Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Contents

Place of assembly -CKDEdit

Specifically with regard to South Africa there was a very small operation that assembled various high end sportscars from CKD kits. Some IP editor is keen to add Cape Town as a place of assembly to the Esprit and Countach articles. I acknowledge that it is likely that at least one of each example was bashed together from a kit in SA, but is that enough to be worth adding to the infobox? An alternative would be to mention it in the text. Tesla Model S mentions its much larger CKD operation on the info box. I have no particular opinion on this. Greglocock (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This is InterMotorMakers? I think putting it in the text would be a reasonable compromise, and considering the unknown number produced the infobox might make it seem like many were made in SA. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I would not count on-off's. Special mention in the text would be best.  Stepho  talk  10:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have zero idea on this (I know some Alfas were, I don't know which, I don't know which other makes). But we have a policy on sourcing, and we have a long-standing problem here (and similarly for Taiwan) where IP vandals have been inserting very dubious content. So I don't want to see anything go in here unless it's sourced.
I'd be OK seeing one-offs listed, so long as they were as part of some bigger plan to potentially go to mass production, even if it didn't happen.
Encyclopedically we'd also be a lot better if we had some context here, such as the timing for this work and how it fitted under the apartheied sanctions regimes. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I think its ok to put those CKD assembly places for infobox, problem is that its hard to find good references to those, I have been tryin to find those for ALfa models, but seems very hard to find good references. But dont add those without references. There is couple of vandals who keep adding weird places to infoboxes. There is 2 places in Africa who assembled those CDk kits. Alfa and some other brands were assembled in Willowvale(Salisbury) South Africa - ex Ford assambly plant and other brands in Umtali, Rhodesia (current Zimbabve) - ex BMC assembly plant. We could also make articles of those plants -->Typ932 T·C 13:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

For the last years I have been deleting rubbish from the German WP, also concerning Africa (there were even Porsches built in Morocco mentioned) and South Africa. If there is a good reference concerning CKD assembly, I would introduce it into the infobox, if not or in doubt, in the text (well, it should be referenced, too). When I have ever finished this in the German WP, I will have a look at the EN articles (some were translated from DE, see e.g. these article changes, though it is from Chile, not from Africa). In general, South African vehicle production has a great, sometimes complicated history (see here only one plant, for beginners) and is quite well referenced in the web and in science. --Roxedl (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Land Rover MENAEdit

There's an issue at COMMONS about photos released by Land Rover MENA's Flickr account not being their property. See Commons:Commons:Village pump. Land Rover MENA is the division of Land Rover dealing with the Middle East, it is headquartered in Coventry, England, UK, where Jaguar Land Rover has its corporate headquarters. -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Audi R3 -- and help for a editorEdit

I have asked EurovisionNim and another editor to add sources to Audi A3--they are the top two editors to the article. EurovisionNim agreed to do so. I'm not familiar with any particular sourcing requirements that are specialized with regard to automobiles. I don't know, for example, if we allow sourcing directly from the manufacturer for data on engines, etc. If anyone could help make sure he stays on track, that would be much appreciated. --David Tornheim (talk)

