think there is much we can do about that. SteveBaker 05:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Disc space is cheap, but that isn't a reason to fill it with whatever info you can find. Wikipedia is not a directory. For example, the article on Web colors shows the common colours, but not every one of the 16 777 216 possibilities with 256-RGB colour. Shouldn't an article about a car be about a car, not the available selection of paint colours? Let's remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a webhost for whatever information. A list of paint codes would be useful for someone who wants to buy a car, but Wikipedia does not sell cars, nor does it advertise for others. If you are interested in buying the car I'm sure there is a brochure somewhere that lists all the paint colours. You can probably tell the salesman that you want the car in "Aztec Red", not "AG2". Info like this is fine for enthusiast sites like those that SteveBaker mentioned, infact I encourage it so that it doesn't end up here. James086^{Talk | Email} 06:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's also remember that decisions such as these are found through consensus-currently there is no consensus for listing car colors in the G20 article. Yes, what is and what is not needed, what should and what should not be included in an article is always subject to debate. Yet, there seem to be some commonly agreed upon terms that manifest themselves in the FA and GA processes-these commonly agreed upon terms deem paint color options in car articles unfit for WP-as do many editors here, including myself. Currently the opposition to the list is very strong. There is no consensus to justify the inclusion of paint codes in the G20 article-it violates what many of us deem to be a good article and what the editorial teams deem to be a good article. (PS. by good, I mean the word "good" in general, not GAs specifically) Signature^brendel 06:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There simply is not a list anywhere in print or online that correctly matches the proper G20 name to that of the general Nissan color code. The list in a compilation of ID plate codes and lost lost to time G20 brochures. I often wonder what colors an old BMW came in and if they had a given name. Are old BMW colors similar to that of the G20 in terms that there were several different silver colors in a particular year? Where could I find this information? I surely hope that it was not once given in the depth of the Mini wikipedia entry?

If there was a standard for all car entries all would understand. However, currently degrading various entries is seemingly too arbitrary and haphazard. I ask you all to primarily add over delete and to expand your view beyond that of a paper encyclopedia to what is possible in a wikipedia. Zoli Elo 08:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia has expanded its view of what wikis can hold, that's why Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikibooks, etc. were created. As mentioned before, the paint codes would probably be appropriate at Wikibooks. That's no more censorship or hiding of information than it is to say that it's more appropriate to store the German translation of an article at de.wikipedia.org rather than here, or to say that conjugation of obscure verbs should be stored at wiktionary. --Interiot 08:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have personally run out of patience with this whole situation.I have been talking to one of the editors, MackOSU, and it seems that all he is worried about is being difficult, more than improving the article. Through our whole situation when I have tried to work out the problem with him, he has just attacked me, put words in my mouth, belittled me, and talked about how I am a wild deletionist and that when I changed the common reliability problems from a list to prose that I destroyed the page, rewrote history and utterly messed up the article just because I accidently mistook clamps for seals and made some spelling mistakes. Looking deeper into this situation though, it seems that it is not the whole community of Infiniti enthuiasts taht are teh problem, it is mainly that Mack dude. Other members such as Zoli Elo have been reletively friendly and willing to work with us and meet us halfway, which Mack seems to just be worried about attacking and causing conflict with the other editors. On another site, he even called IFCAR a "fucktard". His actions bear a frieghtning resemblance to that of User:Wiarthurhu, and I am afraid that if this guy gets too out of control, it will be a repeat of the Wiarthurhu disaster, which we all know that none of us want to go through again. One Wiatrhurhi is enough for a lifetime, we don't need another. I personally am washing my hands of this situation, and I no longer want to be involved. This is one big headache that I just don't need. Hopefully we can find a compromise, and I will just continue on my usual routene, taking pictures adding references, adn doing my usual work to automobile articles. Karrmann 15:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK Karrmann, take a deep breath, count to ten - it's going to be alright. What you fail to tell everyone is that you went on the G20 article and 'converted' the reliability section to 'prose' (paragraph form), which is perfectly fine, but in doing so, you took out the most important details, added completely false information that wasn't there to begin with, and used non-words like "intermitt"(?). Can you not admit that your revisions contained several spelling, grammar, and factual errors? Get over yourself and admit to that. And yes, I'm mainly the "problem" here, thanks! I am not involved in "attacking" others, and no, I never uttered any such word (F-word) regarding IFCAR - that's an outright lie. You're the one using foul language, I refuse to do so. I never have called you, or any other Wikipedia user any names. Please post a link to where I called him that, would you Karrmann? It's not like I've gone in and put falsified info in the G20 article or put "it's the best car in the world!!!" - so although you're going to compare me to some guy I've never heard of, you're way off base. What's ironic is that you were the one who made innappropriate edits to the site most recently...but you won't ever tell that side of the story.

I don't hate you or desire to "attack" you - you're reading hate and anger into written posts. If you could hear me speak such comments, you'd know I'm not on some rampant attack. You're not my enemy. You just seem to be unable to admit to making a mistake. Was I mistaken about the paint codes? Yes, and I've given up on that. Were you wrong in butchering the 'reliability' section of that article? Yes, but I doubt you'll say so. I only point this out, not to act as if I'm superior, but because you act as if all you've ever done is try to make an article better...but in fact sometimes your edits seem so emotionally charged that you go in and make a particular section worse. I only kept pointing that out to you so you'd maybe address that with me, but I guess you're unable to do so. Good grief, just settle down - all this talk of my attacking you looks suspiciously like the converse situation, you know? (So please stop spreading lies and using such foul language, thanks)--MackOSU 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You want a link? Here you go. This is full of bitching about IFCAR and Wikipedia.

Still, I am tired of this whole situation. Still, you say that you are not my enemy, but according to your website, I am the antichrist. Karrmann 18:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you follow that link, you'll read my complaints, but someone else calls IFCAR a dirty name, NOT me. You want to explain the lie that you posted above?

To tell you the truth, Karrmann, I'm starting to feel awfully sorry for you. You've gone off the deep end with all this - the worst I said on the message board was that you were getting annoying...heck, I know that I'm annoying sometimes. It's just sad that you've taken this issue this far - making it out to be world war 3. Perhaps even more sad is that you seem unable to a) admit any wrongdoing, and b) tell the truth.

Also, last time I checked, it's okay to complain about something, even Wikipedia (or is that part of the "policy" - like the "policy" to remain civil that you sometimes ignore?). You need to cool off, and most of all, quit spreading lies about other users, thanks.

(Does anyone notice how he always avoids directly addressing questions directed toward him? That's really what's turned this into such a dramatic situation in the first place. Ask him a few times and you get foul language and lies...and I'm the one who "attacks"?)--MackOSU 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And you are acting like I am a big liar and you are teh gospel of truth. So ok, I mistook lamps for seals. I am human, I make mistakes. Same with that post. I accidently misattributed it to you. I thought you said it, but looking at the thread again, you didn't. And while you claim that I am lieing about you, you are doing the lieing. YOu claim that all I did was attack you and give you foul language. THAT is a lie. Anybody can read the messages on your talk page, and you can see that I was perfectly nice to you. You were the one doing all the attacking. Anybody can read your messages and my messages to you and come to the same conculsion. I didn't even attempt to attack you or belittle you, I was perfectly nice to you.

But, if this starts getting too out of hand, I am gettin gout of here. your current behavior is bearing a frightning resemblance to Wiarthurhu, and I have a gut feeling that this will end up being a repeat of the Wiarthurhu disaster, which we all know is the last thing any of us need. I am simply not willing to get involved in a bunch of drama. I didn't know that when I just stopped by the Infiniti G20 page, and saw some unencylopedic content and removed it in my normal editing that I would get congeled in a bunch of drama and have an Infiniti community believing that I am the antichrist. Karrmann 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

May I kindly ask people looking for a place to show off their egos to look for someplace else? Secondly, Wikipedia rules are quite firm on the issues pertaining to the Infiniti article, so I believe there is no need to delve into that any further - and if there are any specific issues, there is the article's talk page for that.

This talk page is for discussions concering WikiProject Automobiles. I think the last topic actually belonging there was the proposed establishing of explicit norms and standards for automobile articles. Anybody feels like picking up? PrinceGloria 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In all honestly I should be the one that should be taking this the most personally. However, as the wikipedia is an open community; majority rule and at times tyranny of the minority governance have to be the common. Will I debate that I believe is the correct path - surely. But I will not take it personally nor use personal attacks. I truly believe that you, Karrmann, should refrain from edits of the Infiniti G20 entry as you are on a slippery slope with regard to crossing the line from good faith edits to slapdash vandal due to personal feelings. Zoli Elo 20:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that the latest removal of information from the wiki was necessary, PrinceGloria, but I'm not going to repost it...I will say that there are a good many automotive wikis that reference reliability, for what it's worth.

And I'd like to say one more thing to Karrmann here - it's you creating such extravagant drama. You keep comparing me to this 'Wiarthurhu' fellow, who from what I've read, went around putting his POV comments in articles and commiting vandalism. Last time I checked, I never vandalized that article, nor did I inject my POV. Just because you and I disagree doesn't make me the "bad guy" - nor does it mean the same about you. Interestingly enough, however, you have vandalized wikipedia articles before and you created misinformation on this article in question. So maybe you should look in the mirror before you post lies about someone and try to make them out to be so terrible. Is it just me, or am I reading that you'd actually really enjoy having another fiasco centered around you? Your feelings on the matter are rather easy to interpret.

Your latest edit contained many errors - no matter how SMALL you think they were, they were factual errors. For someone going around 'cleaning up' articles, it was not proper editing. You can argue how small the error was, but if you just act like small errors are of no consequence, then you're missing the point. People visit this site for information, and the attitude of "oh, it was a minute error, what's the big deal?" is really innappropriate. Consider it the principle of the matter. For someone who's on editor review, it seems like a huge oversight. Kind of like the "minor error" you made telling lies about me - you seem to type and then think. Perhaps you should reverse that process.--MackOSU 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. This discussion is going to end. We have discussed this to death and are not getting anywhere. There is, from now on, going to be a set of general standards that we will follow. I am going to draft a few different possibilities and discussion will continue from there. Once it's up you are all welcome to add your comments there. Until then, everyone can leave this alone. Please, for the sake of civility. Karrmann, your behavior in this has been unbecoming of an editor of your stature. Please calm down. --Sable232 21:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sable232 how is the set of general standards coming? Zoli Elo 17:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A little harder than I thought. Most of it seems so obvious it's laughable. But at least this way we will be able to specifically cite "per WP:CAR standards" in an edit summary explaining why something was changed. Expect something by the end of the week at the very latest. My schedule has been shaky the past few days. --Sable232 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

May I have an update on the standard? Zoli Elo 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I know we've discussed this before (archived discussion), but I'd like clarification. When it comes to an owners section, I think what was established is that:

• The owner must have affected the car's history
• There must be a reliable citation

I'm suggesting we add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions, so that it can be cited in edit summaries when removing lists of owners e.g. [4]. James086^{Talk | Email} 05:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Signature^brendel 06:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your two rules - we shouldn't mention anything that's not notable or for which we don't have reliable citation - that's not just about vehicle owners - anything we write in an article needs to follow those guidelines. However, I strongly disagree with the entire premise of having a "Notable owners" section. This is just begging to be a section that accumulates cruft...it's like the much-maligned "Trivia" section - we must avoid that kind of thing. So I would add a third rule:

• There should not be a section simply enumerating notable owners in a bulletted list - if a notable owner affected the history of the car (per rule 1) then this fact should be worked into the section of the article covering that history so that the owner's contribution to that history can be worked into the narrative.

