Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 22

Halo Vehicle AfD

FYI, VegetativePup has listed Halo Vehicle for deletion. swaq 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

C1 Corvette

The C1 Corvette article needs some attention. I'd make the changes myself, but I'm not very good with wiki code, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes regarding the rules.

Anyway, the way the article is now, there are only pictures of the third version (1958-1962, "quad headlight") of the C1, and there is little to no mention of the first and second versions. The casual observer would think that the car looked the same from 1953-1962, which is simply not the case. There were many changes made to the body over the course of the C1's production run, both subtle and obvious.

The first version of the C1 (or as some refer to it, the C1.1), was produced from 1953-1955), and was very different looking from it's successors. The second version (C1.2, produced from 1956-1957) and the third version (C1.3, produced from 1958-1962) looked basically the same, except for their headlights. The 1.2 had two single headlights, whereas the 1.3 had four headlights, two on each side.

I encourage you to look at pictures of the three versions (53-55, 56-57, and 58-62) to see for yourself. I honestly can't believe that an article regarding a car as popular as the Corvette has such huge gaps in information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBustah (talk • contribs) 08:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

General issues : Crash testing ratings, scrappage rates and Top Gear

Some articles on cars give extensive listings of crash test ratings, usually along the lines of 'The car was given a poor rating by a 2008 survey' or some such. I think these sections are pointless and add nothing of value to an encylopaedia. Wikipaedia is not intended to be a buyer's guide ; there are other websites for such information. Furthermore, in most instances the sources quoted are very recent for cars many years old. Of what relevance is a 2008 survey of a 1982 Chevrolet Cavalier for example ? I think safety ratings should only be referred to if they were significant _at the time the vehicle was released_ - for instance, the first Chevrolet Aveo. The 1982 Cavalier was not particularly poor in safetty for its period, so the rating has no encyclopaedic value.

On some cars, such as on the Morris Marina, scrappage rates are given. Quite apart from the fact that scrappage rates for a 35 year old car are irrelevant anyway, of what value is this information ? This is really facetious and is really an opinion.

Some sections have information about Top Gear. This silly program is largely unheard of in USA (the largest English Wikipaedia audience) and will forgotten 3 weeks after it is taken off the air. It is not significant enough to be included in car articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.12 (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with your last point regarding Top Gear, although in some cases Top Gear testing results in actual changes being made to the car itself, the Koenigsegg, being an example. I disagree with the other two points. In the case of the Marina, the scrappage rate is sourced to a reliable publication and makes a valid point regarding the Marina's longevity. As for safety testing most the no information on the 1982 Cavalier is given, but there are some articles that sight recent Australian tests of older vehicles. I believe these tests give ratings based on age specific comparisons and are valid pieces of encyclopedic information regarding older vehicles relative safety. --Leivick (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the scrappage rates are NOT relevant. Giving scrappage rates on a 35 year old car says nothing about a cars longevity. Few cars live beyond 20 years and the average life in the UK is less than 10 years.

The point about the safety ratings is that they appear to be a sort of 'buyer's guide'. The Cavalier, as an example, not the only of its type is not only unnecessary but actually misleading. The safety of a 1982 Cavalier was not 'poor or very poor', it was really higher than the average 1982 car ! 203.26.122.12 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Top Gear is irrelevant. Published surveys and reports, especially those in recognised publications and by organisations such as JD Power, are definitely relevant. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep we dont need a mention of Top Gear in every car article, only it if has some relevant and meaninfull info, crash test results are IMO good info but those should be located in right generation sections. --Typ932 ^T·C 13:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding scrappage and safety ratings, if properly sourced they should certainly be considered. However, safety ratings MUST be discussed relative to similar-aged vehicles or they are meaningless.

Regarding Top Gear and Wikipedia... That the largest WP:EN audience is from North America does not mean that articles should be skewed in favour (sic!) of a N. American audience. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not a "North American" one. According to Top Gear the programme has a worldwide audience exceeding 350 million, and has been going for many years (with endless repeats too!) So, if Top Gear covers some aspect of motoring that is encyclopaedic, there is no reason why it should not be included in the articles. That said, the majority of Top Gear's output is no more encyclopaedic than many motoring magazines. Top Gear -sourced content should be judged on its own merits relative to WP policies and any problems should then resolve themselves.

EdJogg (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of skewing. Most of the Top Gear references are to facetious comments made by the presenters. That's fine in the 'Top Gear' section but its not encyclopaedic content for the car sections.

Autonews is not a 'reliable publication' but a high street magazine and the the piece referred to was a light hearted puff piece not a serious piece of research.

I still think safety ratings should not be included unless 'newsworthy'. This is not a buyers guide - try Edmunds.com.203.26.122.12 (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Complete list of Blue&Me voice commands

I have been searching for a complete list of all voice commands available with the Blue&Me system.

My Nuovo Fiat 500 manual provides a few for some settings, but not all. It also advises that if you say 'help', all available commands will be read out to you, but I know this is not true as I have tried to use additional commands, such as 'music' with success.

The main reason for my question was a recent problem where all mp3's would play over and over, and I was forced to manually advance the tracks. After a fairly extencive search on the web I found that if I used the voice command 'loop off' it would fix the problem. This is not published anywhere.

As the Blue&Me system covers many different car manufacturers and types it would be advantageous to have a complete list of available voice commands on a global forum such as wikipedia.

Can anyone help?

193.5.216.100 (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC) LP

I would advise against such a list on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a manual, and should not be used a primary source of information. Instead, I would suggest adding an external link off the Fiat 500 page to another website with such a list, if and when one exists. --Vossanova ^o< 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Cimarron by Cadillac: A missed opportunity...

The origin of the word Cimarron is Spanish, meaning runaway slave. The reference is to Yanga, an African slave elder, who started the Cimarrons in 1609, in the southern part of Mexico and who founded the city of San Lorenzo de los Negros near Veracruz. I wonder if the designers/marketers of this model knew that. And what was the intent for branding this model of Cadillac with such history? Clearly the subsequent poor design and negative reputation garnered by this model indicates that not enough research was done on both levels and a great opportunity for Cadillac was surely missed: the chance to break away from bulky, gas-guzzling road hogs saddled with pretension and arrogance and to show that the American auto had the vision and possibly the technology or beginnings of, even way back in 1982, to produce a new type of car with the gravity/reputation of 'Cadillac' and the courage and resolve of those 'Cimarrones' to challenge the status quo of the industry. Lofty and poorly written, perhaps, but makes you think - possibly? 67.180.196.127 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming of Lotus articles

I notice some inconsistency in the naming of the articles about some of the early Lotus models. Specifically:

Article title	Article lead	How displayed in Template:Lotus
Lotus Mk1	The Lotus Mark 1 was...	Mk1
Lotus Mk2	The car that came to be known as the Lotus Mk. 2...	Mk2
Lotus Mk3	Lotus Mk3 was a single seated sports car ...	Mk3
Lotus Mk4	Lotus Mk4 was a trials car ...	Mk4
Lotus Mk5	Lotus Mk5 was...	Mk5
Lotus 6	...Colin Chapman introduced his first 'production' car, the Lotus 6, in 1952. The heart of the Mark 6, as it was called...	Mark 6
Lotus Seven	The Lotus Seven was a small, simple, lightweight two-seater open-top sports car...	Seven
Lotus Mk8	The Lotus Mark 8 (or Mark VIII) car...	Mark VIII
Lotus Nine	The Lotus 9 or more properly Lotus Mark IX...	Mark IX
Lotus Ten	The Lotus Mk 10 or Mark X...	(not in template)
Lotus Eleven	The Lotus Eleven was a racing car...	Eleven
Lotus 12	The Lotus 12 was...	12