I'm 19 David Tornheim. I'm not young. Can you send me the links to me (preferably by email) and I can print them out and rephrase them. My dad will be helping me out --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't have the links for the reliable sources. They are absent from the article and should have been provided by those who inserted the material originally. The material in the article needs to be grounded in reliable sources, or it is likely to be deleted. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Chill out Nim, no need to get so defensive at everything someone say. 19 is relatively young for a editor as comparison to most editors on here. The Audi A3 does lack citation, mostly due to neglect, but what exactly is needed citation, from the looks of it David, you seem to requested citation on the whole article. --Vauxford (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm 50+ and so are a lot of the editors here. In our eyes, you're still carrying baby fat. We're also jealous of your youth, so that's no bad thing :)
3rd party references are best - which is typically books and magazines. Manufacturer data is okay as long as it doesn't form the majority of the references and should generally be limited to pure factual data - eg engine sizes, vehicle dimensions, years offered. Any controversial facts, outrageous claims and any subjective facts (eg phrases like "Europe's favourite car for 2006") must be backed up by non-manufacturer references. I normally think to myself about how much money the manufacturer will gain from a statement. If they stand to gain lots of money then I treat it as suspect (especially 0-100 km/h times and fuel economy). If it doesn't really affect much (eg dimensions) then I trust them. Avoid forums and blogs unless they are hosting scans of official data or snippets from books and magazines. So called information on forums is often wrong, applies only to a local market or is just an opinion. Books and magazines double check their information and pass it through editors and lawyers - just in case they get sued. Forums rarely double check and practically never run it through a lawyer.  Stepho  talk  03:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
You might want to try the following Haynes manuals: ISBN 9781785210150, ISBN 9780857339942 and ISBN 9780857339126. If you're really keen, there are also at least two similar manuals available in German (ISBN 9783613019676 and ISBN 9783716820605). I have added similar references to many of the articles about Mercedes-Benz models (eg Mercedes-Benz W124), but I haven't got around to Audi models as yet. As the A3 is not an enthusiast model, there aren't any books about them published by Brooklands, Crowood, or Motorbooks, and, as far as I am aware, none in German either. However, you might be able to find road test reviews of them in old issues of motoring magazines, which can be bought cheaply on eBay. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Usually its not hard to find reliable sources from internet, technical details is IMO best get from manufacturer pages, also performance data and maybe some independed data also to backup those claims, but its not good idea to add only some magazine results, those can vary a lot and there is in my experience quite often errors (in technical data) in many big magazines evo, auto motor und sport etc , and its easy to find all kinds of performance numbers bad or good. And in generally yes that A3 article needs lots more citations and references. -->Typ932 T·C 08:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This volume might help (though I am NOT suggesting necessarily buying it from Amazon: probably better value is available on the second-hand market). The earlier volumes certainly carry a bit more credibility and are more carefully checked pre-publication than most magazine articles (though they are NOT error-free). But I'm afraid my collection doesn't get past volume 4 which stops at 1990. Success Charles01 (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Ridler me thisEdit

Is the George Poteet who won the '96 Ridler the same one who ran 426 mph (686 km/h) in Speed Demon? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Why you think hes not? I tried to search some info from net, and I think its the same (90% sure) -->Typ932 T·C 09:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
When I put that up, it wasn't clear, & I didn't want to attach them & end up with somebody complaining they were two people & deleting the page. It now looks like he's the same guy. (Only now, somebody's complaining Speed Demon isn't notable... I can't win.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

EurovisionNimEdit

People here may wish to be aware of this exchange at the page "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Though I'm afraid the various strands take a bit of disentangling in order to figure out what's going on. Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Im so tired of this photo war, so I dont even try to read that mess, basically they are using or trying use their own photos in articles, and in many cases they insist putting worse pictures than there is at the moment. -->Typ932 T·C 09:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Typ932 Just in case you mistakenly think me and Nim are the same person which a few people have done. In a nutshell, I started the ANI myself and provide a range of evidences to prove against and his disrupting editing, after about a week another user made a proposal which was when other users came forward with their interaction with Nim. --Vauxford (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Photo locationsEdit

Since the absent of certain individuals, I been wondering. Other then a few exceptions with some manufacturers such as Toyota and Honda as they make different versions for certain markets like the Honda Civic and Toyota HiLux. Is it really necessary to have the country where it was taken in? OSX likely to have started doing it as a shown of dominance for a country. That how Nim seem to have interpret it as anyway. --Vauxford (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