So I don't want to see a list of owners in the article with some discussion in Talk about whether each one affected the history of the car or not. I want the article to explain (in prose) how these notable owners fit into the history of the car. It's about the car...it's not about the owner. We don't care that John Q. Moviestar owned a Grossmobile-2000GT...that might be relavent to the article on John Q. Moviestar - but it's only relevent to the Grossmobile because of a cited report that the spontaneous explosion of the Grossmobile in his epic car-chase movie caused the 2000GT to be prematurely withdrawn from the market. SteveBaker 15:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Steve is absolutely right - "notable owners" and "media appearances" and such have no place in automobile articles, and any facts falling under those categories should be included only if they are notable enough in their own right. Sections like that should be avoided and deleted on sight. PrinceGloria 15:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agreed with-if an owner is truly notable in the car's history, he or she ought to be mentioned in the text. Signature^brendel 17:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"As a result of that and being made available to anybody, many bought the car purely as an investment at the time. Ferrari, onward in order to deter investors, only invited loyal customers to buy their supercars." I don't think the F50 had that kind of restriction. I would like to see a reference for that. And anyway all Ferraris since the F40 can be considered supercars, from the base models (360 Modena etc.) up. I am aware that the Enzo required buyers to be invited by Ferrari, and from the tone of the media publicity it seemed it was the first time. I think this is the page I am supposed to do this on, excuse me if I'm wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Howboutpete (talk • contribs) 00:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC).Howboutpete 00:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really, comments about individual articles are invited on the article's talk pages. Also, if you feel that some information in an article is incorrect or incorrectly sourced, be bold and edit it accordingly and/or insert appropriate templates. Happy editing! PrinceGloria 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Many contributors have complained on the huge amount of virtual visual space occupied by navigational boxes and timelines. Being one of the promotors and creators, I must say that in some cases this is plain true (Volkswagen Golf, Ford Escort (Europe)). My big proposal is to delete them from all articles on automobile models, keep them in marque/brand/automaker/division articles and add them to all Category:*** vehicles. This way, if you are intrerested in models from a certain marque/brand/etc, you go to the incumbent category and you will find them by name, type, size and decade.

Please reply! Say something, I think this issue is really important to the project. -- NaBUru38 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not find this to be a problem. It is easy to see how companies added or deleted vehicles within particular market segments. Thus, this gives us the problem of empty space in the timelines. Nevertheless, having them at the end of an article on a particular model makes it easy to see how it fits in with the other models. They are also helpful in jumping to the next article in the line up. Just my $0.02 -- CZmarlin 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the previous post. I actually find them very helpful, just to get a gist of what cars went along with what time period, for how long they were sold, etc. They also fit well at the ends of the articles, because it sums the subject up, and leads the reader to different articles that might help them figure out what they're looking for. I say keep 'em. _VonShroom 02:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)_

I think they should stay. So long as they are shoved down to the foot of the article so the don't interfere with the flow of the thing - and so long as they are properly templated so they don't take up disk space each time they are invoked - then I can see no problem with them. They are occasionally useful - especially in articles about cars and car companies that have a really complicated history. The Category system is a pretty ugly mechanism by comparison and a non-scientific poll of Wikipedia using friends suggests that nobody outside of Wikipedians actually uses them. SteveBaker 04:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I like having those there. It's nice to be able to see a marque's full line by size and age, those templates are very useful for navigation. Granted, the articles I work on generally only need one template and they're usually pretty neat. When there's three or four, I can see how they get cumbersome. --Sable232 05:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They should stay on the car articles. Using them a user can go from reading about one car to reading about another, w/o having to click his way through. Besides they only take up a couple of KBs. Signature^brendel 05:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say they're fine as navigational tools if there aren't too many of them, although I dislike timelines myself -- they expand horizontally instead of vertically while the pages themselves are of course the opposite, and a lot of them seem to be very region-centric, a problem so endemic on WP that there's a Wikiproject devoted to countering it (see Systemic bias).

Anyhoo, if enough people are complaining, there's nothing to stop templates being hidden. I believe that happens by default when there's more than three on a page (though I'd have to check), but you can force-hide templates by embedding the appropriate code. --DeLarge 13:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think things which require to be scrolled past are no big deal. Excessive scrolling is bad, but a table or timeline is easier to follow than awkwardly worded paragraphs trying to convey the same information.

My personal hate is pages with large numbers of infoboxes, which preclude the safe use of other thumbnail illustrations for fear of squeezing the text — and also, which are often vertically separated from the prose about the model they refer to anyway. In fact I've always thought it would be nice to have a horizontal infobox at the start of each model or generation's section! – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

While I do agree that navigational templates do serve a purpose and it is rather counterproductive to get rid of them, there are two issues that would be worth looking into:

1. The quality and content of the templates themselves - I tend to agree that e.g. VW articles tend to become rather clumsy with no less than three templates at the end of most (for Europe, North and South American markets). Same goes for those unfortunate models that get caught between templates (say, a car made 1966-1974 when the brand has "until 1970" and "after 1970" templates). The first solution that came to mind would be "collapsible" templates (using the "show/hide" function) containing all possible markets/timelines and even a more simplified listing of models (sometimes I find that preferable, a la the old Chevrolet and Opel templates). I was also thinking of a solution for "multibrand" article (i.e. articles on a car sold under many different brands and thus requiring multiple brand templates). Perhaps "signposts" like "see the Chevrolet car timeline", "see the Opel car timeline" etc. might come in handy...
2. The excessively long infoboxes - this really causes a lot of layout/display issues. I believe we can really do without some fields, especially concerning dimensions other than the usual w*h*l*wheelbase, as well as assembly/manufacturing sites. I was also wondering whether it wouldn't make more sense to present data on engines and transmissions in separate tables, which would also have the added benefit of possibly providing info on available engine-transmission combinations. It would be nice to have a template for that rather than the ugly gray table - but then again, it might be hard to make it display correctly vis a vis an infobox... I am not that keen on horizontal infoboxes, the present text-with-infobox-aside layout looks really neat and clear to me.

What do you guys think? PrinceGloria 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that articles with lots of infoboxes look ugly - especially when the infobox gets longer than the text that goes next to it (which happens a lot on wide, high resolution monitors). I'm not sure how to handle that. Horizontal inforboxes would make it go away - but I think they'd be pretty ugly and wouldn't fit with the infoboxes that so many subject areas of Wikipedia deal with. I guess as an ideal, I'd like to see the first/main infobox always look like it does now - and to condense all of the others (without photos) into some kind of templated table. In an ideal world, there would be enough text to make sure that multiple infoboxes and photos didn't collide - but sadly, it's a lot easier to stuff some facts from the car's brochure into an infobox than it is two write a lot of compelling prose - so many of our articles suffer from that problem. Part of the issue is inherent in Wiki's markup language. What you'd really like to say is something like "When the browser window is wider than such-and-such, then place photos on the far right and text within the infobox just to the left of the photo - but when the window is narrower, put images at the top of the infoboxes with the text beneath it." -- In that way, on browser windows with plenty of width, you'd narrow the text significantly by making this new 'side-by-side' infobox eat up width. That would both shorten the vertical extent of the infobox and scrunch up the article's main text so it would take up more vertical space. But on narrow browser windows, that would be disasterous because there is already insufficient horizontal space for infobox and text. So infoboxes that were sensitive to the window size would be the ultimate answer. SteveBaker 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

1. About infoboxes: I've been doing the best I can to keep them aligned with the relevant text. If that means removing more obvious things like "layout", I do it. (of course, the best way is to have more prose!) The goal is to keep infoboxes as short as possible. I see them as a quick overview of important statistics.
2. About timelines: Most American marques have two templates, one that goes from 1945 to 1989 and one that goes from 1980 to (at the moment) 2009. This way there's less likelihood that there would need to be two templates (on a single-market vehicle).

I see both of these as necessary items. We just need to find the best way to use them. It looks to be much easier in my area though. --Sable232 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Well, OK - but we need standards as to what how to keep infoboxes shorter. More specifically - we need to simply prune some infobox fields that would be better served by a description in the article's body. PrinceGloria 05:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Chevrolet - I cleaned up this timeline template because of some concerns above. Unfortunately a known vandal who is also a possible sockpuppet of Teddy.Coughlin has been reverting. He has refused to give an explanation, and appealed on the talk page for someone to revert for him. Just a heads-up for now, but we do need a consensus on timeline format. --Sable232 18:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would remove the engine list from infoboxes and collapse the length/width/height/wheelbase in one single field, as I did in the Spanish-language Wikipedia. I also "love" tîmelines (that's why I do and maintain them), but I thought of moving them to categories. If almost everyone likes them in model articles, then let's keep them.

About sandwiched moedls, almost every timeline has a ten year overlapping. In old marques, this can be a problem because you may need three templates to cover the whole time span. But I think that's not that bad, is it?

I also did timelines by size (rather European, i.e. city car, supermini, small family car, large family car, compact exec, executive car and full-size/large executive car). If you agree to add them to all classification articles and categories (not model articles!), I'll do it. -- NaBUru38 17:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to any example of this single l/w/h/w field in the Spanish Wikipedia? I cannot find one, but I admit to only have checked out a few articles... PrinceGloria 05:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding timelines, a simple solution to prevent them from wasting page space on the articles named in the original post would be to use collapsible templates. This way on articles with only one timeline, the timeline would display, but on other articles the reader would see a short section containing the timelines and would be able to open one of his or her choosing. Playing around I discovered how to get this to work, and an example can be seen at User:Denimmonkey/Template:Buick. As long as there are no disagreements, I'll get started converting timelines over to that format. -- Denimmonkey 05:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, obviously (I guess I have suggested that above anyway), I am just worried whether it is clear enough that the template is expandable to inexperience Wikipedia users - i.e. perhaps we could make the feature more clear without making it overly garish? While we are at it - perhaps somebody would want to experiment on creating a more "elegant" form of the timeline than the usual gray table we have now? PrinceGloria 05:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The page on the Citroen Traction Avant seems very "Francophile" as it neglects to mention the DKWs of the early 1930s. The statement that it was the first large scale production FWD is wrong in this respect and contradicts other articles on FWDs. The DKW F(numbers 1....n) models are not listed in the list of FWD vehicles either. I assume there are other similar inconsistencies. Wouldn't it be possible to construct a bot (I am not competent in such software designs) to collect all FWDs mentioned in other articles and use it to reconstruct the list with links to the article. I attempted to edit the list manually but somehow didn't get access to it at all. GernotHir 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A small thing, but just noting this here in case anybody is following it up, since it's vaguely in the same topic: a similar problem sometimes affects the Renault 16 which people sometimes claim was "the first ever hatchback". If we come up with any clever "which came first" solutions, it'd be nice to apply them globally to hatchback as well as front-wheel drive. – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a good article I came across, although it was very hard to find: U.S. Automobile Production Figures. Does anyone have any sources to support this information? I would hate to loose this info. Also, is there anyway to tie this site to Automobile production statistics. Also some overlap, common data: List of automobile manufacturers. Here is a article with sources, similar data List of automobiles by sales.

FYI, just had to share this. You can find almost anything on Wiki: New car smell, you've got to love it. --Drussel3 14:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done the best I can. See User:Sable232/Standards. It's awfully short, but I really cant see how much more there can be. It definitely needs a lot of work.

I'll be busy this weekend and I don't know how often I'll be able to get on here.

Debate away. --Sable232 15:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the admins don't give a rat's ass about this. An admin said there needed to be more evidence. When I pointed out that there is no evidence because it's all been deleted, the case just got closed. I guess this project just isn't important enough for anyone to care. --Sable232 18:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in the middle of a major revamp of the Cadillac CTS article. I will have to stop for now, but I will restart later. During this time, please go ahead and make fixes to the article you feel are necessary, and feel free to give me ideas on how I can improve this article. Karrmann 18:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Could a few users with opinions please visit the Nissan Maxima talk page? Thank you. IFCAR 18:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I need help with a title for the following autos I want to add to the system. Below is the description I will adding. Naming convention of Detroit (1904 automobile) will not work, seeing they both started in 1904. ANY SUGGESTED TITLES???

Detroit - The Detroit was an automobile manufactured in Detroit, Michigan by the Wheeler Manufacturing Company in 1904. The Detroit was a five-seater tonneau with an entrance in the rear. It had a 35 hp opposed two-cylinder engine, claimed to produce 35 mph. It had a removeable wood top, and was offered in either red or green, with yellow running gear.