I propose that articles be renamed as follows:

• Lotus 6 --> Lotus Mk6
• Lotus Nine --> Lotus Mk9
• Lotus Ten --> Lotus Mk10

and that the article leads and Template:Lotus be updated accordingly. Any objections/better ideas? DH85868993 (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No objections to the principle but I'd like to see the abbreviations gone unless they're exactly what Lotus used. Inconsistencies in the use of "mark" are extremely common in Wikipedia and I think they can be misleading and confusing – they also just irk me. We often see mixes within the same article of Roman and Arabic numerals, spaces ignored, random capitalisation, and all manner of unexpanded (unexplained) abbreviations, inc. (or is that incl.?) for example "mk.II", "Mk2", "mk ii", "mark2" and so on. I believe that unless the model actually uses some specific variant in official documentation, then we should stick to the conventional "Mark I" style, and just as we avoid confusing jargon elsewhere (per the style guidelines), we should avoid pointless abbreviations. I had quite a debate about this with one user a while ago, where his side of the argument was based on a stylised badge on the car, whereas I had several original period brochures and an owner's manual... anyway, it'd be nice to reach a consensus about keeping this sensible, not just for Lotus articles but across the board. – Kieran T ^(talk) 03:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, and certainly the most common usage currently, is that pre-Eleven the cars were known as "Mark ..." with the number given in Roman numerals and no abbreviation. For the Eleven onward the cars were simply known by their number, written in full text form. The Seven complicates matters as, chronologically, it was later than its name suggests (with the roadgoing Seven originating in 1957, after the 1956 interoduction of the Eleven, actually being based on the 1952 one-off Mark VII racing special built for Clive Clairmonte). From the 20 onwards the cars were known by Arabic numbers, officially. But of course, this being the days before ruthless marketing, sometimes the cars were known by other forms, which is why no the Lotus 18 is a far more common usage than Lotus Eighteen. I don't think absolute consistency is either sensible or appropriate between different manufacturers, cases ought to be judged on their individual merits. But for Lotus I think the correct course of action would be for the full "Mark VIII", "Mark IX", "Mark X" form for those cars. For the Seven, the later road car is much the best known, so the Mark VII should be included as a development stage for that car. For the 12, 16 and 18, although technically properly the Twelve, Sixteen and Eighteen, as they are extremely widely known by their Arabic styles there should be the article titles. Pyrope 13:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How about this then?:

• Lotus Mk1 --> Lotus Mark I
• Lotus Mk2 --> Lotus Mark II
• Lotus Mk3 --> Lotus Mark III
• Lotus Mk4 --> Lotus Mark IV
• Lotus Mk5 --> Lotus Mark V
• Lotus 6 --> Lotus Mark VI
• Lotus Seven stays as Lotus Seven (with an internal reference to the "Mark VII")
• Lotus Mk8 --> Lotus Mark VIII
• Lotus Nine --> Lotus Mark IX
• Lotus Ten --> Lotus Mark X
• Lotus Eleven stays as Lotus Eleven
• Lotus 12 stays as Lotus 12
• Lotus 16 stays as Lotus 16
• Lotus 18 stays as Lotus 18, etc

with corresponding changes to the article leads and {{Lotus}}. DH85868993 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; with additional redirects from the 12, 16, and 18 spelled out? – Kieran T ^(talk) 02:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I'll make changes as detailed above, including redirects for 12, 16 and 18. DH85868993 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Illicit Chinese knockoffs in AKA field removed

Recently, an IP editor (Special:Contributions/78.43.180.34) added several Chinese cars to the AKA field in the infoboxes of several articles. Looking in to this it appears that the Chinese vehicles in question simply ripped off other vehicles and have no legitimate relation to the vehicles their designs were stolen from. Chevrolet Colorado had the "Huanghai Plutus" added, but this indicates that only the grille was copied from the Colorado, the rest of the truck's styling was stolen from others. There were also Pyeonghwa models added, but that article shows that those vehicles are based on something else. In fact, the edit on Toyota Tacoma seems to indicate that the allegedly related vehicle is indeed a knockoff and not a true rebadge of the Toyota. The Hyundai Santa Fe was alleged to be also known as the Pyeonghwa Ppeokkugi, but a Google search indicated that it's a Fiat Doblo. This all looks very sketchy and none of it is reliably sourced. I am reverting the lot of the IP's edits. --Sable232 (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If they are truly illicit knockoffs, then they belong in the related field. Toyota started out the same way - the Toyota AA was the Chrysler Airflow body with a Chevy Stovebolt engine and a Ford chassis. But of course, all must be properly sourced.  Stepho  (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends if the vehicles are based on other cars (i.e. legally by manufacturer agreement) or copies, such as the Chery QQ being a copy of the Daewoo Matiz. Cars made under license would belong in aka / related, but reverse engineered cars do not: they are best to be left mentioned in the article body. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/78.43.180.34 has, under several different IPs, been adding fabrications about the North Korean car industry to various different entires. Pyeonghwa has used the Ppeokkugi name for various different models; the Santa Fe is certainly not one of them but the Huanghai DD6480, which rips off the Santa Fe's styling, is. At the very least, this user has inserted false information into the following entries:

Pyeonghwa Motors

Mercedes-Benz W201

Hyundai Santa Fe

Pyeonghwa Motor Plant and related pages in the German Wikipedia

Tokchon Motor Plant in the German Wikipedia

I deleted his claims about the Hyundai Santa Fe and Mercedes-Benz W201 from Pyeonghwa Motors and he replied on my talk page with further inventions, and offered as a source his own fabrications on the German Wikipedia. I emailed Erik van Ingen Schenau, who wrote the book Automobiles Made in North Korea, and he assured me that this guy's claims about Pyeonghwa are false (and also pointed out his fabrications on the German Wikipedia). I don't want to get into an endless edit war of delete, revert, delete, revert, etc, so where do we go from here?--GagHalfrunt (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like this guy has several IPs at his disposal. Special:Contributions/91.89.159.182 is one, Special:Contributions/91.89.139.217 is another. Maybe a report at AN/I is in order. --Sable232 (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Erik has said the following in an email to me. It might be useful if you're contacting an admin.

"I think the guy

1. knows a lot of facts

2. selling these facts with a lot of mistakes

3. is filling in all his holes (and when you study the North Korean industry there are a lot of unknown things) with fantasies

4. creating a mix of assumptions, facts, fantasies all together, bringing it as the truth.

...