no photo location isnt necessary until it has some value, for example car is different in that specific location. -->Typ932 T·C 21:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
A photo location is most likely not necessary as it hardly offers any useful information. Even if the vehicle on display has some region-specific differences from the "regular version" (yellow headlamps, steering wheel on the right-hand side, etc.), I consider it much more useful to tell the reader about these specific differences rather than saying "this photo was taken in country xyz". --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I find them entirely unnecessary unless there is some external difference like extra impact absorbers. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd go so far as to say that the location of car photos should never be given, unless the car is in a museum or other public exhibition or rally. I say that to protect the privacy of the car's owner/user/driver (which is also why I think registration numbers should be disguised). If the car has a specific market peculiarity, that can, of course, be mentioned without giving the location of the photo. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The country is often vital information. Global manufacturers often change the grill, bumpers and lights to suit each market because these are cheap and easy to change and have a drastic affect on the style of a car. Some markets like Australia prefer a clean and harmonious look. Some markets like the US prefer a bold "look at me" look. The same car with different grill, etc can service both markets while looking quite different. The Corolla and the Yaris/Vitz are good examples of this. How the Holden Monaro#V2 became the Pontiac GTO#Fifth generation is another example (Holden had the make the slim aerodynamic grill into cheesy beaver buck teeth in order to make it saleable to Americans, who thought the original version looked like a sucked caramel). Manufactures know that style is a big factor in car sales and that every market prefers different styles.  Stepho  talk  22:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure add the market that the car was made for, but not the location where the photo was taken (other than for the exceptions I outlined above). -- DeFacto (talk). 22:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It's yet another case where you have to judge each case individually. One-size-fits-all rules are going to give wrong decisions unnecessarily, and add a potentially unnecessary element of standardisation/monotony. Stepho-wrs' examples are of instances where it makes sense to spell out the locations. But I don't see that as a reason ALWAYS to give locations. And - on a slightly frivolous note - as things currently stand, if you ALWAYS insert sufficiently detailed locations you will confirm, for the casual en-wiki-reader, that half the cars in the world are concentrated either in a small corner of Western Australia or within a 20 mile radius of an otherwise unremarkable town called Leamington Spa. BUT when uploading pictures to commons, it probably does make sens, generally, to try and include information on where the car was photographed. Because you will never know for sure precisely what the picture may be used to illustrate. For instance ... maybe, not the car at all, but the unexpectedly famous street or city park where it was photographed. Regards Charles01 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Charles01 I don't see a problem if the cars that are photographed are in a fix location. What I mean is adding the location in the caption of the articles is unnecessary unless otherwise as per Stepho, you can write the location and other stuff in the description on the Commons which readers can view as they wish. --Vauxford (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Stepho-wrs: There is just one problem with this: The location where a car was photographed does not have to match the region the car was originally made for. Especially in countries with lax motor vehicle regulations, low motor vehicle taxes, and low GDP, you will find a wide variaty of cars, e. g. a photo of a car taken in Hungary can show an American vehicle. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean by "have the country it was taken in?" Have it noted in the image description on Commons, or in the caption on the article? In the former case, it is neither harmful nor cumbersome to do so, and with most automobiles being "global" now it is likely to be worthwhile information. But in the latter case, only if it's needed to clarify details of its appearance. For example, File:79 Caprice Rear.JPG is of an export model and has amber rear turn signals. In the article, the caption states it as an export model since the vast majority of these Caprices were sold in North America, making the non-standard appearance worth noting. Or in an article on a European-market vehicle from the 1970s, a photo of one with U.S.-spec bumpers should have that fact noted in some fashion, because it isn't "standard" as far as the original design is concerned. If a vehicle has cosmetic differences from one market to another that are explained in the text, and an image shows that, the caption should have enough information that the reader knows which iteration is being shown. Not necessarily the country the picture was taken in per se, but something to tell the reader why it's different. --Sable232 (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
In answer to questions above, the location of the market that car was originally sold in is good to be in the caption because this shows what other cars of the same model in that market will look like. The location of where the photo was taken is almost always unimportant (concept cars at specific motor shows would be an exception) because grey market imports and cars driven across borders are not typical of that car in that location and hence not important for an encyclopedia (unless the event itself was of importance). Eg. A car originally built for the Japanese market, originally sold in Japan but later sent as a second hand car to Australia and then photographed in Australia should have Japan in the caption and not Australia.  Stepho  talk  22:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I can think of two cases where location of the photo might matter. One, a custom job not in its native country, so (frex) a Nissan Bluebird in California. (I don't consider that a really crucial fact to mention, but it might merit it; I don't disagree strongly with User:Stepho-wrs.) Two, where the location is important of itself, like the Paris-Dakar Rally or Monte Carlo Rally. Otherwise... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 
Toyota Soarer (Japan) - although the picture was taken in Canada, it's a JDM vehicle

This was never supposed to be the location where the photo was taken, but the market where the car was originally sold. I.e., this Soarer photographed in Canada is a JDM car. I absolutely agree that there is no benefit to knowing that a certain photo was taken in Chile, but it would be worthwhile to know that a Chevrolet Aska was originally sold in Chile since it may have had specific specifications.