Detroit - The Detroit was an automobile manufactured in Romeo, Michigan by the Detroit Auto Vehicle Company from 1904-08. The car was offered as a two-seater runabout or a five-seater tourer. The engine in the vehicle was a two-cylinder rated at 22/24 hp. --Drussel3 15:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't the fist be called "Wheeler Detroit"? // Liftarn

Browsing existing articles would actually tend to suggest Detroit (Wheeler Manufacturing Company) or similar (I am not sure which standard/convention dictates that), but I guess with the amount of content on both subjects above, I would simply add them to the articles on the companies and perhaps a link to both from Detroit (disambiguation). PrinceGloria 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to work on getting the article Range Rover Classic up to GA status, but I feel the long "History" section just feels unnatural (I wrote it so it's my fault). Does anyone else think it would be better to break down the various historical details into sections like "Design", "Engines", "Off road", etc etc? I'm liking it better myself but I thought it profitable to get more opinions on it. With love, Lewis Collard 01:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say I that, first of all, I am really surprised by the sole existence of this article. I mean, for the most part of RR's history, the "Classic" and its successors WERE the Range Rover, so why in the world would one keep them separate - and have to repeat the same story twice? Except for the need to keep Range Rover Sport separate, I see no need for keeping separate articles on different RR models. I do understand you might not want to bother with later RR editions, but sensible article structuring has to take precedence over editor preference ;)

While we are at it - please note that the contents of the "Range Rover Classic today" section in general violate the standards of this WikiProject (even if we are just putting them down) - in general, articles should not discuss the maintenance or modifications of a given model.

Just as a sidenote - the naming of the article as "Range Rover Classic" is incorrect, as this name was only used towards the end of the model's long lifecycle. It would be like calling the article on the Opel Astra A Opel Astra Classic. The sensible way would be digging out some internal model/platform code (such as P38A in the case of the successor) and appllying it. That said, I still fail to see the need for a separate article given that the model and brand are the same. PrinceGloria 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, the seperation between a "Land Rover Classic" and a new Land Rover seems to be completely OR. I have never heard of a "Land Rover" classic-as far as I know there has always been one Land Rover, manufactured under several parent companies but wearing the same nameplate. Signature^brendel 05:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We're still talking RANGE Rover here, aren't we? PrinceGloria 05:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant Range Rover, not Land Rover- sorry. Signature^brendel 14:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Price, naming an article Range Rover Classic is not appropriate. The name was applied to previous generation models (both the first and second generations) only in the end of their lifecycles, and when overlapping in the model line-up with its successor. Apart from that, it's also been used a specification level. The RR platform names might not be recognizable for some users, if we needs to have separate articles I recommend splitting them by names such as "First generation", "Mark I" or by production years (not model years though). --Pc13 10:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How PrinceGloria can say separation between it and later ones by referring to the former as a "Classic" is "completely OR" completely baffles me. Land Rover themselves called it that, and still do. Go pick up the referenced manuals if you don't believe me, or pick up any Land Rover parts catalogue. It's not a name that I've pulled out of a hat, and the name would be instantly recognisable to anyone that has read any of the Land Rover literature since about 1995. You could rename Range Rover Sport to Range Rover (third generation with a cool supercharged Jaguar V8), and make just about as much sense since there might be someone, somewhere who has never seen the "Sport" badge and might not recognise the name.

Pc13, the claim that "the name was applied to previous generation models (both the first and second generations) only in the end of their lifecycles" (emphasis added) is incorrect. AFAIK the only vehicle that is referred to by Land Rover (and, again, by anyone else) as a capital-C "Classic" is the one built from 1970 to 1996 (yes, they applied the name retroactively to all first-generation ones, but that's not important). The second generation Range Rover is either called "the second generation Range Rover", or a "(P)38A", never as a "Classic".

With that said, renaming it to "Range Rover (first generation)" wouldn't be a bad idea at all; my point is merely that the justifications offered thus far are weak.

Also, the "Today" section has been nuked, as suggested. :) Lewis Collard 16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It was Brendel Signature who said it's OR, not me - I am perfectly aware of the fact that the original RR was called "Classic" in its last two seasons or so. That said, the convention is to use the vehicle's original name or the article - so for example the Talbot 1610 is to be found under Chrysler 180. That said, I still don't see why should we have two parallel articles on the history of Range Rover and the Range Rover.

Now, as concerns article naming and referring to models - I just wanted to propose this as a formal guideline to give precedence to names and internal codes used by the manufacturer, as they are clear and unambigious. For example, "fifth-generation Passat" might be understood differently with people familiar with different lineages of the Passat (some peopl e.g. understand a major facelift as "new" generation, while in some markets some generations were skipped altogether), but a "B5 Passat" is unambigious. Of course, some readers might not be that familiar with those codes and all, but at the end of the day you reach to an encyclopedia to learn :D PrinceGloria 16:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoah! I got the comments confused. That was entirely my mistake, and I'm quite sorry. And I'm entirely in agreement that the manufacturer's name should take precedent. As for having two parallel articles on the history of the vehicle, yes, it's largely redundant, and this is actually pertinent to my original question... Lewis Collard 17:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"I am perfectly aware of the fact that the original RR was called "Classic" in its last two seasons or so."- That is fine, but is the article only about "the RR in its last two seasons or so?" If it isn't the article should be called Range Rover, as the vehicle was called. As for the Passat examples, chassis codes and the like are actually already used (example: Mercedes-Benz W140, etc...) and might be a good idea here. Signature^brendel 23:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You might have misunderstood. In the last two seasons of its production, Land Rover called all first-generation Range Rovers from 1970 by that name, and still do to this day. So it's an appropriate name for the article. Lewis Collard 00:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, the adopted convention is to use the name for the vehicle adopted at the beginning rather than the end of its market life - be it a marketing name or some internal designation like "W140" (which was assigned to the model yet in its development phase). Now, this is all rather irrelevant, as I think we all agree there is no reason to split the Range Rover history in two. PrinceGloria 00:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for separate articles, or just separate histories? I'm all for reducing "History" into sections about specific aspects of the car (that was, lest we forget, the question that opened this discussion). Lewis Collard 01:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me try and understand this correctly. The Range Rover was sold as the Range Rover from 1970 on. But upon introduction of the "new" Range Rover, Land Rover decided to call all the other previously sold Ranger Rovers, Classic Range Rovers? So upon introduction of the new RR, the previous RRs became Classic RRs according to LR. If such is the case, then no there doesn't seem to be any OR. Signature^brendel 06:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wee, look at that indentation! ;) Yes, that's completely correct. Lewis Collard 14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I still believe there is no reason to maintain two separate articles, as the history of the vehicle was the history of the brand for the vast majority of the time both exist. PrinceGloria 21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and it's no longer a history, but an overview of the vehicle's features. Interesting historical material has been merged into Range Rover. Better? Lewis Collard 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And again, I still believe there is no reason for a separate article.... That said, congrats on a good job! PrinceGloria 02:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As we all know, most Japanese car articles, especially those dealing with cars sold in North America, are a total mess. I have just made a small attempt at changing the American-only orientation of the Honda Accord article using my own knowledge and the Japanese Wiki (via Google Translate, I don't know Japanese that well, but I recommend this as a wonderful pastime, you will have a good laugh). Anyway, it is now still a pile of rubbish and perhaps even more convulted due to main body still being oriented towards the USDM Accords, in quite deep detail (btw, do we really need to know in what way was an LX different from an EX etc.?), interspersed by mentions of other market versions. I would gladly appreciate all possible help in turning this into a proper article covering the rather intricate history of this nameplate in its various market. Regards, PrinceGloria 10:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. I have also placed a merger request on the stubby Honda Accord (European) article, which is a remainder of the aborted attempt to split the article according to markets, which didn't make much sense anyway.

It's complicated to split the Honda Accord into regional articles, because not all generations had specific models for specific markets. eg the current European Accord is nearly identical to the Japanese Accord, while the North American Accord (which is also the South American, Australian and Southeast Asian Accord) is based on the Honda Inspire. For the generation before the current one, Japan, Europe and North America had different bodies and designs. And two generations ago I'm not entirely sure. --Pc13 20:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why I am saying this makes little sense to split the article that way and advocate a merge of the remaining one back into the main Honda Accord - and also call for some more effort to brush up the mess the latter currently is.

BTW, the current North American Accord is actually not based on the Honda Inspire, but the other way around - the Honda Inspire nameplate is now used in the JDM market for the imported USDM Accord, which became a model wholly developed and manufactured in North America. PrinceGloria 20:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the current JDM Inspire is made in Japan, with unique centre console design as well as option of items such as Lane Departure Warning System & Active Cruise Control.Senna6094 07:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that (production in Japan), globalautoindex says otherwise. PrinceGloria 08:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

An S-Class owner keeps adding a "reliability" section to the W220 section of the Mercedes-Benz S-Class, making broad, sweeping statements about how the car is "unreliable" and an "embarrassment" to Mercedes-Benz. I have removed his additions and explained why, but he just keeps adding it back in. Could some of you just keep an eye on this page to make sure it stays factual? I feel like all I ever do on this site anymore is revert vandlism. Jagvar 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Watchlisted here. :) Lewis Collard 01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Collard. I'm glad you toned down his language, but I'm just not sure that anything he wrote should stay. He cites Consumer Reports as his resource (a bit weak), and frankly, I don't see how the S-Class' reliability issues are in any way remarkable. If you want to claim that any car is "unreliable," I'm sure you can find quotes in Consumer Guide or a similar publication to support your POV. I think the whole section should just go. Thoughts? Jagvar 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete this one-sentence "section." The statement that one particular Consumer Reports article found the S-Class to have poor reliability can be built in somewhere else. Such mention should not, however, constitute more than one sentence as it is quite unremarkable. Signature^brendel 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely in agreement with the above. The material should stay (and be toned down, as per me) since it is properly sourced and pertinent. But it definitely does not merit its own section. Lewis Collard 14:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I still believe, however, some information, however well sourced, has no place in automotive articles and "reliability info" belongs there. Besides Consumer Reports, there are many more organizations and companies compiling their own reliability statistics, and theoretically we would have to leave the door open to each and ever of them. Imagine how would the articles look if we allowed all of that, and while we are at that, why not quote prices for every market, maintenance/spare parts costs, paint codes etc. There are external sources the readers can go to for their reliability data, just like for many other verifiable data we do not include, so I think we should limit the inclusion of information on reliability to cases where it is really "notable". PrinceGloria 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And in general, you will find far more "sources" for a car being unreliable than for a car being "exceptionally reliable." In fact, what does that mean? A car is "reliable." So? Reliable in that you can drive it for three years with no maintenance? I find that most of the time, when a (used) car is considered unreliable, it is because of lack of maintnenance. The Ford AXOD transmission is notoriously weak, but I'm willing to bet that very few people actually change the fluid often enough. --Sable232 05:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, since this seems to be at the heart of what's going on at the S-Class page, I thought I'd get a consensus. This person who keeps adding "reliability" sections to the S-Class page (heavily laced with opinion and broad, sweeping statements, which I have edited) keeps insisting that the information belongs on Wikipedia because it appears in Consumer Reports. This is what I told him when he complained about my edits:

"I am just as diligent about making sure that the positive opinions are removed from the page as well as the negative ones. "Reliability" sections are almost always removed in any automotive article because they are just too iffy. All cars have reliability issues. Frankly, I don't see anything particularly significant about the S-Class' reliability issues. A search of Consumer Reports will yield reliability concerns with the BMW 7 Series and Jaguar XJ as well. Now, if the issue of reliability was so enormous that it caused the car to be pulled from production (i.e. the Ford Pinto), THEN it would make sense to dedicate a section of an encyclopedia article to reliability. And even then, you would need concrete statistical data (for example, there were 27 documented deaths attributed to the Pinto's design flaw). If you don't cite statistics, you are not citing measureable data.

Also, Consumer Reports is not the definitive resource on automobiles. It is a publication which offers reviews, and as such can't be considered a concrete resource on its own. Quotes from Consumer Reports are best used to support more objective sources like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."