It is a pity, as he probably has worthfull and adding info, but from his entries you never know what is real and what is made up, and he probably will not deliver you any prove or source for what he is telling."--GagHalfrunt (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

merge request

Hi all. I've noticed two similar articles have a merge request on them since July 2009, but no action has been taken. The two articles are: Emergency Brake Assist (EBA) and Brake Assist (BA). I support the merge, but I would recommend the article be called emergency brake assist (lower-case, because it is just a 'generic' name for the technology, and not any kind of 'trade name'). As a note of caution, only one of the current articles has an activated talk page (Brake Assist); so it might be worth merging the EBA text into the BA article; and then renaming that one. Regards 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep just do it.. --Typ932 ^T·C 20:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the merger, but a quick glance around suggests that Brake assist might be the better title. Two of the three references in the two articles (including the two most reliable) use only "brake assist", not "emergency brake assist" [1][2][3]. Also, assuming we'd want to improve the referencing, Google Book and Google Scholar searches also suggest "brake assist" to be the most common name:

• Google book search for "brake assist" (657) vs "emergency brake assist" (123)
• Google Scholar search for "brake assist" (758) vs "emergency brake assist" (68)

Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Typ932 - I can't merge, it needs to be a registered user. Isn't it a big no-no to just cut and paste from one article to another? :-(

DeLarge - upon reading the existing citations, I agree with you - brake assist should be the correct name. On the EBA article, the 2nd reference which refers to "Emergency Brake Assist" is just a Ford dealership website which details the Ford nomenclature for said technology fitted to the Mondeo (but I'm not disregarding it - it is quite informatively written, so is a very useful citation). The 1st ref on the EBA page goes to a RoSPA - and whilst RoSPA are very highly regarded in the UK, their article on brake assist capitalises both words (which I personally don't agree with), and if you look at RoSPAs motor vehicle safety index page - they have a propensity to capitalise every word possible (Pop Up Bonnet, Electronic Stability Control, How To Adjust Your Head Restraint, etc). So yeah, someone merge and change to "brake assist", thanks. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

HELP - STOP Car Maker Jokes!

• Hello everyone!

I would like your help. I have recently made a request to remove the Fix it again Tony redirect, which is a blatant attack on Fiat Automobiles company. I strongly believe such redirects Fix Or Repair Daily, Biggest Metal Waste etc. should not be promoted on Wiki. Please could you help my removal request by discussing under RfD here...Redirects_for_discussion#Fix_it_again_Tony. Thank you for your support on this issue. G87 22:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Since the above is a call of action, this can be construed as WP:Canvassing, a violation of Wikipedia policy. It is suggested that either the message be modified to that which cannot be construed as canvassing or remove the above message completely. 147.70.242.43 (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC) (who has paricipated in the first RfD at 147.70.242.54)
  • I dont see this canvassing , without this notice in the rfd would have only couple of discussers, this is just to get bigger audience to this case, you cant discuss or make concensus if only couple of people is discussing about the case. All normal people can make their own decisions. --Typ932 ^T·C 11:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying "Your contributions would be valued" is not canvassing. Saying "please help stop this blatant attack" is very much canvassing as the poster is trying to impose his/her own opinion. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but posting on the talk page for a WikiProject is not going to bring in just one side of the debate, so I think we're good here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox usage (esp dates)

Howdy all,

I'm curious what the consensus is regarding which entries to use in the automotive infobox, especially considering some are closely related? I'm thinking of things like parent_company vs. manufacturer, and production vs. model_years. Vegavairbob is doing a good job cleaning up the Chevrolet_Corvette article, but my personal opinion is that the infobox is kinda heavy. I would propose losing (only in the infobox) the General Motors reference and either the production or model_year. It's only two lines that would be saved, but its a start. The missing GM reference is easy to justify... the Chevrolet wiki article makes it clear that GM is the parent. The production vs. model_year is more tricky. You can find a multitude of use (and misuse) of these across the various automotive articles - in fact, it seems many articles are incorrect in their usage. Cadillac_XLR, for example, lists Production 2004–2009 when it should really be Model Year (since production started in 2003). Chevrolet_K5_Blazer uses both. My personal opinion is that production should not be used, and we just use model_year. But that preference could probably be swayed by a persuasive argument. Have fun! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly isn't obvious to English-speaking readers outside of the USA that Chevrolet == GM. That's why the parent field is useful. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the parent company field is not needed. You can click on the Chevrolet link and that article will then tell you of the GM parentage.

Model years and (calendar) production years is another US vs the rest of the world thing. Americans find it hard to think in terms of anything besides model years while the rest of the world find model years confusing and counter-intuitive. In many articles there would be edit wars where the production dates would be flipped between say, 2000-2007 and 1999-2006 as editors from either side would change it to their own preference. In some articles it became impossible to tell which set of dates was being used. This is why we compromised on having both fields. Americans can do what they like in the model years field while the production years field is strictly the calendar year of when it started and ended (ie July 1999 to May 2006 becomes 1999-2006). But many articles are yet to be cleaned up, so there remains some confusion in the short term.  Stepho  (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for using the "manufacturer" field for the brand the car was sold under. The brand generally doesn't build the car (although it's my understanding that that could be considered the case for some GM stuff back in they day, but I digress). Mercury doesn't build anything, they have a design and marketing strategy but the cars are built by Ford in Ford factories. I'd rather reserve the "manufacturer" field for the entity that actually produced the vehicle, and "parent company" only if necessary.

The model years vs. production years compromise was supposed to be where the production date would include the month or month/day so as not to be ambiguous, and the model years field would be used where the former weren't available (this is all for North American-market cars of course.) --Sable232 (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ram brand timeline

Template:Ram Truck Timeline

I believe this timeline should not exist by itself yet. 2010 is the first model year for the Ram brand, and so having a timeline for one year serves no purpose. It includes model years when the truck was under the Dodge brand, which can be confusing. I added "/ Ram" to Template:Dodge Truck Timeline so that both brands share the same timeline, for the time being. Unless sufficient arguments can be made otherwise, I think the Ram timeline should be deleted. --Vossanova ^o< 14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Ridge Runner (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the template for deletion. There's no sense in having a template for one year (for that matter, there's not point in having it until they drop a model or add one). --Sable232 (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Old car identification

Hello, can anyone here identify this old car? I want to add it to an article here, but I can't identify it. Thanks! Cerebellum (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a Belgian-made Imperia car from the mid-1930s - especially with the distinctive radiator. Perhaps as the photo was taken in Dutch-ruled Indonesia it would make sense to look at Dutch, Belgian, French and German cars of that era. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1935 Ford. Almost the same as the 1936 Ford except for the grill.  Stepho  (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ram Trucks

Can someone make a template for the new RAM division of Chrysler, like the one for {{Dodge}}, {{Plymouth}}, etc

And the Dodge one needs to move the vehicles that were shifted over to RAM to be put under "historic" production. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early for a Ram brand template, but if it's made I'll let it be. On the other hand, I think it will be confusing to put the trucks under "Historic" in the Dodge template. People may misinterpret that as the trucks are no longer produced. I'm starting to think that a combined Dodge/Ram template with the Ram trucks on their own line is a better solution. --Vossanova ^o< 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Automobiles Powered By Four-Cylinder Engines