Could we please start this discussion over, but stating that the country the car was intended for is what should be stated? And I agree that we do not need to write "Japan" for every photo of a JDM car, or "US" for every Chevrolet, but only where it would be of interest. The location of the photo would rarely be of interest beyond what someone could find out by simply clicking the image.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and I find it especially pointless to put Japan in the caption for a JDM car that was/is only sold in Japan. Toasted Meter (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cadillac CTS-V and Cadillac ATS-VEdit

What do you think?, IMO these (Cadillac CTS-V and Cadillac ATS-V) articles should be merger to main page, there is really no need to have own page for one model variant. -->Typ932 T·C 08:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Support - as per countless discussions before. As long as the Renault 5 Turbo is forced onto the general Renault 5 page, then none other needs a standalone. I would also like to bring up the Aston Martin V8 Vantage (1977), which truly ought to be merged with Aston Martin V8.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
No and yes The CTS-V rivals the CTS article in size and scope, so absolutely not at this point; it would be a major undertaking. The ATS-V article is essentially a stub as it sits, so a merger might be of use. I'm not one for merging left and right, but the ATS-V article seems to be going nowhere. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I opened up this discussion on Talk:Cadillac CTS where it should be. I recommend moving your votes there. Thanks. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Automotive Quarterly?Edit

Three articles cited a 'Automotive Quarterly' (123).

I'm pretty sure this is actually 'Automobile Quarterly' but I would like people to confirm if this is the case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: The dates and the content match AQ, so I fixed them. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hammer (1900 automobile)Edit

Is this really notable? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Only one car built. No article on the builder. Presumably it didn't lead to anything else. I hate to remove Aussie stuff but I find it hard to defend.  Stepho  talk  09:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Defending it will come if someone digs out some more sources and some better information. If no one found usable sources online or in their own collections, then presumably the best chance would involve investigating libraries and museums in (and around) Adelaide. With a name like Bruno Hammer, the constructor was most likely an immigrant - probably first or second generation - from Germany (or an adjacent German-speaking country in Europe). I remember coming across plenty of villages in the hills round Adelaide where they still sell convincing Bretzels and German-style beer. Maybe also local archives and/or auto--enthusiasts with contemporary publications from the early part of the twentieth century, hiding behind the more eye-catching stuff? Charles01 (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
There's a brief mention of the car in this issue of Serpolette's Tricycle. DH85868993 (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I have a soft spot with obscure 1890s-1930s automobiles. I do have Nick Georgano's 3 volume encyclopaedia of automobiles as well as a few other ones by different authors. I also own a book called Automobile Manufacturers Worldwide Registry which include 10,000+ automobile manufacturers, doesn't have pictures or description as it literally is a "registry book". I can have a flick through to see it mentioned in any of them. --Vauxford (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay so I looked through the 3 volume as well as a older edition from the same author and the only automobile mentioned that was that had Hammer in it was Hammer-Sommer which was a manufacturer based in Detroit, Michigan. However, on the registry it does mention the Australian manufacturer along with the same location it was based in which is already included in the article. The only difference is the year was "c.1903" rather then 1900. --Vauxford (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
As written I would say no. If more sources discussing the car come up then I would change my mind. Rather than just deleting it, is there a parent article it could be added to? Springee (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
As seen from a Wiki-perspective, I doubt there is any relevance. Two years ago, I decided to write an article on the manufacturer of one of the tractors of my childhood, and at the time, I had serious doubts that there was any coverage of the topic in notable literature. I happened to find useful sources, but it turned out to be difficult to prove the relevance. And this manufacturer has made over 3,600 tractors. Now taking a look at Hammer, I see one car built. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

<-AfD? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Update February 2019:

I recreated the article page and added new info, source and even a photograph of the automobile. --Vauxford (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Articles and Edits of TheAutoJunkieEdit

The user TheAutoJunkie has created more than 300 articles in the German WP. Most of these articles needed to be rewritten from scratch (and the user is banned from German WP). Some of these articles have been transferred by him or by any translator into the EN:WP. Out of his 65 articles in the English WP, 4 have already been deleted. There is still much work to do (also in the German WP). Examples?