What are your thoughts? Should we start allowing "reliability" sections in automotive articles? If we do, I feel like we're opening the door for a lot of blatant opinions and information that is poorly cited, if at all. Jagvar 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree that Wikipedia is not Consumer Guide or any other buyer's advice, and just as well it is not a place to cite anybody's opinions. ANY opinions, be them positive or negative, are in general out of place in WP articles. I encourage you to visit User:Sable232/Standards, where Sable232 was kind enough to lay out his proposition for what we urgently need - a set of convention and standards for automobile articles. I was the first, and, as of now, the only one to leave some comments on the talk page, but I hope that soon more members of the WikiProject will join the discussion! PrinceGloria 07:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree that Wikipedia should never contain opinions. However, they can't be your opinions, they have to be from a published source. Think about Wal Mart for example. Many people dislike their business practices for a variety of reasons. That's an opinion, but one that is held by a number of organizations such as Wal Mart Watch. I can't see Wikipedia being fair if we exclude this kind of information. The same is true here, if a car is extremely unreliable, that is certainly worth mentioning, if only to say: In Consumer Reports' annual auto survey of 1,100,000 subscribers, the Mercedes S-class received a rating of "Much worse than average". That's just reporting what they said, and nothing more. You should certainly not say that the car was a disgrace to the company or something blatant like that. I know some people don't like CR, but you cannot discard a source just because you don't like their findings. It's just one source. If you can find a published source that says the S-Class is the most reliable car ever, add it! I do agree that CR is not the definitive source when it comes to cars. That being said they do have the advantage that they actually buy cars off the lot and aren't paid by the manufacturer to test and report back a positive opinion. We just need to avoid all the original research that people put in based on their personal opinions and experiences. That kind of thing plagues Auto pages more than anything. As far as being a "buyers guide", yes I agree that Wikipedia should not serve that function. This would include statements such as: the GL trim line has optional power windows, while that feature is standard on the GLS and all of these sorts of things. Best, --Analogue Kid 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, including opinions in encyclopedic articles IS inappropriate, and it is strictly against Wikipedia policies to do so. That said, both Consumer Reports' survey results and the existence of WalMart criticism are facts - but the inclusion of those depends on more specific guidelines, policies, standards and conventions. One easy rule of a thumb is the sunject's notability - some aspects of WalMart criticism seem quite prominent to me, but then any company in the world is bound to be subject of criticism, so I am not a fan of sprawling "criticism" sections in all articles.

As concerns Consumer Reports and reliability, see the Mercedes S-Klasse section for my take on that. Regards, PrinceGloria 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I like how that was handled. Some cars may be consistently judged unreliable, while others may have a difference of opinion depending on the source. We just have to be watchful for and individual who says well I had X car and it gave me nothing but problems so therefore the car is terribly unreliable. --Analogue Kid 01:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On a closley related subject, I was thinking of adding things like "traditional rust sport", "common faults" and so on (sourced ofcourse), but judging from this discussion it wouldn't be a good idea. Am I right? // Liftarn

I'd say no; aside from these discussions, I think that'd be really really close to violating Wikipedia is not...an instruction manual. We're not writing a guide to looking after your car here.

The trouble with any kind of "reliability" section is that it's not really a characteristic of the car per se. When talking about the S-Class we can state that every S-Class is a certain length, a certain width, a certain shape, is powered by one of several specific powertrains, etc etc. But as far as reliability goes, all we can say is that some owners have reported some faults and that if you buy one you're slightly more likely to find something wrong with it than an S-Class buyer 20 years ago. That seems a bit vague and woolly for an encyclopedia to me. However, that said, if the Consumer Reports data can be supported by a second source (it can -- it's mentioned at JD Power, for example), then it meets WP:ATT and can be included; albeit not in its own dedicated section, which reeks of propoganda/advocacy. --DeLarge 07:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was thinkg of something like "Rust usually forms around the wheel arches and the lower part of the door, earlo models had problem with oil sludge...", but yes, it's a bit of a "buyer's guide" when looking for a used car. // Liftarn

I am tempted to allow myself to have the perverse pleasure of digging out each and every reliability statistic on the S-Klasse and put it into the article just to show you where it leads... Again, I strictly DISAGREE to include Consumer Reports reliability records in any form in WP articles, just like TÜV, ADAC, Dekra, Warranty Direct etc. PrinceGloria 09:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's all in the phrasing. I'm for including a statement (for example) that J.D. Power gave a car X out of X stars, as long as nothing is inferred from that. I.E. one should never write "This car is a good bet when looking for a used car". If we're just stating facts as they were originally reported and attributing them to a source, the reader can take it for what it is and nothing more. I don't like the idea of saying rust usually forms wherever. It would be difficult to find a reliable source to attribute something that specific to. Basically, we just can't get on a soapbox. It makes me slightly uneasy though that we would exclude something negative (or positive) pertaining to any article on Wiki. That seems like censoring, and of course Wikipedia is not censored.--Analogue Kid 12:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(butting in with a reply to Analogue Kind) - it's not about deriving NPOV comments, it's about including data that is verifiable, but not that "notable". There is a host of verifiable info we do not mention in every article, e.g. what kind of glazing the car had, who supplied the suspension coil springs and struts etc. I believe that when we decide to include reliability info in non-notable cases, we have to allow all kinds of those, and there are dozens of organizations offering verifiable reliability statistics - not to mention many cars are sold in different markets, so you'd get that multiplied many times (e.g. JD Power scores for the UK not always mirror those for the US, same for Warranty Direct). Quoting all of them would swamp the article with irrelevant data the reader can find elsewhere - just like many other data not included in the articles, like paint codes ;) Besides, allowing people to include selected relaibility stats (as I guess nobody would ever bother to dig out all available) will lead to accusations of partiality (some stats are favorable, som not, for the model) and fervent conflicts.

Unfortunately, an encyclopedia is about being dry, and sometimes not very amusing. You will not find any info on whether President Clinton or saffron are good or bad in an encyclopedia. You will only find some basic facts there, for more info, you have to look elsewhere... PrinceGloria 13:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are reliable sources for various things. Traditional rustspots is for instance rarley controversial. Data for how much rust can be collected from vehicle inspection statistics. It should be no more problem than mentioning how safe a vehicle is based on how well it did in various tests. // Liftarn

OK, so the way I'm understanding your point is that reliability stats are not "notable" enough to be included in an article, yes? I understand that concern (I've certainly removed a lot of trivia in my day), but there are times when I would think it is very notable. For example, Hyundai developed a very bad reputation in the USA due to the poor quality of its cars (as measured by a variety of sources). This lead to poor sales. I think that is certainly worth mentioning. I suppose if the car had merely "average" reliability, it isn't that notable and there isn't much point in including it. However, things that are far outside the norm (good or bad) definitely deserve mention, in my humble opinion.--Analogue Kid 14:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think such statements are very hard to verify by referencing to reliable sources. I really think that reliability can only be mentioned if a number of secondary, reliable sources (and no, this does not include Jeremy Clarkson :D ), agree that it was an important issue for the vehicle (not that it isn't an important issue overall for cars). Almost every models differs from the average in a positive or negative way, and delving into that would bring about more problems than advantages. PrinceGloria 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As a lot of you probably realised Maserati MC12 was on the main page yesterday and so it was edited by many. One significant change is that the info about the transmission/gearbox was moved from the "chassis" section to the "engine" section. I always thought of the transmission and suspension and such as part of the chassis. Really I would say the engine is also part of the chassis, but it's enough to warrant it's own section. My question is am I being "over-protective" to move the info back to the chassis section? Basically undoing this edit? Should it stay in the engine section? James086^{Talk | Email} 08:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The transmission and suspension are not really part of the chassis. But the transmission isn't really the engine, either. :) Something like "Drivetrain" might be appropriate for engine and transmission. Though if you think there's enough information on them to stop the sections being too short, then "Transmission" might well merit its own section. Lewis Collard 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd move it back to the old section, and rename it "Drivetrain" or "Powertrain". --DeLarge 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That leaves the problem of the suspension and chassis. I could rename the engine section Drivetrain/Powertrain and include the transmission. Then it would be as it is now, but the chassis section should probably be renamed, I always thought of the suspension as part of the chassis which is why I put it there to start. James086^{Talk | Email} 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd usually put chassis and suspension together and engine and transmission together. Although of course they can all be changed independently of each other, so perhaps they should all have seperate sections! 4u1e 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One of our templates is up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_25#Template:Concept_automobile to review and comment. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This template has been a pet peeve of miny for quite some time now, so it would be great to finally see it go! PrinceGloria 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi all! I've been working hard updating the article on the Volkswagen Jetta. As with many automobile articles, it was previously not well organized, laced with opinions, and focused almost exclusively on the USA. It rightfully had a "globalize" tag on it, but I'm confident with my re-write that it no longer deserves it. I basically re-wrote the entire article, see: Page compairision. To summarize, I cleaned up the infoboxes, added engines that were missing, got rid of the tedious region specific trim line information, removed trivia, added many many citations, corrected numerous factual errors, use proper and consistant units of measure, added history, and the like. I'm pretty much done with the heavy editing at this point, so I'd appreciate it if a few people would take a look and offer any suggestions as to how it could further be improved. Thanks.--Analogue Kid 16:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I love the photograph you've added to the infobox! We need more images like that. Jagvar 20:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! That's my car actually. So is the red Mark 2 (or it was before I sold it). --Analogue Kid 20:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like quite an effort on your part! That said, I think there is still a lot to be done, but rather than babbling about it I intend to just get down to work on the article in due course. Oh, and I also absolutely love the photo! PrinceGloria 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Impressive, I've never seen someone buy a car so they could put a photo of it in their article. That's dedication to the Wiki, keep it up ;) I'll make some suggestions on the talk page so you don't need to check here all the time. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, after reading all the bit about paint codes I was going to go through the Toyota Supra article and organize the video games section and just create a "Toyota supra in popular culture" section. As I went over the page and re-read it.. I noticed the 1985-1986 section is missing. I thought to myself "that's strange, i don't recall it getting deleted in the past". So I went to edit and as I looked in the edit box and I saw plain as day ===1985-1986=== was in there. I got sidetracked from the popular culture thing and tried to investigate why it's not displaying on the actual article. I went through edits all the way till the beginning of January and _even then_ it seems it was not displaying. I've given up for the night as my eyes are burning... But if anyone else could continue or try to figure out what the deal is with it not displaying it would be really awesome. ren0^talk 07:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing slash in a ref tag. Sorted. --DeLarge 08:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A request from a WP:F1 member - can anyone advise in which article a description of a suspension top link should be covered? Ideally I need a link to it from Brabham BT19. A fairly common rear suspension set up for racing cars in the 1960s was a reverse lower wishbone, top link and two radius arms. That sounds to me like a crude multi-link suspension, so perhap the top link should be covered there. Equally I would suspect that it's just a form of control arm, but that article seems to be completely focussed on wisbones (wider at the base). Anyone got a suggestion as to where it should be covered (I'm only looking to add a line or two). Cheers. 4u1e 22:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to address this little detail, but the section on the Aston Martin DBS is incomplete.

The DBS V8 was conceived by Aston Martin around 1965 as the successor to the DB6. The car was to have a quad cam V8 Engine designed by Aston Martin's Tadek Marek. The body design and tooling was ready by 1968 but the engine had revealed some reliability problems during endurance testing at Le Mans. Commercial pressures being what they were, it was decided to release the "DBS" using an upgraded 4 litre version of WO Bentley's famous twin cam straight six.

By 1969 the V8 engine was ready and the DBS V8 was released, having upgraded brakes, quad cam 5340 cc V8 with Bosch Mechanical fuel injection, and a ZF five speed transmission. Autocar magazine tested a DBS V8 on the then un-opened M25 around London recording a two way average speed of 161mph, making it the fastest production car they had tested to date.

For a time during 1970 AM it was possible to order a DB6, a DBS, or a DBS V8, very unusual indeed given that AM had only ever produced one model at any time, notwithstanding the variants (Vantage & Volante)

405 Aston Martin DBS V8s were built up until 1972 when David Brown lost control of the company. The body styling was changed to a single headlight and the cars were designated "Aston Martin V8". Tadek Marek's V8 engine lasted for many years and the supercharged 550bhp engine used in the V8 Zagato in the mid 1990s was the same basic unit.