With regards to the newly created Category:Automobiles Powered By Four-Cylinder Engines, does anyone see a particular benefit of having a category that if "complete" would likely accommodate at least 40 percent of all vehicles on sale today? I liken it to Category:Automobiles with automatic transmissions, Category:Automobiles with airbags and Category:Automobiles with turbochargers. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're saying the category is somewhat pointless, then yes, I agree with you. roguegeek (talk·cont) 05:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This category is completely pointless. A category is there to serve some sort of navigational purpose; all this would do is to group together an arbitrary intersection of vehicles from completely different manufacturers. Also, since most mass-produced vehicles are made with a variety of engine choices, what do you classify BMW 3 Series under? I think your 40% is a bit low, the vast majority of cars today will fall into this category. Please take it to CfD. Zunaid 05:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Pointless - for reasons given above, delete it.  Stepho  (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above responses, would there be any opposition if I extended the CfD to include other (in my opinion) pointless categories such as Category:Sedans, Category:Station wagons, Category:Coupes, Category:Vans, et cetera? OSX (talk • contributions) 11:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As for Category:Sedans and its cousins, they should only be used as a category of categories and should not contain any articles whatsoever. If they are not being used for this purpose (I haven't checked) and there is no proper category hierarchy scheme in place then all of them should go, since they would not be serving a good navigational or informational purpose. So many vehicles these days are made in different body styles that this again becomes meaningless. We are doing quite well with our manufacturer navigation templates at the bottom of articles, and should simply leave it at that. Again using the same example, BMW 3 Series would fall under almost every "car-like" category since it is made in so many different body styles. Zunaid 17:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes i think my category was pointless and should be deleted for the reasons given above. Ben 28920 (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that...the intention was good but the current application of it is perhaps not feasible. One day when Category Intersections become a reality then extremely broad categories such as this one may well replace the more narrow, semi-hierarchical kludge of a system we are currently using. Until that time though, this is more work than is worth maintaining. Zunaid 17:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The category page has been deleted (G7), but the category is still populated. One now needs to go through and de-populate it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedious but done. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Alfa-Romeo 6C - home page

...just to inform you that "Passo Ridotto", in italian, means "Short Wheelbase" or "Reduced Wheelbase", not "Reduced pace".

Regards.

Ilidio de Assuncao -ijpdea@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.71.184 (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What wrong with ("Passo Ridotto" for shortened wheelbase) ? --Typ932 ^T·C 18:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Ilidio was referring to the part of the "6C 3000 Competizione Maggiorata" section, where it said "This car was renamed PR, Passo Ridotto (Reduced Pace).", which I have now changed to "This car was renamed PR, Passo Ridotto (Reduced Wheelbase).". DH85868993 (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lexus LFA, 9000 rpm shared with Ferrari 458 Italia

This has been edited out twice of the Lexus LFA page, [4] and again [5]. And I've readded it twice.

Initial provided rational for the removal, "relevance? the motor has no similarity to a flat plane, V8 motor. I can name 10 cars with a 9000prm redline" This is pure nonsense, both the 458 Italia and LFA are the only two modern road going piston engines with such a redline. Notice I'm referring to production NOT racing engines, piston NOT rotary engines, and car NOT motorcycle engines.

Secondly the number of cylinders or crankshaft layout is irrelevant as it always has been when comparing vehicle redlines. Only on wikipedia would someone raise an issue where none exists.

After readding it again it was reverted because, "the comparison of Ferrari redline is too tenuous to be notable"

Actually I'd have to say the only two production piston car engines sharing the exact same engine redline is notable. Dabbaman (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like original research to me. In anycase, many engines share the same redline. If I'm not mistaken the Honda S2000 shares the 9000 rpm redline as well. It doesn't need to be mentioned. --Leivick (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty and I mean plenty of original research on the automotive pages, apparently it becomes a problem when someone decides to lawyer up. Would you prefer people go around the automotive pages and remove all the original research? Perhaps people should remove everything they consider "tenuous". It's not hard for someone to play the clever vandal game around here if they have a working knowledge of wikipedia. Regardless if it's original research then the original research tag is more appropriate which was never the reason for its removal in the first place. Here's a source comparing the vehicle's redlines together. [6] "Overall, the 4805 cc engine produces 560 horsepower at 8700 rpm. It redlines at 9000 rpm, joining Ferrari's V8 as the highest revving engine in the world." Either way it's only a matter of time before the vehicles go on sale and are brought together directly for head-to-head comparison. I didn't mention the original 2.0-liter S2000 because its rev limit (not redline which was 8800 rpm) was set at 9000 rpm, the LFA's rev limit is set at 9500 rpm. While many cars do share the same redline, its not the case for the LFA and 458 Italia. Those two are the only modern road cars both soon to be in production sharing identical redlines. Dabbaman (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivia that has no place in the article. This is Wikipedia, not Top Trumps. It could be argued, for example, that the Westfield Megabusa has a higher rev limit than both as its engine produces maximum power at 10,100 rpm with a redline somewhere around 11,000 rpm. A pedant would say "ah, but that's a motorcycle engine" - however it's a fully type-approved production car that can be bought today. The Lexus is currently a concept which won't go into production until December 2010. Where a car's engine comes from doesn't matter. The Ariel Atom uses the same engine as the Honda S2000 and it too has a 9,000 rpm rev limit. Bottom line, if you dig deep enough you can find lots of cars. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how is it trivial? It's somehow trivial to mention the only two similar and comparable production road cars which engines share the same redline and technologies to achieve it (titanium connecting rods, ultra-hard/smooth DLC valvetrain coatings) in a car article? And considering the article never claimed the LFA has the highest redline it isn't Top Trumps either, I dunno where you came up with that randomness from. What's trivial is creating an apples-to-oranges comparison as you've done. Engine's from open wheel cars primarily meant for track use built by small British boutique brands neither of which are capable of designing their own engines (Atom3=Civic Type R, Megabusa=Suzuki motorcycle) are not comparable to production road cars. Secondly the Atom3 doesn't have a redline though it's tach maxes out at 9000 rpm which is below the LFA's rev limter and still not a redline. The Civic Type R's redline is 8400 rpm. Thirdly the Megabusa is totally irrelevant since its redline is not 9000 rpm and just a tangent you just went off to illustrate it's not "Top Trumps" something I never claimed, this has absolutely no relevance to the edit in question. Fourthly neither those two UK cars are "fully type-approved production car(s)". Believe it or not but not everyone lives in the UK and the world doesn't revolve around Britain anymore. In the United States which just happens to be the second largest car market behind China neither car is classified or registered as production cars. The Atom3 must be registered under kit car laws and be pieced together in that country before being approved for road use, consequently it cannot be considered a production car. Fifthly by your logic the Ferrari F458 is also currently a concept since it won't go into production or go on sale until sometime is 2010, thus comparing two concepts is perfectly legitimate. Also does anyone besides Britain's "Biker Biker" seriously think boutique open wheel race cars primarily meant for track use are comparable to road going production cars like the LFA and 458 Italia? I'm pretty sure he's the only one who feels that way even though he's decided to re-edit the article before this discussion has ended or I even had the opportunity to respond. Dabbaman (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to start attacking people based on their nationality then you are going to have a very short life on Wikipedia. That aside, you really need to check your facts. Both the Westfield and Ariel have been produced in significant numbers. The LFA itself is merely a limited production boutique car and one that isn't even in production yet. A lot may change between now and next December when the vehicle is due to go into production. Several editors in this thread, which you initiated, have said that the comparison is trivial/tenuous yet you choose to take issue / argue with every one. Perhaps a nice cup of tea would help you. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone based on their nationality. Because a car is classified as a production car in Britain doesn't make it a production car as you falsely claim. The Atom3 is not classified or sold as a production car in a large market such as the United States which automatically disqualifies your statement. As a matter of fact the importer's website says not to drive the Atom3 on public roads [7]. How the LFA can be called a boutique car is beyond me, it's a standard production car built by one of the largest automotive mfgs comparable to other production cars, the sort of car sold and driven all over the world. The Atom is built by a company with 7 employees, the definition of a boutique shop. If you want to get technical the LFA isn't currently in production but then again neither is the 458 Italia the only modern non-racing road car it will share a redline with. Like I said earlier the Atom3 doesn't redline at 9000 rpm it's tachometer maxes out at 9000 rpm which is not a redline. However the Civic Type R the engine it is taken from redlines at 8400 rpm, you incorrectly stated the engine is from the S2000. The vehicle's tachometer is visible here: [8] Again the edit in question never made it appear that the LFA's redline is somehow the world's highest, you created that out of nowhere with your "Top Trumps" comment and then bringing up the Megabusa. All that was said is the LFA shares a redline of 9000 rpm with the 458 Italia, why bring up other car's with higher redlines than those two? How is that relevant? And all I did was respond to other editors comments which I'm allowed. If what was added is considered original research I found a citation and I pointed out the S2000's redline unlike the LFA and 458 was never 9000 rpm. Thus far nobody has been able to find another road car engine with a 9000 rpm redline and I'm near 100% certain there are none that exist after I was born. Furthermore as you apparently want to believe you don't singly determine when a discussion is over and consensus has been reached, or what's trivial especially prior to me even responding so spare me your lectures, perhaps you should remember the same rules apply to you as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabbaman (talk • contribs) 10:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont see nothing special in that rev limit see for example ancient Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale rev limit.. --Typ932 ^T·C 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What does whether the engine is special or not have to do with anything? In the past 20-30 years no road going production car has had a redline at or exceeding 9000 rpm except the 458 Italia and LFA which is indeed noteworthy. Also part of the original reason for its removal was that 10 other engines share the same redline which is patently false. Dabbaman (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in mentioning the vehicles redline, but comparing it to another vehicle could be considered original research. Basically, yeah, what everyone else is saying. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the 'too tenuous' quote is from me, I had better say something. Firstly, redlines are approximations and are usually rounded to the nearest 100 rpm. So having two vehicles with the 'exact' same numbers is not all that surprising. My own car has an 8000 rpm limit but that doesn't mean it can't go to 8017 rpm without damage. Secondly, if two cars share only a single point then the link is indeed tenuous. If it was shown that they shared weight, top speed, redline, wheelbase, etc then it might make more sense to mention the other vehicle. Third, are the sources making this comparison or is it just the article editor? Fourth, does it really add so much to the article (or does deleting it harm the article) that it is worth a fight to the death over it? Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Both manufactures list the vehicle's redline at 9000 rpm, thus they both share identical redlines regardless of rounding and I don't see how rounding makes things tenuous. Both cars share approximately the same dimensions, weight, top speeds, engine outputs, brakes, wheels/tires etc., and are classed as high performance road cars which are targeted at more or less the same audience. These two cars are very much comparable and extensive magazine comparison between the two vehicles is guaranteed after both cars approach their sale dates. Dabbaman (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Once magazines start making comparisons we can use them as references. We don't start making comparisons based on what we think might happen in the future. --Leivick (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that just for the record I did find a source comparing the two vehicles (see above). Dabbaman (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Automobiles to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Auto shows