  • DiVolvo (as mentioned above on this page, already reworked, but very funny in its first edition – have you ever heard of an "Araucanian Republic of Northern Chile"?)
  • Audi Senna (there never has been such a joint venture in this form, the beginning is completely rubbish)
  • Industries Mécaniques Maghrébines (same here, there is only few info on this company)
  • Mermerler Otomotiv (never has assembled up to now, deleted in the German WP)
  • Al-Mansour Automotive (AFAIK never assembled itself, though I am unsure here)
  • Angkor 333 (one more nice example, has never been produced, slightly wrong name etc., see DE article)

Perhaps there is a merciful soul that helps to go through all these articles. Indeed some topics will keep being notable, but not all. Volunteers? Roxedl (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose there is no better solution than AfD. The chances that TheAutoJunkie has ever created articles of notable quality are fairly low, meaning that there is not much, if not no good content at all, that could eventually be deleted, but the amount of rubbish T. created, definitely justifies deletion measures. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm usually one who always says "keep", but AutoJunkie's fantasies are truly problematic. Go ahead, be bold, if anything seems believable then bring it here or to someone's talk page. I think that if there are meaningful edits by other editors, there may be some truth.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the discussion goes into the wrong direction. We have about 60 articles with questionable, but mainly notable contents, sometimes already corrected, but in its assumed majority not (and this for about seven years up to now). I am not (yet) familiar enough with the habits concerning AfD or notability criteria, and there is still much work in the German WP waiting. However, in the mean time, it would be nice to have sensibility raised and kept for this topic. --Roxedl (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Large tables on list pagesEdit

An editor has added some quite large wikitables containing the power and torque ranges of specific models split by fuel to the List of BMW vehicles page, you can see this especially clearly at List of BMW vehicles#1990s I find it ungainly and not especially useful to readers, but I want to get some input from other editors. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think teachers would say that different people absorb information best in different ways, either because of their genetic inheritance or because of the way they were taught when they were 5. Some need to be told face to face. Or through everlasting international telephone calls during which their interlocutors lose the will to live. Some like to read for themselves in chunky paragraphs of text. Some like pictures. Some like tables. Some like exotic graphs of varying levels of inscrutability. Most people like to absorb new information through some combination of the foregoing but variously sequenced. I guess wikipedia needs to try and cater for all. Within reason. That table you pointed us to does appear a bit ungainly. But not unuseful for folks who like or need to absorb information, make comparisons etc, using that tabular format. I think there's a way you can make tables collapse or reappear. I've no idea how they work, but presumably if someone stares at it for long enough the "programming modalities" begin to become apparent. Here's a (relatively compact) example. Might it offer a solution of sorts to the ungainliness issue? Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. When there is so much raw data to show then tables are often the best way to go. Representing it in prose would be like singing the telephone book. Besides, 'list of' articles are expected to be kind of boring (except to us anoraks, of course).  Stepho  talk  21:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I love tables; some information is just not digestible in prose form. And as long as the tables are collapsible, then go for it!  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Big tables can be great, especially if they're sortable. Great things can be done with structured data. But I always object to any article or list giving a value for power or torque, or any performance claim, without a direct footnote to an independent source. In cases where we will accept a self-published source, there needs to be a clear WP:INTEXT citation, such as (claimed) next to the statistic. I usually delete them on sight, or let them get by with a {{Citation needed}} tag. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
In this case, I would say it should be removed entirely. It's pointless to have just the lowest and highest power output for each model without any context. Furthermore, there's no reason to give undue weight to that information by putting it in the main list of vehicles. Why not sales figures? Or safety ratings? Or any other piece of information that could be arbitrarily included?
Such information belongs in the article for each vehicle where it can appear with sufficient detail and context to be useful. It should not be in the list. --Sable232 (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Even if WP:UNDUE were truly applicable, it's not a reason to delete anything. It's merely a reason to make plans to resolve the (hypothetical) imbalance by adding other informaiton. Undue weight deals with balancing points of view. Deontologists vs utilitarians. Brexiters vs remainers. Horsepower isn't a faction or a point of view. It's one of the many vital statistics for a vehicle. The automotive era given by the year and the fact that we know whether it's a compact or luxury or whatever car gives some rough context for the power figures.