Holger Lubotzki 202.78.22.129 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that in the McLaren F1 article, there is a section listing every F1 made and who owns it. Now I don't know if this is encyclopedic or not, so I want a second opinion. I knida want to purge it, but that is just me. Karrmann 04:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If it was referenced, it could be dealt with by a link in the EL section (the QV500 link is closest). I'd prune the list (citing WP:NOT and WP:ATT), and while you're there, I'd get rid of most of the external links as per WP:EL; only the first, last and QV500 offer any value at all. --DeLarge 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I'd go further. Trivia? Reference it or remove it. Bugatti performance figures? Should be at the Bugatti Veyron page, not here. The F1's figures aren't at Jaguar XJ220, and the XJ220's stats aren't at Ferrari F40 (although some RUF nut has shoehorned a reference to their car in to that page). This is an encyclopedia article, not a "I'm a Bugatti fanboi and my car beats yours" site. --DeLarge 10:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason or rhyme to why so many photos have the license plate blacked out? I personally find it somewhat ridiculous. We drive around all the time, and it's hanging out there for all to see. Additionally, a search of government records could probably turn it up anyway. So "privacy" seems a bit of a stretch. Besides that, it makes the photo look tacky because nine times out of ten, the chop job on the license plate is poorly executed. And Wikipedia is not censored, after all. I would almost say that no plates is better than plates that have had a digital chop job.

I own the Sable pictured in Image:Mercury Sable Wagon (2004).jpg, and the license plate is just hanging out there, fully legible. I saw no particular reason why to black out the plates for the reasons mentioned above, and if nothing else, I paid for custom plates, which indicates some desire for the tag to be seen.

Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One good reason not to show the number plate of a vehicle is that in some countries which use ANPR cameras for the enforcement of various road and traffic regulations, number plate cloning is becoming a serious inconvenience, and pictures of cars with plates in view are a gift to plate cloners. -- de Facto (talk). 18:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous! Such people can walk through any parking lot and get a thousand of 'em - why the heck would they be searching Wikipedia? I don't believe there is a good reason to blank plates - and it certainly detracts from the look of the photo. I firmly believe that our policy should be that if the owner of the vehicle specifically asks for the plate to be blanked - so be it, we do it without complaint in order to get the shot - but if they don't expressly ask us to - we shouldn't even offer them the option. It's so bizarre - people get upset about photos of their publically viewable license plates - then go and get their VIN numbers (which are much more valuable to the bad guys) etched into their window glass! SteveBaker 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that there are a wide variety of ways in Photoshop to obscure plate numbers, and some definitely distract less than others. (eg. if the same color and "texture" is left, then it doesn't pop out in your peripheral vision like a big black box does. Or, a photoshopper can replace the current numbers with decent-looking fake ones, given enough time) So if a car owner specifically requests it, it would be good to either take care obscuring the number, or request here or the graphics lab for someone else to do it. But otherwise, I agree with SteveBaker. --Interiot 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the parking-lot shots taken by IFCAR have Mayland plates on them, which are white. The numbers on those are blanked out to blend perfectly with the white background of the plate, so I don't see why this is a problem. Most other states have mostly white plates as well, and even if they don't it can't be that hard to blank them out without making them look bad. Heck, the retouch feature in iPhoto can do it. I do agree that a black box slapped on there looks bad.

As for owner-taken shots, it seems most people just remove the front plate anyway. --Sable232 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Schumin, I agree with you completely that it's a ridiculous concern. But many people seem to be paranoid about any personal information on the internet, and if censoring their license plate numbers puts them at ease, then why not?

There are a few stylized plates that don't look good with the numbers removed, though. IFCAR 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If the owner requests it then it should be blacked out, otherwise I think it is just detrimental. Even if the number plate is whited (or matched to the background colour), it often looks a bit off. For example this image is a great car pic, but the blanked number plate is offputting. Replacement with a false number plate is an option, but expensive (not $ but effort). I don't see a problem with showing them because there are hundreds of car websites with images of number plates, and as SteveBaker suggested, wouldn't a car-park be a much better place to get number plates? James086^{Talk | Email} 23:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I usually take Quebec cars, and they`ve only got license plates at the rear. On Ontario plates, they`re also at the front as well, and I black `em out. As with Karrmann, he should start doin` it, at least for Ontario plates. Karrmann photographs Michigan cars, but in Michigan, they've also only got license plates at the rear. Karrmmann, however, is from Michigan. -- Bull-Doser 19:57, 29 April 2007 (EST)

I heard an unsubstantiated rumor that it is illegal in Germany to photograph with the license plate showing and upload it to the internet. I could be wrong, but it's worth a look. Violating international law would be a good reason to blank out the plates. Anyway, if your taking a picture of someone elses car (as so many on here do), it's just bad form not to blank out the plate. As long as people do a good job of blanking out the plate and don't put some background that doesn't match, then this is really a non-issue.--Analogue Kid 00:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In theory they could be of help to car thieves looking for a specific model. It's unlikley and those who have that rare cars probably knows how to protect them. If a blanked out plate looks to blank you could put something on it. Like this. But privacy is a good reason to blank out plates. // Liftarn

I think it's not a "ridiculous" concern – that's offensive, anyway, because it belittles the opinions of those who simply *are* concerned – however, it's much more reasonable to call it a "minor" concern ;-) But as Liftarn says above, plates could help criminals searching for a particular model, and indeed particular colour, to help them evade speeding tickets for example, not just by cloning the plate, but perhaps when filling in certain kinds of documentation. We don't know all the scenarios. Might as well be safe. What's the argument against blanking the plates? Is it anything more than that we're too lazy to bother? – Kieran T ^(talk) 08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Privacy, and fear of cloning, is a big issue in the UK. Newspapers and television are increasingly blurring the number plates of vehicles in shot. I think plates should only be shown with explicit permission, and only if they are "personal" plates and likely to remain with the person giving permission. In the UK, generally, plates stay with the vehicle, not the person, so permission from the current owner could, theoretically, compromise a future owner. The default should be to black them out. -- de Facto (talk). 08:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that showing German number plates is illegal, there's no mention of it in German car number plates and in the [German Wikipedia article there is actually a photo of a car with plates. I think the reason the media do it is because their story is a controversial subject (it also looks dramatic ;) ) so if they did have a number plate the person could be found out and harassed. In the case of Wikipedia, it's not the same. We use the image to illustrate the car, not the person. If you don't know who owns it, then it's no different to a parking lot. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On the last of your points specifically: I think it is significantly different from a parking lot, because you can't go to a parking lot and be sure to find a particular model. It's so much easier to find what you want online, and if it's easier, it's more likely. And with ever more sophisticated search techniques, the right software could even hazard a good guess as to the colour of a car in a straightforward image of it (based on quantity of colour per image), thus directing criminals to exactly what they want. And for anybody who doubts that they'd make this much effort: just try replying to a spam email sometime and see how much effort they're prepared to put in! – Kieran T ^(talk) 09:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a terrible place to go looking for images! We need to use free images (or very rarely with cars, fair use which we can't blank/blur/change) which are not very common. Any criminal clue-ey enough to use software that recognises specific vehicles that they're looking for would not use Wikipedia and it's limited range of images over google image search. Combine that with the fact that only a handful of car thiefs are looking for specific vehicles (judging by [5] which seems to list the most common cars in the US) and the risk of Wikipedia images being misused is minimal. I think it's a bit like being worried that we'll be hit by a meteor, it's possible, just very unlikely. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see why it's unlikliness makes it a precaution that's not worth taking. And I entirely agree with you that merely searching WP would be a narrow search — but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be included in a potential search. Aaaaaanyway, this isn't a biggie. The list of pro- and contra- arguments below is great, let's not get bogged down in detail, but leave it for the project members to indicate fresh opinions on, and perhaps come to a straw poll for a project policy. – Kieran T ^(talk) 14:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for and against number plate blanking/blurring

The idea here is to guage the arguments for and against, not to indicate your support. So it's not a poll, just list any points that may affect views. This is to make it easier to sum up the discussion. Note that these are opinions, if you disagree with a point don't remove it, though please add to the lists.

For

• Privacy and safety in the case of identifiable cars (eg rare or exotic cars)
• Number plates may be used for criminal purposes

Against

• It detracts from the image and/or is distracting
• It requires extra effort to make the image

OK now, I will not expand on the reasons why "publishing" somebody's license plate number, esp. along with the vehicle, is either against the law or just improper in case of vaqrious countries, mostly because I have injured my right palm and writing is much more of an effort to me now :D But still, I do not find it distracting or disturbing in any way if the license plate number is removed in a tasteful way like in the case of the Mondeo above. I really don't think it hurts to show a bit of courtesy towards owners who did not express consent for their vehicles to be photographed and featured on one of the most-visited sites worldwide. I really think there are more important things for us to focus on now, (e.g. User:Sable232/Standards)... (whew!) PrinceGloria 09:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is now like 100kB+ long, so I guess it could use some archiving. While we may continue to do it by hand, I have recently learned of a rather nifty bot that can take care of it - it's called MiszaBot II. AFAIK, we can simply make for it to archive our talk page quite simply (see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo for details, in case you are interested), and I will gladly take care of that - I just need to know if there are any members against bot archiving, and secondly, your opinion on how old should a thread be for MiszaBot to archive it (we can set up almost any period, for most talk pages it's 7 days). I think this bot might also be useful because while archiving threads one by one, it can bring to attention a thread that became forgotten buried under more recent ones, but still would need some more discussion, and then somebody may bring it back from archives.

So, what would you say to that? PrinceGloria 10:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much for bot archiving. Moving it by hand, which is how the past few archives have been done, we can preserve the edit history. It seems that once it hits 50 old threads is when it's supposed to be archived as a whole, and then the newer ones are moved back to the main page. FWIW, the past couple archives only have two months' worth of discussions.--Sable232 13:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to go about establishing a Template, but I would propose a template for: Defunct Automobile. Items I would propose below (examples provided do not correlate directly to any one entry). Any suggestions, any help???--Drussel3 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Make: Flint
Manufacturer: Flint Motors Division
Parent: Durant Motor Co.
Industry: Automobile
Location: Flint, MI {Headquarter location}
Predecessor: Willys
Successor: Briscoe Freres
Power Plant: Gas Engine, Steam, Electric
Key People: Benjamin Briscoe
Motto/Slogan: The First French Car at an American Price
Body Style: cyclecar, tourer
Founded: 1923
Dissolved: 1927
Fate: Bankrupt
Total Production: ~5,000
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drussel3 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Recently, when I have joined the entries of Category:Automobile associations into the WP Auto, I have noticed that there are some clubs with questionable notability, although there are some who are well known in one country and not the other, so the question is, do we need a guideline for car club entries as these some what may need to warrant notability. These are a list of clubs below with questionable notability, that you want to consider.

• Team-BHP
• Vitara club of the philippines
• MX-West
• First Generation Monte Carlo Club
• Myrtle Madness
• PFS Imports
• Pulse Motorsport Developments
• First Generation Monte Carlo Club

Willirennen 12:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I have made a move on the trivia bit on popular performance cars, the next target is car clubs, what are the guidelines for them as well as the Nissan Skyline page had too many of them and I thought Wikipedia is not a page for promoting whatever. Should links to club sites be deleted as well whether if its non-profit or not. Willirennen 17:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If their sites contain significant content which is not contained in the article, and they seem like reliable sources, then it's worth considering keeping them (better yet, integrate such material into the article and cite it). Also, sites with extensive information which shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article (think lists of paint codes, VIN codes, other stuff we'd call "trivia" but might be important to someone) should also be considered.

Internet "clubs" that are nothing but a forum, on the other hand, should be delinked without a thought.

This is all my opinion, not policy. Lewis Collard! (natter) 18:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In the cases mentioned by Lewis Collard, I'd link to the pages containing the info directly, wherever possible (e.g. the famous paint code listings), rather than entire sites. PrinceGloria 18:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But if a site has a lot of useful pages like that, it's best to link the whole site, rather than individual pages. See above for "my opinion" though. :) Lewis Collard! (natter) 22:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

These are the newly added site that I am considering for AfD as they are written to make it appear to advertise the websites, unless somebody indicate why they are notable as these are my comments below.

• MLOC - blantantly forum site, candidate for AfD
• Midland Rover Owners Club - does not claim why they are notable to people who do not live in the Midlands
• ItaliaAuto Club Malaysia - blantantly forum site, candidate for AfD
• Rover 200 and 400 Owners Club - website hints itself to be a forum site

Willirennen 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Last night, I went to a modified car show at the Montreal Olympic Stadium. I, however, used flash on those photos, but I had my HP Photosmart camera. I'll show you a gallery.

