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

Assessment page backlog on wiki articlesEdit

I'm not a member of this project, but I took out the Tata Estate since someone assessed it already. Ominae (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Darracq and Company LondonEdit

Any opinions about this page Darracq and Company London, I think it looks messy (hard to understand what is all about) and its converted from original French company page to London based company page. Whole section is deleted from it when comparing it to some older state as Automobiles Darracq S.A. article . What we should do with that article? Or should we write own articles of Automobiles Darracq S.A., Italian Darracq and other stuff that was removed -->Typ932 T·C 21:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops I found that we have Automobiles Darracq France page, anyway the page edit was made wrongly the London page should have been made as new page and leave French page alone.- -->Typ932 T·C 21:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
huh this is really messy case, for instance which page this template should be Template:Darracq , something should be really made for these articles, they are too messy and hard to understand whats all about-->Typ932 T·C 21:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Typ932. Perhaps you might give more detail about your concerns. Do you realise that Darracq London owned Darracq SA? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
It appears that the France article is about when it was a purely French company (before being sold to British owners) with a little bit of history while the French factory continued under British ownership. And the London article is mostly from when it was bought by British owners until it was closed as part of Sunbeam, Talbot and Darracq. There is a large amount of overlap between them, so I would merge them into a single article.  Stepho  talk  22:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
It is so confusing - as Typ932 indicates - I went to a lot of trouble to break out all the details including discussion with the owners clubs who later thanked me for clarifying all the stuff they could not get a grip on. I would strongly advise against the amalgamation suggested. If Typ932 settles down to detailing his concerns I will be happy to allay them. Eddaido (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
From memory, Darracq made a fortune from bicycles and started making cars. He was in business to make make money not cars, he wanted cash to be got by selling his company to the stock market. It was most profitable at that time to do it in London - this is circa 1904. It remained British owned until the British owners collapsed in the mid 1930s. At that time the Paris manager with personal resources and good financial connections did a management buyout of the Paris operation. So ownership was British for 30 odd years and Anglo-French for its last 25 (really less than 10 useful years removing wartime and the last decade blighted by the French governments punishing taxation of expensive cars.} Eddaido (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Better for me to let the subject experts continue.  Stepho  talk  22:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
There is just one authoritative work on Lago and the Paris factory. It is Alain Spitz, Talbot. The Talbot-Darracq to Talbot-Lago, published EPA, 1983. (ISBN 2-85120-170-0). I eventually located a (possibly) borrowable copy in Germany. It would have cost some hundreds of dollars in airmail and other fees to get it to me. Then it would have cost a similar amount to return it. I skipped that but Typ932 may be in a better position(location?) to do this. Eddaido (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes I understand that London company owned darraq, but do we need article of owners? or the car company? having 2 article? s makes this Darraq very confusing and hard to understand. I think something should be done to make these articles easier to understand. Is it possible to make one article of Darraq and mention of owners there. IF you check all other wikipedias there is no different article of Darracq and Company London. And in what page this template should be?
-->Typ932 T·C 21:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Talbot is an English name (originally Norman-French). Talbot cars were made in London from more than 110 years ago and their last lineal descendants were Sunbeam Alpines (once Sunbeam-Talbots) still carrying the Talbot crest. Cars made in the Paris factory from about 1920 were sold as Talbot in France and Darracq outside France. (Its as if the French felt as bad about Darracq as some feel about Harvey Weinstein, a name with bad vibes). At the time Paris and London factories had the same owner. Are you confident you understand the many complexities? Should we move to the article talk page where you can show your thoughts as to a better arrangement. The current arrangement is just the best I could think of at the time, there is bound to be some better way to do it. I'd politely suggest the other WP articles are based on an imperfect knowledge. I look forward to reading your specific ideas for improvement. Eddaido (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
About that template. If there were capably prepared articles about those cars an answer to your question could be clear but remember that for much of the period an Englishman's (or Finn's) new Darracq is a Frenchman's Talbot. Eddaido (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe some other editors could give their opionions, or is it just me who thinks these are too complicated articles? and if article name is Darracq and Company London why there is no info when that company was founded? there is just A Darracq et Cie and A Darracq and Company Limited

A Darracq and Company (1905) Limited S. T. D. Motors Limited company boxes , or is A Darracq and Company Limited same as Darracq and Company London? if so we should use same name in infobox -->Typ932 T·C 13:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I know I'm coming in a bit late, but I'd suggest leaving two articles. If it's as complicated as it seems on first contact (& most readers will be first contacts), it's clearer to have a page on each with some clarifying 'graphs shared than to have one page with readers trying to untangle which is who is which. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