I would remove it pending sourcing if it were a few figures on one article, but given the scale of the problem that seems like kind of a dickish move. Even though I don't like to see unsourced power figures, it's not libel or copyright violation or WP:BLP violation. I'd say WP:PRESERVE per Editing policy, and tag it for citations. I'm sure we can get citations added in due course, along with additional details that will give it more context, such as cylinders/engine configuration, curb weight or other primary facts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Dennis and see if he changes his mind :D. Friendly prodding aside, I agree that it would be better to keep the table even without complete citations and collapse it so it doesn't interfere with reading of the article. I'm personally one of the people who finds tables easier to digest vs text. Springee (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Dennis, if I were quoting policy I would have linked it. "Undue weight" has meaning beyond Wikipedia policy.
I fail to see how a vague range of power output is at all helpful, and why it should be considered more important than any other factor. --Sable232 (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Cars Model years Power
3/20 PS Compact car 1932–1934 15 kW (20 hp)
303 Compact car 1933–1937 16–41 kW (21–55 hp)
It might look cleaner to have a single power column with a single value, like saying 15 kW (20 hp) for the 1932-34 3/20 PS, and use a ranged conversion for those with a high and a low, such as 16–41 kW (21–55 hp) for the 1933-37 303. This would require adding a sortkey.

Words like "notable" and "undue weight" tend to be interpreted as Wikipedia jargon. The existence of a fact in page is not intended to assert that that fact is more important than any other fact. This is the point of WP:Editing policy. If you said every fact had to be equally balanced with all other equally important facts, every edit would have to result in perfection. It's easier to build lists and articles bit by bit. I agree that power isn't the most important thing. We can solve that problem by adding more columns to the list. (Springee, from what I've seen, we agree all the time. We also disagree all the time. I don't expect one any more tan the other). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a particular problem with the idea of the tables, I think that what makes them so large, the power and torque figures are questionably useful and that the previous method where readers would click on the link and could find the information on the specific motor configuration they are interested in was a better way to do things. Yes you can't directly compare minimum and maximums over time but I find it unlikely that most would want to (they basically go up over the years). Toasted Meter (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of these tables. The first thing that I have seen were "wrong" figures. The E38 was available as 725tds with a 105 kW engine, the E39 as 525td with a 77 kW engine, etc. – maintaining figures may be difficult if they are split over several pages, or if there are "duplicates". Getting back to these two BMWs that I have mentioned: In several countries, these "low power BMWs" were not available. And I generally believe that a maximum and minimum power figure are not particularly useful: A certain type of vehicle that was offered with rather weak engines may appear much more powerful than its average version was, if the high performance version is very powerful. For instance: BMW E28. More than 70 % of all vehicles produced have an engine producing less than 100 kW. Only 0.7 % of all E28s have a 210 kW high performance engine. Yet the 210 kW high performance figure will appear, the "regular" power figures (524td and 520i) (85/88/90/92/95 kW) will not be mentioned. But the truth is, most E28s did not have this 210 kW engine. I know that a "range" of power figures covers the "regular" power figures, but, it does not really represent the subject sufficiently. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Edit: Even the E28 power figure is wrong. I wonder which figures are actually correct. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The state of the figures now is very poor, some of the maximum figures are actually from Alpinas, and the M1 has the power output of the race version. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
We seem to be conflating two questions unnecessarily. If tables are showing incorrect data, then the data need to be corrected. Same goes for anything in wikipedia. If sources are unclear or unstated we need to identify sources clearly. Presumably contributors who like looking at tables are most likely to be the ones who spot these issues in tables and make the necessary improvements. If the data are so contested that they don't fit snugly in the table, then they will remain contested if you incorporate them in your article in some other way. That might apply if a manufacturer quotes different power outputs for different markets, because regulations vary or different types of emission and noise control device, mandated by local law-makers, reduce the amount power reaching the driving wheels by different amounts. The general rule then becomes STATE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ("Chinese market models", "US market models", "Swiss market models"). But that's not a reason not to provide any info where it is an important aspect of the car. And dealing with it is not necessarily easier or harder to do in tables than in other formats. Except hat, I suppose, in poorly designed graphs (ie without clear values on the axis labels) or in excessively waffling text you can more easily fudge it so the reader ends up unsure of what s/he just read. But I'm not sure that's such a good solution to anything.
I don't think any of this answers the ticklish question of whether and to what extent tables are a good way to communicate information! Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem is, however, there are several different ways of interpreting figures and standards. German DIN 70020 figures for instance are not manufactuer claims, even if they appear in manufacturer tech specs. It just means that the power was measured according to the DIN 70020 standard. I believe though that this can confuse readers and even long-term editors who are used to manufactuer claims. This leads me to the question: How am I supposed to state my assumptions in the first place? In a list, such as the given one, it is not possible to make exceptions for each market. Doing so would render the advantages of the list (compact information in one place) useless. Furthermore, WikiProject automobile rules make it impossible to state power figures conforming to the DIN standard for instance. Stating assumptions is good to begin with, but in my opinion, firm, clear and easy rules are required. For example: German car figures: DIN/ISO and German market, Soviet car figutes: GOST and Russian market, American car figures: SAE and American market (this is how I do in the German language version of Wikipedia) – otherwise, there will be a weird mixture of half-correct, half-wrong somethings, like we have in this case. Apparently, the BMW E28S M5 figure given in the list is the figure of the American spec version. This means it is not wrong, but only valid in the United States. How am I supposed to correct it? Replace it with the German spec figure? Add the German spec figure? Add a note, that it is American only? This is why I am not touching it, there is just no way of making it right. And I don't want to begin with the torque figures, which are usually given in kilopondmetre for pre-1978 vehicles. In this regard, I just recommend having no power figures in this list but explaining the figures in more detail in the articles. The other problem is that, instead of mean power figures, only highest and lowest figures are given. This may not reflect the power figures properly. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thats why we have convert templates, one big problem in that list is, that it has only couple of sources, and I dont see any reason why we need to have power figures in that page, when all data can be seen in model page. Or do we need that whole page at all?? That list is much more easily seen in timelines -->Typ932 T·C 15:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Conversion templates cannot convert standards. Just saying. Otherwise I agree. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
If you know one horsepower is DIN then it can covert it to hp or kw or wiseversa, there is no problems with that -->Typ932 T·C 22:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
He means that some cars are measured gross and some are measured net, temperature and barometric pressure differ, fuel quality differs, tuning differs per market and many other variables. Eg, some are measured with the alternator, oil pump and water pump disconnected with high quality fuel while others are measured with all those connected and low quality fuel - same engine but wildly different results. But of course that also means the original measurements can't be compared unless they are all measured the same way, let alone conversions. There is no avoiding this problem. All we can do is note what we know (eg DIN vs SAE, Japan vs US, gross vs net).  Stepho  talk  09:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Want to make a new list of car slang or car terminology?Edit