• 
  Acura CSX Type-S
• 
  JDM Eunos Cosmo
• 
  First generation Honda Civic (3-door)

I will be uploading more photos ASAP. -- Bull-Doser 23:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work, but unmodified images of cars are generally preferred on Wikipedia than those modified ones. These images are really only appropriate on articles deal with modified cars, or unless there is not already an image of that particular model, which is only the case for one of the cars in question. Not only do these photographs inadequately illustrate the car in question, the modifications detract the viewer from the main features of the car. I hope you don't take this the wrong way. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The list of trivia on the Jaguar page is just ridiculous. It's titled "Jaguars in fiction and the media," and includes every appearance a Jaguar has made in a movie, television show, book, or song. I really dislike this kind of trivia and feel that it adds noting to the article except unnecessary space. If the majority of you agree with me, could somebody delete this? I'm so tired of trivia lists and obscure pop culture references. Jagvar 16:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

yep it is funny, its even longer than Jaguar history section....so the whole page looks like some media article rather than Jaguar page, there could be short section anyway with major appearances in popular culture...--— Typ932^{T | C}  18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I nuked the section in its entirety. About to be reverted by someone else in 5, 4, 3, 2.... Lewis Collard 19:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to invite some feedback from any engineers who may work at any automobile company. There is some debate on two seperate articles Automotive engineering vs. Vehicle Engineering. Please see Discussion Talk Page --Drussel3 16:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added an entry yesterday, Hackett (automobile), and I classified it as a stub. Today it now has a THIS ARTICLE NEEDS EXPANDING notification. Isn't that was Stubs are all about? Why was this put against this article? Will all the auto company article stubs I have recently added, be binned this way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drussel3 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Not sure why you're worried about it getting binned. Nobody's going to delete it because of that notice. Lewis Collard 17:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Template talk:Expand says it's not for stub articles. --Interiot 07:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - don't put that template on articles that are already flagged as stubs. I reverted it for you. SteveBaker 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have created a Qxz Add for WikiProject Automobiles. The purpose of the advertisement is basically to attract Wikipedians to the project. If you are interested, please feel free to inlude this ad to your user page, and if you have any suggestions for improving the advertisement, I would appreciate your feedback.

The source code that produces the Qxz Ad is:

<imagemap> Image:Qxz-ad41.gif
rect 1 1 468 60 [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles]]
desc none </imagemap>

OSX (talk • contributions) 09:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Are individual car clubs normally called out with a standalone article, see Escortevolution? They could get pretty numerous. --Drussel3 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we haven't been putting up pages about car clubs - although perhaps there is justification for doing so for the larger ones. However, that particular article at Escortevolution needs to die because it's a blatent advert. Anything that says: "We ...." is not encyclopeadic because the reader doesn't know who "we" are...Wikipedians?...The car club?...The editors of that article? This article needs a swift WP:AfD.

We should perhaps discuss the merits of articles about car clubs in general. Perhaps we need a guideline such as "Not-for-profit car clubs with more than 10,000 members - or which are international in scope - or which are widely recognised as the governing body for a particular class of cars - are considered notable - everything else isn't."...or something like that. SteveBaker 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines already exist, at WP:NOTE and more specifically, WP:ORG. There were no reliable secondary sources for the club, so it failed notability and I tagged it for speedy deletion. --DeLarge 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we've had this discussion before, but I really feel we need to get rid of the "similar" field. I'm getting tired of reverting Bull-Doser rather... imaginative... additions to some "similar" fields (the latest ones were the Nissan Xterra similar to the Suzuki Grand Vitara and the Suzuki SX4 similar to the Mazda3). Other people keep turning that into a "competitors" field, some people think the field should reflect the American market exclusively, and ultimately, it's not really that useful to an article and makes us look like a buyers guide. --Pc13 11:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

On consideration, I support that. There are mounting problems with that field and little benefit to anybody, and we already have problems keeping infoboxes at reasonable length... PrinceGloria 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No support, It makes surfing between similar car articles much easier, but It is childish to change those all the time and some car models are considered like being only US models, this should be international encyclopedia? , and similar/competitor is very much related thingy, ...--— Typ932^{T | C}  12:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

support - delete it - the infobox has too much junk in it anyway and this field is at best subjective. SteveBaker 12:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This is silly. One (1) person is allegedly misusing this feature. By the same criteria we'd delete the infobox altogether because at least one person might have inserted inaccurate statistics. Lewis Collard! (natter) 15:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that point; but I think it's worth restating that this isn't just about that one user. "Similarity" is by its nature - and certainly in practice here - fairly subjective. This makes it original research, on the whole, and as such it's a matter of policy that it shouldn't be allowed. – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

By the same reasoning, we should get rid of categories too, because calling a vehicle an SUV or a family car is, likewise, a subjective judgment. Lewis Collard! (natter) 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The significant difference is breadth. The categories (which aren't mutually exclusive, either) can encompass all the relevant models and give the reader a broad view. A few selected models in an infobox give an inevitably opinionated summary of those related models. – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The "related" field should just have the most notable ones in it. Deciding on notability is something we do on WP all the time, so what's the problem? Lewis Collard! (natter) 16:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You assume those who support the deletion of it do so because of a single misuse - that is not the case. I've seen it misused in some of the articles I patrol too (and not by Bull-Doser) - so there is definitely more than one isolated occurrance of misuse. But I want it gone because it's vague and because the infobox could use some serious slimming down. SteveBaker 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pc13 only gave one example of abuse, so I figured it was one person we were talking about. Still, I think my point stands nonetheless. That a feature can be or has been abused is no reason for removing it (do you have any knives in your cutlery draw?). Lewis Collard! (natter) 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support deletion, I've found it is hard to find good competitors for cars in general. Although you can compare say a Honda Accord and Toyota Camry in the USA market, there aren't usually those clear competitor distinctions in most other instances.--Analogue Kid 12:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I loosely support getting rid of it. In general, the "class" of car, combined with the production dates, combined with just a little intelligence on the part of the reader, should do this job. It's a fun element to include in a website dedicated to a car or cars, but it's subjective for an encyclopædia entry. Unless we can reference them all from some other site which lists similarities, but what would be the point in duplicating such a thing? – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If that class field is put right and category then it might go, so you can still surf quite easily. Also that class field should contain only one class, no point to have 2 or 3 different same meaning class, like Compact executive car/entry-level luxury car in some cars.--— Typ932^{T | C}  12:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the 'class' field is in even more trouble. You can't just use 'only one class' for many kinds of car - what about a supermini that comes with two engine versions one of which qualifies it as a hot hatch - the other of which is built for fuel economy? Lots of cars come in 'compact' and 'convertible' versions - those are two different classes (at least according to 'Car classification' (which is where the word 'class' in our template links to). Or how about my Mini article - it came in convertible, microcar, panel van, pickup truck and beach buggy versions - which single class should I put it in? SteveBaker 15:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All very true. I suppose at the present this could be said to be an argument (which I'd never support) in favour of having lots of infoboxes in an article, one for each major variant of the car! Yipes. I'm sure there's a more elegant solution; a redesign of the infobox and the names of the fields within it, being part of that solution. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I also see some issues with the "class" field - but in the end, this is a rather important characteristic, I believe, and more objective ways of determining the vehicle's class. Whatever the article says (I remember I wasn't overly fond of it when I read it sometime ago), "convertible" is more of a body style. I think there are not that many controversial cases here, and all can be reasonably discussed in the talk pages using logical and substantial arguments. I'd propose just a few clarifying guidelines here:

1. Use of the vehicle's "home market" classification is preferable - so e.g. US EPA class for North American and EuroNCAP/UK class for European vehicles
2. If the nameplate wandered accross classes over the years, indicate it in the generational infoboxes and leave the field empty in the general infobox (IMHO this should be the rule - the general infobox contains all data and only data that stays the same for all models and generations discussed)
3. There was something else, but I forgot it, sorry....

I'll get back to that once I reestablish a DSL connection with my brains. Over and out, PrinceGloria 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're wandering off the subject here, fellas. A more general debate about classes et al can be reserved for a separate section. I'd rather handle this particular issue on its own since it's looking so uncontentious, and not have it wrapped it in a wider and potentially much more divisive discussion.

Meanwhile, I wholeheartedly support this move, which would end some tedious long term edit warring, and would bring the infobox into greater compliance with WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:CSB. Also, I recommend purging other afflicted infoboxes, e.g. ((Infobox Automobile generation)), ((Infobox Automobile platform)), ((Infobox Automobile engine)) etc etc. --DeLarge 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support I have always hated the similar field in the automobile infoboxes, and would love to see it removed. I also feel that we should axe: fuel capacity, top speed and track. Several months ago, I changed the interface from the green to the silver, and I would support a total redesign of the infobox. I also agree with DeLarge and his ideas on purging other afflicted infoboxes. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to remind everyone that "similar" is not meant for "competitors." You've all been listening to the BS that Bull-Doser puts in his edit summaries. I always thought that it was fairly obvious that an '80s RWD near-luxury sedan is similar to an '80s RWD near-luxury sedan, but I guess I hold the minority view on that.

As it stands, I would much rather see Bull-Doser banned from editing those fields rather than removing them altogether. But, since I again hold the minority view and I haven't had time to be around here as often, I probably shouldn't give a damn. --Sable232 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe we should get rid of it. Any connections that should be made are probably in the prose anyway. --Sable232 15:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Support per Kieran T. The field always seemed like an open invitation to do original research. It would be better if reliable sources were cited, but then again, reliable sources will disagree since it's somewhat subjective, and Wikipedia tends to not be able to deal with subjective things very well. --Interiot 16:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

seems that somebody has now removed the similar and track fields, but it still exists in generation infobox.--— Typ932^{T | C}  10:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a photo of an old car at [6] while browsing through the Library of Congress collection and thought it might be useful, if someone could identify the car. Any takers? howcheng {chat} 17:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is a 1931 Chevrolet Independence AE 4-door sedan. HTH. :) Lewis Collard! (natter) 00:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Alas, we don't seem to have an article for that car. I'll put the photo up on Commons tomorrow sometime in preparation for a future article. Thanks for the identification! howcheng {chat} 02:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a dispute going on at the Saturn Corporation, involving a member who keepd deleting 75% of the info from teh article because it is unsourced. Any help or opinion involved in the dispute would be appreciated. Karrmann 19:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the editor's history they've already been blocked once, and their addition of numerous individual citation tags instead of using the ((unreferenced)) template seemed a bit silly and deliberately disruptive. Also, their initial confrontational attitude on the talk page was highly incivil, and in the long run I think it's good that he said it to an admin who blocked him -- the short, sharp shock seemed to do wonders.

However, to flip it around, where the hell are all the sources? It's long been a bugbear of mine that so many editors in the Automobile WikiProject are either unaware of, or willfully ignoring WP:Attribution. Look at Lexus -- merely a good article, but manages to cite 81 sources with 110 separate references in its 71kB. Saturn? 12kB, one reference, and that was only added today.