I decided to make a navbox for auto/motor shows because I often find myself jumping between them.

I haven't added it to any articles yet. Feedback is welcome - is this a good/bad idea? It's not meant to be a thorough list of shows; just the largest, most significant ones. I know that opens up a whole can of subjectivity. --Vossanova ^o< 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Its good , but i think it should have all shows by Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d'Automobiles, which list the most important ones. --Typ932 ^T·C 20:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. You're right about the subjectivity, but I like the idea. How about instead of organizing it by North American and International, we do it just by the official name of the show? The Detroit show is a show that takes place in North America, but it is an international show. That's why it's called the North American International Auto Show. Anyway, yeah, I like the idea. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto New York show. Otherwise a nice idea. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good feedback all. I don't think the list needs to strictly adhere to OICA-recognized shows, since IMO that doesn't make them important or not (some of them do not have a WP article yet). I'm mostly going by shows which a) have the most media coverage, b) have the most car introductions, and c) have articles which aren't stubs. Roguegeek, most shows in NA call themselves "international auto shows", Detroit is no different from the others in that aspect. I included the city names to make the navbox more geographic in nature; "North American International Auto Show" gives no immediate hint of which city it's in. Also keeps it a lot smaller, as full auto show names can get pretty long. --Vossanova ^o< 15:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How you determine which has most coverage or introductions?, this can vary largely by year. By using some oganisation list you can avoid to to be nnpov --Typ932 ^T·C 20:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I still think this should have all the shows by oica, cant see eg. Seoul Motor Show or Melbourne being more important than eg. Bologna motor show --Typ932 ^T·C 19:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I added Bologna Motor Show. It doesn't look like the article was updated for 2009, although the website indicates it took place. --Vossanova ^o< 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why North America gets a dedicated section? OSX (talk • contributions) 08:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can be charged with bias, coming from North America myself. However, all four of these shows do have a significant number of introductions and press coverage. The LA show is regarded as the first major show of the new model year in NA (which gets going roughly in Sept-Oct) and the New York show is regarded as the last. --Vossanova ^o< 15:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, from what I've seen, most major North American shows are annual while most in the rest of the world (Geneva being an exception) are biennial (every two years). If I merged North America with International, I may as well do away with the odd/even rows, and it might get a bit messier. --Vossanova ^o< 15:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps have "Annual" and "Biennial" instead? --Sable232 (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. OSX (talk • contributions) 20:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made a few changes including the above suggestion by Sable232. Feel free to revert. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can live with this. Possibly a little Australian bias on your side :) but I'll leave it. Maybe we should add Seoul and one or two Chinese shows, as those are becoming increasingly important in the world market. --Vossanova ^o< 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vossanova, I wasn't intending to add bias—I was just adding the two (major) Australian shows that I am aware of. Over time, I assume others will do the same. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the full country names with flags (scaled down slightly). I think it should be good to use now. --Vossanova ^o< 20:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for guideline for "special" and custom "editions"

There are numerous "special", "customized", and "tribute" editions of ordinary and collector cars that are currently sold by several aftermarket firms and dealers. Anyone can put run a "limited number" of "special editions" for sale to the public. However, it seems to me that if they are not sanctioned by the original automaker, or marketed as part of an joint collaboration, then they are not worthy for having individual encyclopedia articles, or even mention in the articles about the models that they are based on. I can't find a convention statement to that effect, but from the interpretation of the guidelines that Wikipedia articles about automobiles should describe the models as produced by their original manufacturer and avoid even images of "heavily customized cars as they may not be very representative of the vehicles most common appearance." However, some contributors keep adding numerous "customized" and "reproduction" automobiles (such as the 2007 "Burt Reynolds Edition Trans Am" or the 2010 "Jim Wangers Signature Edition GTO") that are offered for sale by their customizers. Some even have "celebrity endorsements (Jim Wangers was behind the creative marketing of the original Pontiac GTO), but they are all versions with numerous modifications and aftermarket parts most often not built by the original automaker. Moreover, some of these customized versions now have extensive descriptions that exceed the Wikipedia guideline that articles" are not to serve as a means of promotion of any kind". An example of this is the modifications performed by one Ford dealer that are "limited" to 45 units (see: Ford Mustang variants#Gaffoglio Family Metalcrafters. I think there needs to be a guideline on these "special editions of vehicles" that not marketed by an automaker:

1. Should they be included in the articles about the models they are built from?
2. Included in separate article that lists and describes all the aftermarket variants (to please all those that keep adding these custom models)?
3. Not included at all in Wikipedia?