I just moved some of the man stubs that define automotive slang or a technical term into Category:Automotive terminology. We should probably make a Glossary of automotive slang or List of automotive terms or something like that. Some terms belong on Car classification, Automotive acronyms and abbreviations, or Glossary of automotive design, while others might go on a slang glossary. I think it's mostly a matter of keeping any of them from becoming too long. Anyone? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds more like something for wiktionary.  Stepho  talk  20:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much agree with Stepho. In addition to that, I doubt that finding proper sources for such a list-like article or that creating something that is somewhat complete will be easy. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's much slang, as such, tho perhaps specialist usage. Some actual slang might fit here or here. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Image sortingEdit

(Not sure if this is the right place post it since it on another Wiki project) For the past few days I been sorting and transferring images by Flickr user order 242, I skipped the buildings and landscapes since that wasn't my field but did place all images in the photographer's hidden category. I already done a good thousand in their rightful category but it would be helpful if someone got a bit of spare time to give a hand doing car pictures as well, it completely optional and at some point I will eventually get it done , but the offer is there.

Where I last left off (The last one I did was Suzuki Carry ST-90 1980 (36393678415).jpg) --Vauxford (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit war in Tata HarrierEdit

Hi, in Tata Harrier template the official production start in october 2018, and the car was present in January 2019. Official press https://www.tatamotors.com/press/the-1st-tata-harrier-rolls-out-from-its-all-new-assembly-line-in-pune/

Why most editor cancelled in the template “2018-present”?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.96.137 (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Your edits look correct to me. The {{infobox automobile}} |production= field is for the calendar year (and month if it is known) for the start of production. If the start of production is not known then the start of sales is often used instead. It is possible that the other editors are confusing start of production with start of sales. Or they are confusing US style model years (which I don't think apply to India) with calendar years. To clarify the start of production vs start of sales, I would add a comment such as the following | production = October 2018<!--start of manufacture, not start of sales --> – present . To combat the model year problem I normally add the month (eg October 2018) to clarify that it is not a model year.  Stepho  talk  12:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Article and related category name changeEdit

There is a proposal to change the article "Automobile Safety" to "Automotive Safety". This change would also impact automobile safety related categories. The discussion is here [[2]] Springee (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This same guy (RGloucester) again messing automobile articles and no information to this group -->Typ932 T·C 06:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The rot has set inEdit

Good faith hard-working editors are changing this project's articles (sometimes articles receiving hundreds of hits each day) introducing straightforward errors of fact (and other confusions).