The sensible thing is to add a dated unreferenced tag at the top of the page for now, and if no improvement is seen over the next month or so, then I'd have absolutely no objection to a slash'n'burn approach. --DeLarge 21:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is tough to find references for mainstream modern cars - there aren't large numbers of books written about them. Look at two of my articles (yeah - I'm going to use Mini and MINI (BMW) again - sorry) and compare them to the Saturn:

• The Mini article has 35 references - and more than half of them are from books I own about the car. That's only maybe a quarter of the books that have been written about this car - there has to be over 100 books written about it and more appear every year. There are hundreds of owners clubs around the world - tens of thousands of Mini enthusiasts are writing about the car on the web and in print. There are dozens of magazines dedicated to enthusiasts of this one specific car a full seven years after the last one was made. Finding references for Mini was a breeze!
• The MINI (BMW) article has just 14 references - not really enough - and only four of those are books about the car - I believe that those are the only four books that have ever been written about the modern MINI - I own all of them - but it's not enough to provide full attribution for things we know to be true about the car. I own a MINI - I can open the bonnet and note things about it's construction - but unless one of those four books mentions it - I can't put it into the article because that would be WP:OR. Finding references for the article has been tough - but it's just about possible.
• The Saturn S-Series and Saturn Corporation articles - oh dear - just one reference each - both are web sites - and neither is of the kind of quality I'd consider using in Mini or MINI (BMW), they are far too 'bloggy/forumish' sites (See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided). According to Amazon.com, only one book has ever been written about the car ("How to Keep Your Saturn Happy" - yeugh!). There is a second book about the management style of the company - but it's a book about management techniques - I don't think you'll find enough citeable facts to make it worth the $31 sticker price. How the heck do you come up with decent citations for a car for which only one book has ever been written. That book is a 150 page paperback that has a mere two stars on Amazon and purports to tell non-technical people how to maintain their car ("Wipe the vinyl with a soft cloth - take your car to the dealership for oil changes regularly"...yeah - that's good stuff alright) - I'd be quite surprised if it has much in it of use to Wikipedia. You could maybe let your standards slip and start citing web sites about the car - but this is wirely regarded as a 'bleah' kind of a car - it's not bought by car enthusiasts - they aren't painstakingly restored, customised and beloved by their owners - there aren't 60 Saturn owners clubs in the US (as there are for the MINI) - it's a wildly popular car - but it's mainly owned by people who just want a reliable daily driver to get them from A to B - and they aren't writing a lot of detailed, techie, historical type documents and putting them out on the web. Most of the available information is going to come from the manufacturer - but those are not unbiassed sources - excessive citation of the owners manual, advertising brochures, the manufacturer's web site would be regarded as a bad thing in a Wikipedia article.

So here we have a very important car - at least as important as the Mini or the MINI - certainly in terms of numbers sold - but almost zero citeable references. I don't know what you do about that. Stripping the article of any useful information because we can't find references for it doesn't really help our readership. A big banner warning that tells people that this information isn't backed up by anything really solid is certainly called for - a bunch of annoying citation needed tags isn't going to help - it just makes the article look ugly and hard to read. SteveBaker 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I used Funding Universe as one of my sources for Mitsubishi Motors, and there's a Saturn article on their site which is not only a better read than WP's article, it's thoroughly cited too.[7] Weed out the hagiographic stuff and there's a perfectly decent, sourced, neutral article in there. What would be even better is if you verified everything FU writes, using either their own bibliography or other reliable sources. --DeLarge 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The FU article has lots of references to Saturn (the company) but nothing about Saturn (the car). The company is well written about because it was a ground-breaking effort on the part of GM - an experiment it's not run like a conventional car company - it's something very, very unusual. This means that books about management techniques are full of stuff about Saturn (the company) - but they say little if anything about Saturn (the car). I guess I was talking more about the article about the car than the one about the company. SteveBaker 20:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I get what the issue is here, but it's true that there aren't that many print sources (and specifically books) about most vehicles, but what it means is that we have to rely on magazines and online content, being very careful to correctly judge the appropriateness of each source every time we use it as a reference. For one, I have written the majority of Talbot Tagora basing on online sources and an old car catalogue I happen to own (I hope I haven't just sabotaged its chance of remaining an FA, but then the reference list has been there all the time and nobody seemed to mind). So, I think it is possible to create a good article on the Saturn with appropriate references, and I am willing to contribute if time allows. Cheers, PrinceGloria 19:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Following this up from the Jaguar page, I have an nuked the trivia bit which dominated half the page and reduced it into one short sentence, I do hope that this won't cause offence to other wikipedians, this is what I have written...

Since its debut appearance in Viper, The Need For Speed, The Nutty Professor and Tupac Shakur's Toss It Up, the Viper is numerous variations has made numerous appearances in TV shows, videogames, movies and music videos and has became a regular feature.

As I am think of having all trivia bit written/reduced to this as a template, can anybody think how should that could be improved/written. Willirennen 11:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd move this text and anything resembling a "Trivia" section into the introductory paragraph:

The Dodge Viper is the most powerful production car made by Dodge. Production of the two seat sports car began at New Mack Assembly in 1992 and moved to its current home at Conner Avenue Assembly in October 1995. The car, and numerous variations, have made numerous appearances in TV shows, videogames, movies, and music videos.

Put your specifics of its appearances into a <ref> footnote if you must. Don't forget a link to IMCDB in "External links" if you must. Lewis Collard! (natter) 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I have added that bit as an introductory sentence, now I am going to do the same for all other if I can. Willirennen 16:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it hurts to add a couple of the most notable places where the car was featured into the body of the text - it does something to set the scene for how the car was recieved and percieved by the public. Trivia sections are a bad idea though and what is certainly undesirable is any effort to make a complete list of every stupid irrelevent TV reality show that showed the front fender for 3 seconds in the background of some other shot. You can make that list off in another article someplace - but be warned - my list of significant movie appearances of the Mini was victim of WP:AfD and is no longer in existance. SteveBaker 17:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:2000s automobiles, Category:1990s automobiles and simlar ones have hundreds of articles each. And some car model articles are even included in four categories. Wouldn't it better to have categories by year of introdution, like Category:1997 automobile introductions? That would readers help to search models by another variable. What do you say? -- NaBUru38 19:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Sensible given the current high activity at WP:OCAT; better we clean our own house, and less likely to be disruptive. Also in keeping with other genres -- see Category:Events by year, Category:20th century introductions (or Category:Introductions by year). Category:20th century paintings breaks it down by decade, but I don't know if that's necessary.

We're problably going to end up with a problem arising from this, though. I think we should use the calendar year, but dollars to dimes some U.S. editors will want to use the model year. --DeLarge 21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That may be the problem. In the US it is really quite uncommon to use the calendar year (it is acutally almost never used by the public at all). So using calendar years might be confusing for an American audience. Personally, I won't protest if you use calendar years, but I would prefer model years. Then again... I am not an expert on the manner in which companies market their cars globally (I didn't pay much attention to that when I lived in Europe)... would using model instead of calendar years make us US-centric? Signature^brendel 07:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be problematic. First, there are overlapping years between different bodies in the previous/new generation. Second, the "model years" solution sometimes creates skipped years, eg there's no 2007 Dodge Viper in the US. Model years are used in Brazil, but it's an overused advertising tool (most brands try to introduce next year's model as early as possible to be ahead of the competition). In Europe, they're trying to push it to the press, but it's not working (why would they call it a 2008 car if it's for sale as early as April 2007?), and I've never seen it in advertising. --Pc13 08:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Having pondered on that for some time, I believe the current solution is not that bad - trying to shoehorn vehicles into individual "year of introduction" categories would not only cause many problems, only some of which were already mentioned above, but also come closer to OCAT than before, I believe. The current categories are somewhat useful for a person that might be looking for vehicles from a given era (even though I believe the demand for that might be quite weak). Perhaps we could fork them by class vs. decade or something (if that would not be against OCAT), but I believe it is status quo or just getting rid of it totally. BTW, while we are at it, I'd do away with the body style categories ("sedans", "hatchbacks" etc.) at the same time. Cheers, PrinceGloria 13:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It would deal with WP:OCAT issues because every car would only be categorized once, whereas long-running cars are currently listed in multiple decade categories. Look at how much -- or little-- info the "by decade" cats provide; to use the Ford Mustang as an example, it's in five categories, but if you want the exact introduction date you need to either check the infobox (which gives exact start/finish dates and therefore makes the by decade cats redundant), or use a sixth category, Category:1964 introductions; that's the kind of thing OCAT's trying to stamp out.

Obversely, I noticed when looking for a long-lasting car to use as an example that our FA'd Mini isn't (over)categorized by decade at all and doesn't seem to suffer for it. --DeLarge 11:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the entire encyclopedia is patchy in this regard. Sure, the Mini is in Category:1959 introductions - but let's look at the other things in that category: Well, the Triumph Bonneville and Triumph Herald are in there - almost all of the other entries are superhero characters. Someone visiting that category gets a totally skewed view of the products that were introduced in that year - it's so incomplete as to be almost useless. What other cars were introduced in 1959?! Surely there were more than just the Mini and the Herald. This isn't a problem we automotive folks can fix. It needs the entire Wikipedia community to decide what we want to do about dates of introduction, dates of continuing manufacture and dates of product withdrawal. It doesn't matter what we do for car articles - if the community decides differently, we'd certainly have to keep in line with the others. My feeling is that we should sit back and wait to see how the dust settles. The issue of calendar-year versus model-year is a teeny-tiny decision we can make at the end when we know what articles about everything else are going to do. Since deletionists tend to dominate these kind of debate - I suspect we'll simply find a robot coming through one day and wiping all of this out. If you care - go and argue about it someplace - but this isn't that place. SteveBaker 17:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree because I think we can help. Right now the category is poorly populated, but if we're to go through every car article (e.g. by methodically working through Category:Vehicles by brand) it'll fill up pretty quickly, especially for later years. In fact, I suspect we'd have to create a dedicated daughter category as was done for Category:1959 television program debuts (e.g. "Category:1959 automobile introductions", and a superhero introductions daughter category while we're at it). It's the difference between mere OCAT deletions, which a lot of the time I disagree with, and refinement of categories so they provide more info. Now I'm not saying I'm volunteering for such a task, but if someone else wants to, I'd see it as an improvement.

One of OCAT's complaints is that categories are not very "defining" characteristics. For example, they don't like categorizing people by where they've lived as it's often not relevant to their notability, and people who move around a lot are obviously going to have a lot of categories attached. I see the same problem here -- you'd hardly say that the Ford Mustang, or any other pony car/muscle car, is defined by its existence during the 1970s -- quite the opposite in fact. A better example might be the Pontiac GTO, a product of the '60s muscle car era which it helped define, killed off by the downsizing and fuel crises of the 1970s after sales fell from almost 75k in '69 to about 10k in '71. Yet it's categorized as a 1970s automobile.

As for model year/calendar year, yeah, I agree -- mānana, mānana... --DeLarge 18:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I still believe the "decade" categories are more informative than the "introduction date" ones, not to mention establishing a correct date might be a chore (more or less unlinke the "decade" timing"). PrinceGloria 19:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Recently there have been Enzo Accidents section on the Enzo Ferrari page, I don't know if you think this is necessary but that section has turned itself into a news section for "every accidents" involving the car on an encyclopaedia, the question shall we remove this section? As I am up for removing it, feel free to have a say what do you think. Willirennen 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Methinks - delete on sight! PrinceGloria 07:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I was ambivalent about this at first -- whether or not it's unencyclopedic is a subjective judgement, and the flipside is that it does get "reliable coverage", i.e. the first crash was referenced to an article in The Times (ergo it meets our WP:ATT criteria much better than our typical trivia sections).[8] I'm going through the list right now and by WP:Automobile standards the quality of the refs seems OK. However, if you wish to purge it, I'd say the best arguments is that an encyclopedic list would mess the article up in terms of taking up a disproportionate amount of space, and being not so much about the car in general as one particular vehicle and its owner. Did these cars crash because of a particular characteristic of the vehicle? Or just because it was a rich moron with insufficient talent driving too fast -- something he could have done in any one of a number of fast cars?

You might also argue that there's no explicit demonstration that the Enzo (or exotics in particular) are being crashed at a higher rate than before, or a higher rate compared to regular vehicles, which I think would need to be demonstrated before you could include a section dedicated to the subject. --DeLarge 11:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Now removed

Following the successful bid to shorten the infobox by removing the "similar" field, I would like to propose the removal of another field of dubious utility and potential to generate conflicts and inflate the infoboxes - the "related" field. Given that we have a field for the platform code/name, the reader can check it and see the car's "platform-mates", while the list for some models/platforms grows very long in case of some more "efficient" platform-sharing arrangements (particularly visible in case of recent VW A-platform cars and Hondas). I believe, however, that the field still makes sense for the engine and platform infoboxes. What do you guys think? PrinceGloria 07:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of tempted by this as well. Given how much platform sharing goes on these days in the industry, "related vehicles" could begin to overwhelm the rest of the infobox with a massive list, even though the more platform sharing there is, the more trivial and less significant each individual relationship will become. Also, it's something that could easily be handled by a sentence or two in the main text, and as you said, a complete and encyclopedic list should be found on the page for the platform itself.