Of course, if an automaker makes a modified model part of its line up (see examples of numerous muscle cars built in collaboration with Hurst Performance) then mention should be included in the appropriate Wikipedia article (such as the Hurst SC/Rambler) or in their own article (such as the Oldsmobile Hurst/Olds). Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a good question because I'm definitely seeing a lot of these articles get out of hand with the variants. My opinion is that it's a case per case thing and the variations inclusion within an article should rely solely on if the subject meets the general notability guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. For the most part, these low-volume variants don't have enough significant coverage from a reliable independent source and, therefore, shouldn't be included. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Catalytic converters?

With {{convert|400|cid|cc|abbr=on}} {{convert|401|cid|cc|abbr=on}}, 400 cu in (6,600 cc) 401 cu in (6,570 cc) Really? (BTW, {{convert|400.0|cid|cc|abbr=on}} gives 400.0 cu in (6,555 cc), which is correct...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the convert template can be weird with significant figures and rounding. Add a "0" parameter after the units to stop rounding, like this: {{convert|400|cid|cc|0|abbr=on}} = 400 cu in (6,555 cc) --Vossanova ^o< 15:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The convert template tries to round the output value to the same precision as the input value. It saw '00' at the end of the input value '400' so it defaulted to '00' for the output. With '401' it sees that rounding goes the the nearest '1' instead of the nearest '100'. As Vossanova said, adding '|0' tells the template to round to 0 significant decimal digits after the decimal point (which in this case also gets rid of the '00'). A '|2' in {{convert|400|cid|cc|2}} 400 cu in (6,554.83 cc) makes it even more accurate (although in this case we don't want false accuracy when the input value is only rounded to the nearest inch).  Stepho  (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of everybody who's had this problem, thanks. ;D (And I tired the |1 {IIRC}, which was too much accuracy.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

suspected link spam - please help

Hi. I've picked up what I suspect is possible link spam. A user Carsguide comau has created an account TODAY @ 5:16 spent the next hour ONLY adding external links to the above website. I've also discovered what I strongly suspect to be a sockpuppet account operating with exactly the same pattern: Rodhalligan created 17 March 2009 and spent the next 3 months doing exactly the same thing.

What do you guys think? Deliberate spam or not? Should we just revert their edits or go through and evaluate each one? I have no comment on the merits of the website or the external links themselves, merely the deliberate and single-minded manner in which these additions are being made.

By the way, here's an interesting Google search which indicates that Rod is an avid blogger on the carsguide website, so perhaps it's not a case of sockpuppetry but merely the word spreading around that blog. What do you guys think? Zunaid 09:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his/her contributions, he/she/it hasn't added any links but have only cleaned up some existing links to match a new style of URL. if you attempt to go to the old style URL, the browser changes it to the new style. I'm happy to let the changes stand.  Stepho  (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at...I did pick that up with some of Carsguide comau's contributions, and that is how I picked up Rodhalligan in some of the article histories. There is an issue at play here: whereas previously the carsguide articles were listed under "bloga and stuff" on the carsguide website, they are now listed under "reviews" etc., but they are still user-created blogs nonetheless. I haven't traced through every link, but my suspicion is that Rod has linked to (his own) articles on carsguide in various car articles (self promotion?), and now someone else at carsguide (the editor?) has come along in good faith and cleaned up the incoming links. Zunaid 09:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, now I see what you mean. The recent activity is in good faith but the original addition of those links to a blogging site wasn't good. And that applies even if Rod isn't just linking to his own 'reviews'. Blog sites are unreliable as far as WP is concerned.  Stepho  (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dedicated articles for "mainstream" vehicles with hybrid drivetrains

I have started this section as I would like to ascertain what the general consensus here is in regards to dedicated articles for "mainstream" vehicles with hybrid drivetrains. For example, Toyota Camry Hybrid, Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Accord Hybrid, Lexus RX Hybrid, Lexus LS Hybrid, Ford Escape Hybrid, and Ford Fusion Hybrid (have I missed any?). Obviously, the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight are not counted.

As far as I am concerned, these articles are largely redundant and should never have been created in the first place. A more logical solution would be to include this hybrid-related information into dedicated, single-generation model articles. We now have the awkward situation of having Toyota Camry (ACV40) and Toyota Camry Hybrid articles.

Thoughts? OSX (talk • contributions) 14:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine as a separate article. An article about a hybrid that's redesigned can focus in on specific changes to the car's hybrid technology that could clutter up a broader article. IFCAR (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is enough unique content (say, three or more paragraphs), I don't mind hybrid variants being split into their own articles. If the article remains a stub after a while, you can merge it back in like anything else. As for multiple generations, it's only an issue for the Honda Civic so far. I think it's better to leave the Honda Civic Hybrid article as-is, rather than redirecting it Honda Civic and then to the generation articles, or disambiguating to 7th or 8th generation. --Vossanova ^o< 17:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm against separate articles for the same car based on ANY drivetrain, never mind hybrid. What next, Toyota Camry (petrol), Toyota Camry (diesel) as separate articles? There are differences in cars for EVERY drivetrain variation, be it petrol/diesel, manual/automatic, 2WD/4WD, coupe/sedan/estate, I4/V6, NA/turbo, long wheel-base/SWB etc. The list is endless. We don't go overboard by creating separate articles documenting each variant, but instead simply mention any (important) differences between models. Hybrid is no different, there should be sufficient space in the article for the differences to be noted in place instead of spun out. Zunaid 21:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just about layout or engine. These hybrids are often marketed by the brands separately from their normal variants. Maybe it has much to do with hybrids being relatively new. But, if they get enough media coverage on their own (at least in North America), I think public interest in the hybrid variants is enough that some people will read those articles as a starting point. That said, the hybrid variants should at least be mentioned on the regular pages, and if they can be described in a paragraph or two, and the regular version is much more notable than the hybrid, I don't have much of a problem with the hybrid articles getting merged back into a Hybrid section. --Vossanova ^o< 21:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would choose by the following criteria:

• If the hybrid info is big enough (without duplicating the mainstream model's article) then it should get its own article (including a mention of the mainstream model, of course).
• If it is sold under a different brand but doesn't have much info then it should be a redirect going to a section within the mainstream article.
• If it is sold under the same brand but doesn't have much info then it should be just a section within the mainstream article and optionally have a redirect.  Stepho  (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Strikes me as a touch of recentism. Believe that unless the car has substantially re-engineered to the point that it is a completely separate vehicle that it should not be split. If one can be parked alongside a petrol engined cousin, and you can't tell the difference visually without consulting badges, then really... no. --Falcadore (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And id anyone add merger tags, could they please start the merger discussion at the talk page indicated by the merger tags. Don't just tag and run. --Falcadore (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we've got some mixed opinions. I tend to agree that hybrids are the "in thing" at the moment, but in 15 to 20 years time when purely electric vehicles are supposedly going to be common, I can't see hybrids as being particularly important. In the case of Toyota, the specific hybrid information should be located at Hybrid Synergy Drive, just like engine-specific information belongs on dedicated engine articles (e.g. GM High Feature engine). The visual differences from the "regular" versions tend to limited to revised grilles, head- and tail-lamp lenses, interior gauges and badging. Not enough to warrant a separate article. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Bull-Doser Vs. Shadiac: The 2010 Montreal International Auto Show Photographers

3rd-gen Toyota Sienna.

6th-gen Ford Fiesta.