No one seems to mind.

This (anyone can change it!) was why Wikipedia was laughed at in its early years. I am not prepared to nominate articles or editors but I will point out that a similar deterioration in the quality of automobile illustrations has recently been . . noted. Regretfully, Eddaido (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Dude, what? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You will have to be more specific if you want something to happen. Differences of opinion and style can be glossed over but errors of fact should be pointed out and dealt with.  Stepho  talk  05:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes Stepho, that's right, all I can do is place this alert. My guess would be that because the project has, shall I say matured, there is less participation and sense of involvement and less sense of personal responsibility. There's a lot of WikiProject Automobiles text out there. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Less since when? Matured since when? The problem is that you're not getting your way on an article somewhere? That's new how? When I look at the edit wars you got into over car articles in 2009 and in 2015 and in 2019, I can't tell the difference. To me it's the same old same old. We all win some and we lose some. Sometimes we play together nicely, sometimes not so much. Can you be specific? If you can't be specific, then please don't do this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey dude, read the correspondence above. Eddaido (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Which correspondence? The answers to the questions I put to you are not there. You say quality has "recently" declined but I really can't guess what you mean by "recent". Your account has been active for a decade and I can't find any era in that period that stands out as all that much better than now. I don't know which correspondence you mean above. There are several, but you're not a participant in any of them. Why don't you just state in plain terms what it is that you mean? If you're going to answer then answer. Why are you being so coy? Is it for the fun of it? But if you're going to go on playing games, then please don't bother to reply. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Oops, I can be specific, Dennis Bratland, your personal activity on Wikipedia has declined since 2016, in fact 2018 is less than half 2012. Eddaido (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, fuck off now. You're wasting everyone's time. Go sleep it off. Take a break. Whatever it is, it's a personal problem and it doesn't belong here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, dude, the subject is this project and not, originally, your involvement. Eddaido (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment, Eddaido, I'm not sure I understand the concern. I think an example would be helpful here. Your criticism of Dennis specifically based on number of edits seems very unfair. Number of edits doesn't reflect quality of edit and we have to remember that sometimes real life events impact editor's ability to contribute. Eddaido, this is a case where you may be right but you haven't effectively communicated the concern. Dennis, while I get the frustration I think that was outside the bounds of CIVIL. Springee (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me try a paraphrase. There is no longer the interest in this Project there was 7, 5 or even 3 years ago. Mistakes are creeping in and not being fixed the way they were.
I am unwilling to even try to cope but I can, as I have done above, bring it to the attention of the Project's members.
I hope that sufficiently clarifies my message. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so its a general "volunteers aren't working hard enough" thing. Since we are volunteers, we owe nothing to WP and it cannot demand anything from us. If Dennis, or you or me or any other contributor decides to slow down then that is their choice. If everyone is also slowing down then WP has a problem that can only be solved with a recruitment campaign. Me personally, I make it a point to thank new-ish editors for anything good that they do so that they are encouraged to do more. If they do something with good intent but make mistakes then I patiently spend some time teaching them with lots of encouraging words. Honey vs vinegar. That's about all we can really do without going into heroics. But wait around - lately I've noticed a few new editors (some as IP addresses) that are actually doing some nice work and fixing up many old oversights (eg: grammar, missing metric conversions, references).  Stepho  talk  05:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, no. It was not intended to be a criticism of anyone.
Everyone seems to be utterly determined to see it that way.
I am pointing out that the inherent danger in allowing anyone to edit is no longer better than counterbalanced by a bunch of enthusiastic fact checkers. It used to be like that, its my opinion its not that way now— for the reasons I've outlined. I hope I'm wrong. Eddaido (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
There will also be vandalism but to me it seems about the same as it has always been. Some of our regulars have become burnt out but there are also new ones to take their place. It ebbs and wanes in the short term but the long term average of breakage and repair seems about the same.  Stepho  talk  07:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Automobiles".