MPM ErelisEdit

Could please someone create an article regarding this new low-budget sportscar-lookalike from France (with Russian background history)? Thanks! Foerdi (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to mention it. There are already articles for the car and the company in the French Wikipedia Foerdi (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Started page, need some cleanup and referemcesstill, MPM Erelis, anyone willing to help? need to to do also that MPM motors main page -->Typ932 T·C 19:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Help with proposed updates at John KrafcikEdit

Hi all! I've recently posted a request for auto executive and Waymo CEO John Krafcik, seeking to add an Early life and education section. I'm wondering if editors at this WikiProject would be interested and might have a few minutes to look over my suggestions? I'm making these suggestions on behalf of Mr. Krafcik's company, Waymo, as part of my work at Beutler Ink, so I will not make any direct edits to the article myself. (I've posted a similar note at WikiProject Biography, too, to see if anyone there might be able to help.) Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Automobiles CommentEdit

Dear Sirs/Madams, as keepers of the articles related to autos I thought I should bring this matter to the projects attention. I am a new page patroller and recently I reviewed an article Renault Kangoo (Argentina) I didn't think the Argentinian model warranted it's own article so sent it to AfD here [[1]]. The author had previously been warned and blocked and has subsequently been indefinitely blocked. Worryingly they had made quite an amount of edits/re-directs/deleting re-directs to auto related pages (see here [[2]]) As I am no expert in this field I trust you could check out, or know an editor that could check out, the legitimacy of the edits this author made before their ban. Kind regards and best wishes from Ireland XyzSpaniel Talk Page 21:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Brand name of Renault Samsung MotorsEdit

Sorry for crossposting this, but I asked this on the disc of the article 5 days ago and there was no reaction. okay: What is the former and the actual brand name of the vehicles made by Renault Samsung Motors? I found evidence of being (naturally) Samsung until 2000, that Renault continued the brand name "Samsung" (and not "Renault-Samsung"), but today on their website and in Renault websites, they are announced as Renault Samsung Motors (as brand name). I assume that Renault changed the brand name from Samsung to Renault Samsung in 2002 with the QM3, but I found no evidence for this. In German and French Wikipedia, the models itself in their articles are being listed as "Samsung" (but here are indications that that the French copied the content of the German articles, which were partly falsified), while the EN wikipedia uses "Renault Samsung". Anybody knows? --Roxedl (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Didnt find exact info of that name change, but it must be sometime after Renault aquired Samsung car unit -->Typ932 T·C 19:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but how would you name the brand today? Is it eg. a Samsung QM5, a Renault Samsung QM5 or a Renault Samsung Motors QM5? Roxedl (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I would use Renault Samsung, altough real name would be Renault Samsung Motors -->Typ932 T·C 13:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Watching Mr. MagooEdit

Since Dick Megugorac has been nominated for deletion by somebody who considers him "not notable", I'm hoping some people here, who actually know who he is, might have something to say about it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Automobile timeles production years vs model yearsEdit

Had some discussions about timelines used on autopages (User_talk:Vossanova#timelines) , anyone find the rule or discussion from past whats the preferred style in timelines , most articles uses real production years anyway. Its very confusing that some timelines uses model years, making hard to compare real production times of cars. Any toughts of this matter? -->Typ932 T·C 13:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