I went on the Toyota Sienna page, and he photographed that SAME CAR AS ME! I've got a better 3/4 angle, whereas HIS is poorly-angled! And that Ford Fiesta thingy is about roughly the same as MINE! -- Bull-Doser (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a contest and there's no reason to assume bad faith here, Bull-Doser. We've always had pretty simple and straight forward conventions for infobox automobile images. The solution is lining them both up with each other and figuring out which one fits those standards more closely. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Model years for US-spec automobiles

User:Stepho-wrs has made some changes to a handful of articles that seem to be a question of precedent, regarding what years to use in the caption of a US-spec automobile. As we use exclusively model years here, that is the only way a car is marketed and it is confusing to use anything else. I do not advocate using model years throughout an article, but if a car is sold in the US, it is sold using model years. Here is an example of one of this user's compromises; I think that identifying a vehicle as US-spec is enough to make it clear that the caption is using model years without two different numbers and a garbled semi-explanation. Thoughts? IFCAR (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; U.S.-market vehicles should utilise the model year convention. As IFCAR noted, without detailing that the vehicle in question is U.S.-specification could lead to confusion. Outside of the United States, model years (MY) tend to written as MY2010, MY2011, et cetera to differentiate them from the much more widely used calendar years. As far as I am aware, such a designation is not used in the U.S. but would it work if linked (e.g. MY2010)? OSX (talk • contributions) 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, many non-Americans probably are not very familiar with the model year format and so, stating "2010 facelift" when it is still 2009 would imply that the facelift in question is yet to be introduced. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The only time that would not work is in an infobox image, where there would be no clickable caption link. And the confusion you address in your second point would be easily remedied by reading the text next to the photo that presumably says whether the pictured car is on sale and where. IFCAR (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think saying "MY2010 Camry LE (US)" in the caption would do just fine. I don't care for saying "2009 (2010 US model year)" in the opening paragraph though since the system is also used in Canada and (I'm fairly certain) Mexico. --Sable232 (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree - MY2010 is nice and simple and prevents any confusion for those of us not from the American continent. Perhaps wikilink the prefix once in an article but not on each and every occurrence. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The big problem of using model years in Wikipedia is knowing when the article is using calendar years and when it is using model years. One example is where one author copied some information from the Chevrolet Corvette article to the fuel injection article concerning the 1957 fuelie engine. Naturally the Corvette article called it a 1957 engine (with implied model years) but it remained as 1957 when copied to the fuel injection article (which uses calendar years). It's obvious that I am no fan of the model year concept but even I won't try to get the American only vehicles to change to calendar years (with the vital exception of production years in the infobox). It gets confusing when a reader is comparing data in articles when some of them are calendar dates and some are US style model years. Just saying that American articles automatically use US style model years requires training each and every reader about this convention - which is, of course, not practical. And what would we do for vehicles sold in American and non-American markets (eg Toyota Corolla). I would still like someway for the casual non-American reader to be explicitly told that this article uses model years without saying '2010 US model year' or MY2010 in every sentence. One suggestion is to use a simple template {{model year}} I created. Putting this at the top of an article will subtly bring the dating system to the readers attention. Eg

This article uses US style model years for its dating system. These years are often one year ahead of the calendar year.

We can add options (style=US/international ?, article/section ?, flags=on ?) to it later if we like but the simple text will do for now. Hopefully this will work as a comprise that isn't too in-your-face for Americans but still gives vital info to non-Americans.  Stepho  (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Stepho, I do not think the italicised disclaimer is going to help much as it only going to create confusion in articles dealing with both model years and calendar years (like the Camry example listed above). If I can get the support of a several editors, I think we should include the above suggestion to the WP:CARS conventions page; that is, model years: MY2010, calendar years: 2009. OSX (talk • contributions) 20:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I intended for that template to only go on articles which predominantly use the model year system (eg Corvette, Mustang), not for international articles like the Camry. Mixed pages like the Camry article (or any page that is not strictly American only) should of course use calendar years by default with the occasional 'MY' or 'model year' prefix. If you can convince the majority to go along with MY2010 then I'll agree to use it as well but somehow I don't think we will win the majority of Americans on this one. They live, think and breath the model year system and will be unlikely to put MY before each and every date. Also, many of these editors don't read this project page, so it will be a constant battle to keep them following the convention. We would also have to train the casual readers to know that MY2010 is for the model year (probably easy) while an unadorned 2009 is for the calendar year. I can foresee a lot of American readers getting confused about why something is said to be introduced in both 2009 and also in the following MY2010 (looks like the same year to us but looks like 2 successive years to them). That's why I thought a simple disclaimer at the top would work to warn the non-American readers while keeping the American editors on side and it only needs to be added once. If it's decided to follow your suggestion, then we will need a warning box at the top of every American automobile article until they add the date prefixes. In that case, I can convert my template into a warning box similar to the {{globalize}} template.  Stepho  (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

When writing the Toyota Matrix article, I just used the words 'model year' in the text once in a while when talking about years. I'm not too fond of putting 'MY' in front of every singer year in an article, but am open to the idea.--Ridge Runner (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ridge Runner, you are probably right; using the words "model year" in the text is a much better solution. However, I do believe that "MY" is a better solution for image captions. So should we include a new convention outlining that:

Model years:
Articles that utilize the model year format should clearly differentiate such years from calendar years. Prose dealing with model years should include the actual model year (e.g. 2006) followed by or preceded by the words "model year" (e.g. 2006 model year; model year 2006). Image captions with model years should include the abbreviated "MY" prefix (e.g. MY2006).

OSX (talk • contributions) 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that "The ________ was a sedan ... introduced for the 2006 model year" would be suitable enough to show that the article is written that way. I don't think having to add it for every yearly change, every section heading, etc. would do much more than add clutter.

Small point: maybe put a space after MY? MY 2006 looks a little more professional than MY2006, in my opinion. --Sable232 (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, stating "model year" four times in a single paragraph is redundant, but stating something along the lines of this should be fine:

"For the 2008 model year, curtain airbags were made standard fitment, with dual knee airbags offered as an option. 2009 models received a revised grille and for 2010 the manual transmission variant was deleted from the lineup."

However, when moving from the lead for example, to another section, the word "model year" should be mentioned in its first instance. Another area of confusion arises when it is stated: "In 2008, curtain airbags were made standard fitment." This language usage seems to be quite prevalent, and causes great confusion to non-American and (dare I say) Americans readers alike.

Regarding the space between "MY" and the year ("MY 2006"), I would oppose that on the grounds that I have never seen "MY" written as such. I agree, it looks better, but it does not seem to be the standard convention. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

For international articles, I agree with you (ie unadorned years are calendar years and all references to model years have 'MY' or 'model year' qualifiers). I fully support putting it in the convention. This is what I have been doing and it seems to work well apart from the occasional new American editor throwing in unadorned years but meaning model year. But I can't see this system working on American specific articles - the Americans aren't going to put model year or MY in practically every sentence they write. I see the options as follows:

1	Convince American editors to use calendar years.	Great for non-Americans.	Unlikely to gain American support. Requires constant watching for new American editors.
2	Convince American editors to pepper 'model year' or 'MY' all over their articles.	Good for non-Americans.	Works well for international articles but I keep getting reverts from American editors, even on international articles. Unlikely to gain American support. Requires constant watching for new American editors.
3	Teach each and every non-American reader to understand model years (without qualifiers like MY) and to recognise American specific articles without being told (eg Chevrolet Corvette use model years, Toyota Corolla uses calendar years).	Great for Americans on American articles.	Places a heavy burden on all readers (Americans reading international articles and non-Americans reading American articles). What to do with the Chevrolet Nova which is a Corolla clone made in the US?
4	Put a disclaimer (ie my new template) at the top of each American specific article saying this article uses model years and then use unadorned years throughout the article meaning model years.	Requires only a one off change to US specific articles.	Might be missed by a casual reader.