My mind could be changed if someone comes up with a compelling reason to keep it, but right now I'd support removing it. --DeLarge 11:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. There's a terrible tendency here (see discussion over "Similar") to advocate removing features just because they could get crufty, not because they actually have to any great extent.

You gave two examples, to which the solution is: Fix it. If the "related" field gets too long, just remove it, and put a comment in the source of the page saying why other editors should not add it again. This will take care of it in the vast majority of cases.

This field is rather useful, IMHO, for cars that do not have a formally-named "platform" (and so, creating an article about it would constitute original research). The Triumph Herald/Vitesse and GT6/Spitfire come to mind, though there are doubtless many others.

Of course this could be taken care of by a sentence in the text, but so could every other field. Lewis Collard! (natter) 12:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No Support all cars dont have platform name--— Typ932^{T | C}  14:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK then - how about stating explicitly that the "related" field is only to be used as an alternative tp the "platform" field (and not concurrently)? PrinceGloria 14:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, fully agree with this alternative to removing the field altogether. Lewis Collard! (natter) 16:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If the car model has platform info and link to specific platform page eg. Saab 9-3, thats like double info and could be removed?, if the car has something else related than just platform that should be covered in text section anyway or aka field if it is badge engineered car.--— Typ932^{T | C}  15:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The "related" field is useful for different situations, like the Herald/Vitesse and GT6/Spitfire example that I pointed out above. Yes, it could be covered in the text, but then so could every other field in the infobox. Lewis Collard! (natter) 16:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to hear we can agree on that, but it occurred to me that we need a good definition of what "related" means. It is my understanding that in case of the Triumphs the relationship was actually akin to platform-sharing, in that the cars did share at least the fundamentals of the chassis, floorpans, steering mechanism and/or other vital components. But if you take another vital component, the engine (or transmission for that matter), there is high probability you could compose a lenghty list of "related" models, sharing this particular engine (or transmission). What is more, with multiple engines the list could grow even longer. Another example - the Kappa roadsters are said to share a whole bunch of components with various GM vehicles of different classes, sizes and all, but I don't think this fits the bill either. I'd say the field should be more or less limited to arrangements that can be referred to as "platform-sharing", but no platform name was ever used. PrinceGloria 16:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't precisely define what constitutes excessive cruft in related, but I think we all know it when we see it. So let's use related where it's appropriate, and let's haggle over and discuss the marginal cases (like the Kappa); don't ditch the field because it could become too large. Out of ten problems rolling down the road towards you, nine of them will go off course and hit the ditches at the before they have a chance to hit you... Lewis Collard! (natter) 01:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the field should stay. Just because it can become too long doesn't mean it will. If it does, remove it from that article. What's next? Removing all the dimensions because a few vehicles have too many? --Sable232 01:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we have already reached a tentative consensus NOT to remove the field, but rather to use it only as an alternative to the platform one, so I don't see what te fuss is all about. I also believe we can trust each other that we know what to put (and what not to put) there, so I guess we can leave the issue for individual discussions in the affected articles' talk pages. Anybody disagree?

As concerns dimensions, I do believe they can grow excessively long, just like the engine/transmission listings, so I guess it would be good to devise a solution for those too. I will get back to that in due course. PrinceGloria 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just want to bring these two articles up as this anon user may be a newcomer as he/she have bought on the bit about Chevrolet Impala [9] & Honda Civic [10] in Demolition derby events. As all the edit talks about is how good they are in demolition derbies and rollever events, all I can sum up is it is not that well written and very much unsourced, more like that old edit about the Toyota AE86 before I got involved, when at the time all it mentioned about in motorsport was street racing and illegal touge runs. Also I don't know if demolition derbies are what manufacturers intended their cars to be good at either, so what is your comment on these edits. Willirennen 15:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivial. Remove on sight. PrinceGloria 15:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Routine housekeeping -- no need to bring that here. WP:NOTE, WP:V, etc etc. --DeLarge 15:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Chevrolet Caprice about this. I know this won't be that last time this comes up, so I would like to get some kind of consensus or at the very least have a discussion to refer back to.

In the 1977-90 section of the Caprice article, there was a gallery of eight pictures. I removed a couple and dispersed others throughout the text, but it was reverted. I find a gallery of that size to be extremely unprofessional. It makes it look like someone threw a bunch of pictures at the end as an afterthought. There is no reason why at least some of those can't be put next to the pertinent text. But I was told, in effect, that that's my personal preference so it doesn't matter.

What do GA/FA reviewers generally say about galleries?

Thoughts, please. --Sable232 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but think that this is what the Commons are for... Lewis Collard! (natter) 18:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I dislike galleries - the photos should be there to back up the text. A gallery is a place for cruft to accumulate as everyone with that kind of car tries to get their favorote photo in there. Since there is no absolute purpose to any of the photos, it's hard for a responsible editor to say "The previous eight photos were OK - but yours is one too many". Better to say "This photo adds nothing to the narrative - it backs up no previously not-backed-up fact - so it's history." - the only time I'd maybe consider using one would be in a situation where (for example) you were trying to pictorially demonstrate a sequence of events or a range of options...but even so, it would be a last-ditch measure in the event that working the pictures into the narrative was somehow too hard. SteveBaker 19:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

^^ Yeah, what he said. :) Lewis Collard! (natter) 19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The benefit to a gallery is that it can illustrate the various versions of a car without taking up too much space in the article or causing formatting problems. The point of a gallery is not to just have lots of redundant pictures of the same car. IFCAR 20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And this could be served just as well by a gallery or category on the Commons, if someone really badly wants to see lots of pictures. Lewis Collard! (natter) 20:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the article about the Chevrolet Caprice is the best place for information about the Chevrolet Caprice. It's not as if a gallery takes up much space in an article. IFCAR 20:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

638x506 pixels, for the record. Not nuts on something that big, especially for a 1024x768 or 800x600 screen rez. A gallery of four (or better, three) would take up one less row and therefore be only half as high. Do you really need to show amber tail lights, for example? That's a characteristic of the target export market's legislation, not the Caprice itself. And the fact that export versions were sold with amber tail lights can't be that important, since mention of it appears nowhere in the main text. Same with the fishbowl rear window -- pic, but no accompanying narrative. It seems like a lack of editorial discipline to be unable to pick and choose only three or four photos from eight. --DeLarge 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The photo of the red '79 and that of the black '81-'85 juѕt happen to be particularly clear pictureѕ of carѕ that juѕt happen to be export modelѕ. They're there to ѕhow the carѕ, not ѕpecifically to show off the turn ѕignalѕ, though the unuѕual ѕignalѕ add value to the photoѕ. I agree with you there ѕhould be diѕcuѕѕion of export ѕaleѕ (compare e.g. Ford Taurus ) and there ѕhould definitely be diѕcuѕѕion of the wraparound backglaѕѕ, for the way it waѕ manufactured was unuѕual and innovative. However, I do not think it would be helpful or wiѕe to aѕѕert that no photo ѕhould ѕhow a feature not diѕcuѕѕed in the text. By the very nature of Wikipedia, a photo of a feature not diѕcuѕѕed, or elucidated inѕufficiently, will tend to prompt ѕomeone to hit "edit" and add the miѕѕing text. I agree with you in principle there'ѕ a valid concern to be mindful of if a gallery would grow large enough to overwhelm or interfere with the reѕt of the article, but that'ѕ not the caѕe here. Furthermore, it doeѕn't seem likely thiѕ gallery will grow to that point, for all the ѕignificant variants are now repreѕented, and further additionѕ would entail duplication. Fact iѕ, the 3rd-generation Caprice had an unuѕually long run of thirteen model yearѕ, and there are therefore a proportionally unuѕual number of variantѕ worth illuѕtrating. It ѕeemѕ contrary to the overѕpanning purpoѕe of the article to impoѕe an arbitrary image count ѕimply to ѕatiѕfy the æѕthetic opinionѕ and preferenceѕ of particular wikipedianѕ. --Scheinwerfermann 03:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose a merge from bippu to VIP style, as these are the reasons...

1. Until I discovered the bippu page on the Wangan Midnight page, I have never heard the term before.
2. Also I have never seen anybody use the term in non Japanese speaking countries apart from the odd JDM fanboys, as well as this, as I own two copies of the Japanese magazine VIP Style that is what I always referred the car as. The trouble is one wiki editor recently objected the term being that, insisting it to be called bippu which may be the way the Japanese pronounced it, therefore I got a vandal warning
3. Do bear in mind there is a Japanese Wikipedia page on the same topic called VIPカー (VIP kaa), translated as VIP car and on a recent search the google result came out as this...

10,300 = bippu [11]

252,000 = VIP Style [12]

Do you think that bippu should be merged to VIP Style, do let me know what do you think. Willirennen 13:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a discussion on the talk page first. If that fails try WP:RM, since it looks from here like VIP style would be the preferred title as per your google hits, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:ENGLISH. It also seems supported by the cited sources; the first one is online and uses "VIP style" much more frequently,[13] while the others use only "VIP style" in their article titles. As a sidenote, I think capitalizing the first letter of "Style" would be incorrect (see WP:CAPS).

Also, User:293.xx.xxx.xx's most recent edits seem slightly iffy.[14] Changing '[[Very Important Person|V.I.P.]]' to 'V.I.P.' and '[[United States domestic market|U.S. domestic market]] (USDM)' to '[[United States domestic market|USDM]]' is to remove wikilinks and/or explanations of technical jargon, which is never good WP editing practice. --DeLarge 14:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear all,

Template:Lancia and Template:Autobianchi have been butchered today by some people who apparently derive dirty carnal pleasures from being overzealous in applying Wikipedia policies on fair use and copyright. You can find the details @ Image talk:Lancia logo.jpg. I have left Wikipedia once due to this issue and I wouldn't like to admit defeat again, so if you can chip in and help anyway, I would greatly appreciate it.

Regards,

PrinceGloria 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a good design, but it had to be removed just like with all the other templates that had prominent logos. I also tried to have them keep the brand design in the template some time ago, however .... Just sharing your frustration, but life goes on without logos CZmarlin 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Pam1855. This known vandal has redirected a bunch of pages, and some of those do not look like they should have been done. Could someone with a little more experience with those cars take a look? --Sable232 12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed some of that damage yesterday. Didn't realize there was more. I'm not sure if they're bad faith edits or not, but the user was screwing up the formatting really badly on the one.--Analogue Kid 13:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit all 1980s, 1990s and current Chrysler/Plymouth/Dodge/Eagle vehicle articles, if anyone could help me with these that would be much appreciated.

I'm working on Dodge Caravan, Plymouth Voyager and Dodge Intrepid articles at the moment, as well as fixing up Dodge Spirit, Chrysler LeBaron and Plymouth Acclaim articles.

More information is needed on Chrysler cars sold in Mexico and Canada: I'm having a hard time finding sources for these, as a lot is mentioned on Chrysler in Mexico and Canada, but it's a question of finding reliable sources for them.

Any photos of the Dodge Lancer GTS or similar Chrysler equivalent would be appreciated: it's difficult to get any good ones of these (being a Brit the only Lancer I can get photos of is the non-related Mitsubishi Lancer!)

Would any participant be willing to help me get a Chrysler article to featured article status soon - as long as it's any Chrysler made after 1980, then that's OK - I know nothing about 1960s/70s Chrysler cars.

Leave a note on my talk page if you want to help me with any articles... I'd appreciate that!

Thanks, --SunStar Net ^talk 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This might be a good occassion to finally merge the Chrysler minivans - for the most part, their articles consists of either the same content or the description of how they differed in a given generation, thus making separate articles redundant. In essence, they have always been the same vehicle in different guises, so it is easier to describe their history in one article. Moreover, if you'd look at the case of Chrysler Voyager, the casual reader might be quite confused having to browse through multiple articles to get the essence. I would also consider merging some other articles, as Chrysler vehicles have generated a multitude of them, not always separated along logical guidelines...

Anyway, SunStar, I do hope you have access to some reliable sources, as this is the base. I can't help you much with that, besides some occassional general sources I possess, but I am willing to help with editing the articles to ensure GA standard. I would start with the minivan, as this is perhaps the most prominent of the late Chrysler vehicles. Cheers, PrinceGloria 15:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)