To recap for new readers, the problem is that there are competing nomenclature schemes that look identical but mean different things. To an American, a 2018 vehicle was introduced in mid 2017 (usually around August to October but it varies) and went to mid 2018. This is part of their desire to update their vehicles in some way every single year to encourage owners to upgrade (blame Alfred P. Sloan for annual styling changes). Whereas in most of the rest of the world, a 2018 vehicle was introduced in mid 2018 and goes to either mid 2019 or until the next generation change. Our problem is that something like, say, "a 2018 Toyota Corolla" is read by both Americans and non-Americans and means different things. So we settled on calendar years as the default and have to say "model year" when we mean model years. We also try to sprinkle some actual months (eg August 2018) around to help Americans understand what is essentially a foreign concept to them. However, because Americans do have such a difficult time understanding calendar years, we allow them to use model years on articles of vehicles built in America and predominantly sold in America. But even there the |production= field in the infobox must must always be calendar years and the |model_years= field in the infobox must must always be model years (though this hasn't been enforced too well on American pages). This is covered in WP:MODELYEARS on the WP:AUTOCONV page.  Stepho  talk  01:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Stepho is just trying to have some fun at the expense of Americans with a few of those comments ;) Anyway, at least in the US there is another very important significance to model year vs production year (production date). Most automotive regulations apply to cars of a given model year or later. For example, OBD II was a requirement for cars sold in the US in 1996 and later. What that meant is that if a car build in 1995 was declared to be a MY 1996 car then it would have to have OBD-II even though it was produced in 1995, prior to the requirement. In the US the law says a MY can be up to 2 years minus a day and is defined by the Jan 1 that is within that time period. Thus knowing that a car was produced in 1995 doesn't tell you if it was built to 1996 or 1995 regulatory standards. The MY will. I'm not sure how the rest of the world handles that since it would seem impractical to be required to roll out all changes on Dec 31st or to have to refer to try to decide if a BMW produced in 2008 was built to Euro 4 or Euro 5 (2009 and later) emissions standards. At some point during the year the company had to switch. Springee (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, teasing Yanks is fun. Regardless of the advantages and disadvantages of US style model years (I disagree with you but that doesn't change anything), we still have to deal with the US using one nomenclature scheme and most of the rest of the world using the exact same words to mean a different thing. WP:MODELYEARS covers it pretty well. 5-10 years ago the articles were a hopeless mess with years bouncing forwards and backwards as American and non-American editors "corrected" each other. Many pages were a mix of both styles. Confusion reigned. Nobody knew what actual date a 2018 vehicle corresponded to because nobody knew which side edited it last. I've noticed the confusion and edit wars have decreased substantially since the guideline has been in place.  Stepho  talk  06:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
One solution would be that we add some short info to timeline, which system, is used? -->Typ932 T·C 06:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. As long as WP:MODELYEARS is still obeyed, adding 'calendar years' or 'model years' to timelines would be helpful. I've done this in the past to some Toyota timelines (eg {{Modern North American Toyota vehicles}}). I get occasional kickbacks from Americans who think it looks silly to say 'model years' (remembering that they have trouble of thinking that any other system even exists, let alone that people would use it) but there is no avoiding this situation with international readers.  Stepho  talk  00:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
That "Model year" line fits perfectly into the existing layout and is certainly not the least bit intrusive. Since most (if not all) timeline templates are broken down by market anyway there shouldn't be a problem. --Sable232 (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with this. I'd like to think that model years would be implied on at least the North American-only timelines, but I'd rather it be clarified in the timeline title, than see someone changing all the timelines or adding in-between columns for mid-calendar year (yuck). --Vossanova o< 18:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Aston MartinEdit

Should we split motorsport info from Aston Martin main page to own page? like some other brands have, the main page looks quite messy now and dont follow the look of other pages -->Typ932 T·C 06:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Of this is an invitation to vote, then yes please. I mean support. At busy times of day our copper wire based system here in a "picturesque" English internet backwater struggles with these >50,000 pages. (And I recall a few years ago it was suggested that >30,000 was the point a which you might at least begin to consider some sort of page split. Other things being equal whch of course they never are.) Also, with these big wiki pages, even after they have downloaded to the screen my brain still struggles, zapping up and down the screen to the bit I'm trying to find. Especially now I seem to have been persuaded by younger family members to try consulting wikpedia on a telephone screen (when the wifi is feeling sufficiently positive about ... stuff). Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeking input on Lamborghini Countach article restructuringEdit

I'd like to invite any Wikiproject Automobiles members to respond to my new posting at Talk:Lamborghini Countach#Restructuring Proposal - seeking input. I'd like to add quite a bit of new, well-sourced information to this "High importance"-rated page (as well as references verifying some currently uncited statements) but I think some restructuring is needed beforehand. I proposed some changes on the article's talk page and would really appreciate the input of more experienced editors. Thanks! Prova MO (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is www.team.net. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Tata SumoEdit

I added some text to the article Tata Sumo, can a moderator correct any errors? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.126.79 (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Acronym jokesEdit

Couple of kids keeps adding jokes to Fiat article Fiat Automobiles, I would need some help maybe , give some commenting to the case. I dont think we need these old jokes to any automobile manufacturers articles, or what do you think? If we allow this one, others will start adding them also to other manufacturers.... -->Typ932 T·C 19:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think is this case the acronym is within the context of why Fiat left the US market in 1983 and is appropriate. As with all things Wiki, it depends on context and a reliable source, which it seems to have. NealeFamily (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I've created a topic at Talk:Fiat Automobiles#Fix it again Tony - round 2 and left my 2 cents there. I suggest others comment there (where all interested parties can see it) instead of here (where only the anoraks will see it).  Stepho  talk  03:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Would be better add comments here, because this is not just Fiat it concerns all manufacturers -->Typ932 T·C 05:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Automobiles".