Sables232's idea of putting 'model year' in the intro is similar to item 4 but is a bit too subtle and easily missed by casual readers. Thoughts?  Stepho  (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely not support a disclaimer as all it takes is for one casual editor to change things a little and ruin the uniform format. As I said above, mentioning "model year" in the first instance per section dealing with model year changes is probably the better option. I am undecided as to whether U.S.-only vehicles should have "MY" included in image captions—but I leaning towards leaving them out. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

On the MY2006 vs. MY 2006: the latter always looks to me at first glance like a vandal claiming that it's HIS 2006 Camry. IFCAR (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why we should link it: MY2006. I guess the alternative is to us the word model years in captions as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I misread what you said. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• 
  MY2009 Toyota Camry LE
• 
  Model year 2009 Toyota Camry LE
• 
  2009 (model year) Toyota Camry LE

I don't feel a disclaimer at the top of the page is a good idea. Not quite the same situation, but we don't see "This article is written in American English" or vice versa anywhere. I think OSX has the right idea, make the "model year" mention once per section (e.g. "The second-generation _____ was released for the 1997 model year..." or "The _____ entered production as a 2003 model"). I also agree that "For 2008" is preferable to "In 2008" since the latter implies a calendar year, the former implies a model year. (I generally write them this way myself.) --Sable232 (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, the situation is not quite the same for American/Commonwealth English. Most people can tell that 'colour' and 'color' are the same word. Even if they don't particularly like it, there is no ambiguity. Whereas calendar years and model years have a very distinct ambiguity. If (and its a very big if) you can convince the Americans to obey these new guidelines, then I would be very happy. But I can't see it happening. Every new editor coming along could tip the apple cart over without even realising it. It would require constant vigilance by non American editors (or at least an American editor sympathetic to the international audience). Every change must be watched and the wrong form converted to the correct form. That's a lot of work and will continue indefinitely. On the other hand, a template at the top (eg {{model year}} ) is put in once, is unlikely to get edited and is dead simple to restore if it does get deleted.

OSX, could you explain how different articles could get inconsistent disclaimers. I don't understand how a two word template at the top of an article could be accidentally corrupted. Outright deletion is easy to recognise and restore. Changing either word would probably give a red warning at the top of the page, which is also easy to recognise and restore.  Stepho  (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stepho, I was not referring to the actual template being edited, but the text in the article below it. If an article disclaimer states: "This article uses the North American model year format" then one would assume that every single year mentioned in that article is a model year, and not a calendar year. If I (Australian point-of-view) were for example to add a sentence to the Buick LaCrosse article regarding a model year change of some sort, and I stated that "in 2010 tri-zone climate control air conditioning was made standard..." that would corrupt the whole format and other readers would assume "2010" meant "2010 model year" because of the disclaimer.

Another thing, just because it is a convention does not mean it's going to be taken as gospel by every single human being on Earth. Just like every other policy or MoS guideline, this proposed convetion is going to get ignored too. However, that alone is not enough to justify its non-existence. Experienced editors will (hopefully) see such style issues and clarify such ambiguities. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what you mean. But there are relatively few non-American editors for American-only vehicles and they tend to pull their information from books/magazines/etc which are written by Americans using model years. So the scenario you mentioned doesn't come up very often. Whereas the point I was trying to make is that it is very, very hard to get the average American to follow anything except model years and very, very hard to get them to even add the words 'model year' in the leads. So with your scheme we will be fighting against the average American editor all the time. I'd be thrilled to bits if you could convince them but I still can't see it happening. I've lost track of the number of times they revert my addition of the words 'model year' on various international articles, so it would be even harder on American-only vehicle articles. I would rather make a small change once with the occasional restoration instead of patching things up 7 out of ten times (seat-of-the-pants estimation). With international articles I think it is worth fighting for what we think is right. But for American articles I don't think we will have the manpower to prevail. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a little disconcerting that you see this as a battle.

I don't understand how placing a notice at the top of NA-market articles will help with what gets changed on others. I did a quick check of some articles on North American-market cars and most had "model year" or "19xx model" stated either in the introduction or the first sentence of the next section. I think you're greatly overestimating the difficulty of making that a consistent standard. There would be no reasonable grounds for reverting it, so barring a couple reversions by a casual editor who doesn't follow these discussions it should be relatively easy and once it's finished across the board it probably wouldn't be an issue again. --Sable232 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there may be a small issue with some casual editors, but most are not going to remove already correctly formatted content; they will more likely add new content that will not use the words "model year". I would like to make this a part of the convention, so if other users could include their support (or objection) below that would be appreciated. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fully convinced but I will conceded defeat on the point of the disclaimer. I agree with OSX's proposed addition to the convention.  Stepho  (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering there have been no objections and several supporting votes, I have added the "Calendar and model years" convention to the conventions page: [9]. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to amend that to clarify that the MY prefix in image captions is not needed on North American-market cars. --Sable232 (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to reopen the discussion (I'll accept my loss) but I came across an interesting convention of using CY2005 for calendar year Jan 2005 - Dec 2005. Perhaps articles that predominantly use model years could use the CY form when talking about calendar years.  Stepho  (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not a fan of that either (sorry). The way I see it, calendar years should take precedence over model years. "Blank" years (i.e. 2006) should assumed to be calendar unless it is stated that the are not (i.e. 2006 model year). What is wrong with stating: "In 2009 Toyota introduced a revised Camry for the 2010 model year"? It's simple, and keeps both the Americans and the non-Americans happy and (theoretically) no one should be confused as everything is clearly explained. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I understood of all the above, we agreed that if the intro of American vehicles start talking about model years then the unadorned years in the rest of the section/article shall be assumed to also be model years. Eg "The XXX was released for the 2006 model year. In 2007 it got a bigger engine." But what do we do if we want to mention a specific calendar year? Eg "The XXX was released in 1969 with a 429 cubic inch engine. In 1973 the oil crisis killed all sales."  Stepho  (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Since model years are integral to the United States automotive industry, I can't see that being a problem very often. Usually, you would wright the above as: "The XXX was released in 1969 for the 1970 model year with a 429 cubic inch engine. The 1973 oil crisis killed all sales."

The best solution would be to ascertain the month if possible as this is enough to differentiate the date as calendar: "The XXX was released in May 1969 with a 429 cubic inch engine. The 1973 oil crisis killed all sales." Early-, mid-, or late-1969 would also work fine.

If in the very rare case of there being no suitable model year to include, I would wright the above as follows: "The XXX was released during 1969 with a 429 cubic inch engine. In the 1973 oil crisis killed all sales." OSX (talk • contributions) 12:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid using the month only adds to the trouble: is a May '69 a '68, '68½, or '69 model? (The '68½ option is one some editors don't recognize, or accept as valid, I'm not sure which; another problem...) I try to use "MY" for the first ref, or where it's not clear, so "The '69 model Charger" or "For 1970, the 429 was dropped" (by implication, the model year), while "During 1970, the Six Pak option was added". (Yes, I know, the years & options are nonsense; just examples.) In the 3d case, the exact month would be desirable, along with, say, "as a '69½ model", as appropriate. I think OSX probably has the best solution: intro'd in "year" as a "model year", so "in '10 as an '11 model"; that leaves a) policing it & b) correcting exsisting pages to the new standard. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)