Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Add topic
Active discussions

WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 

Nomination of Mazda B platform for deletionEdit

 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mazda B platform is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazda B platform until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

"MPV" as a jargonEdit

User:HumanBodyPiloter5 has made some changes in lead sections of most MPV articles, for example Renault Espace, Eurovans, Toyota Corolla Verso and many others, which I think should be discussed. The changes generally looks like this:

Before:
"The Toyota Corolla Verso is a compact MPV produced by the Japanese manufacturer Toyota between 2001 and 2009. The first generation Corolla Verso..."
After:
"The Toyota Corolla Verso is a car produced by the Japanese manufacturer Toyota between 2001 and 2009. Described in the motor trade as a compact MPV, the first generation Corolla Verso..."

The reason of the changes generally are "remove WP:JARGON from MOS:FIRST sentence of lead to avoid confusing non-expert readers." My comments are:

1. I understand MPV is not a common term in several regions such as North America, however I want to point out that in places where the term is commonly used it probably does not take an "expert" to understand it, it's as understandable as "SUV" in some regions.

2. Maybe it is a jargon, but as long as there's a link explaining what that means, I think it wouldn't cause much confusion. I looked through articles from other WikiProjects such as WikiProjects Ships, and they use jargons in the first sentence just fine. For example, in USS Indianapolis (CA-35) (a high traffic, high-importance article) it says:

"USS Indianapolis (CL/CA-35) was a Portland-class heavy cruiser of the United States Navy, named for the city of Indianapolis, Indiana", not:
"USS Indianapolis (CL/CA-35) was a cruiser of the United States Navy, named for the city of Indianapolis, Indiana. It is described in the US Navy as a Portland-class cruiser and classified as a heavy cruiser."

I'm not a ship expert, I have no idea what Portland-class means in the first sentence, but there is a link that I can follow so now I know.

3. How about other terms such as "SUV" or "crossover SUV"? Why is "MPV" a jargon but "crossover SUV" isn't? As the article Crossover (automobile) pointed out, in some regions they don't distinguish crossover and SUV, so the usage of such term might also be confusing for some readers. But currently there is no concern whether "SUV" or "crossover SUV" is a WP:JARGON.

4. "Motor trade" itself might be a WP:JARGON, usage of such term is very uncommon.

So I would like to propose that any of these changes to be revised or reverted because it currently creates discrepancies with the rest of automobile articles. Any input is welcomed. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I too would put MPV in the same class as SUV - technically jargon but practically everybody knows what it is. I think Americans prefer to call them mini-vans. But, as you said, that what links are for. I really hate phrases like "Described in the motor trade". We could put that in the front of almost any description in any automobile article but it just clutters things up and doesn't actually add anything. I do think his heart is in the right place but it's not quite working.  Stepho  talk  07:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
In my view essentially any term which isn't "car" or "van" or "truck" or "automobile" or the like is jargon for the purposes of the MOS:FIRST statement of the MOS:LEAD. The opening subject-verb-object formation of the article should be as clear as possible to as broad an audience as possible without getting dragged down by convoluted qualifiers that in many cases may reduce opportunities for MOS:COMMONALITY. Terms like "multi-purpose vehicle" or "coupé" or "SUV" are overly-precise for that context, even if they can be appropriately used later in the lead or even the first sentence. It's also worth remembering that many readers may (for numerous reasons) not be able to see the images in the article, in which case immediately establishing the general subject of the article without going into specifics is far more important as a MOS:ACCESS issue. I will admit it's probably unnecessary to state that something is "described in the motor trade as [x]", although my goal with that wording was to reassure non-expert readers that they aren't abnormally ignorant for not knowing specialist terminology which may not be commonly used in their dialect. I strongly dispute the claim that "practically everybody knows" the meaning of these terms. I have repeatedly had friends, family, and acquaintances ask me for help regarding car-buying decisions specifically because they've been overwhelmed and confused by terms like "saloon" or "crossover" being used instead of WP:PLAINENGLISH. The ship examples are a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF but they should probably be amended so the opening statement includes a word like "ship" or "boat" too. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Specifically addressing "minivan" as a term here, my only real concern with that in the opening statement of most articles is that it may give the impression to non-Americans that the subject of the article is a small commercial vehicle rather than a passenger car, but I think it's far clearer in most cases than "multi-purpose vehicle" (which to the non-initiated could mean frankly anything) or "people carrier" (which is relatively commonly understood in the UK to mean "car with more than five seats" but probably sounds more like a type of public transportation vehicle to speakers of other dialects). This can relatively easily be addressed though. I think "minivan" should specifically be avoided in articles about vehicles manufactured by the British Motor Corporation, British Leyland, the Rover Group, or BMW on the grounds that it is far more likely in those specific cases that it could mislead readers into believing that the article's subject is in some way derived from or related to the Mini (original or new), although given WP:ENGVAR this is unlikely to be an issue for most of those examples. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I believe most “Americans” use “minivan” and “MPV” means very little. I think there is some serious ENGVAR here. I also notice that none of the three examples, Espace, Eurovan, and Verso, show what language they’re written in on the talk page. Sammy D III (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I too agree that these changes should be reverted, but in thinking about this I changed my mind several times. Limiting every road going vehicle to "car" or "van" or "truck" or "automobile" is overly broad and would be no different than the opening sentence for a dog breed being "XXX is a sub-varient of meat-eating animal commonly domesticated by humans" or every cellphone article beginning with "XXX is a portable communications device" rather than "android based smartphone". However, I generally agree with some of the accessibility and ENGVAR considerations as well as despise acronyms and think for purposes of the first sentence they should be spelled out. IPBilly (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not arguing that the opening sentence fragment should be strictly limited to "the [model name] is a car" or the like, it's just that the opening sentence fragment should always include one of those near-universally understood terms and that any adjectives included before that term should be ones which are similarly likely to be universally understood (ie. "the [model name] is a battery-electric car" or "the [model name] is a two-seater sports car") and limited in quantity to avoid confusing people (so "the [model name] is a four-door five-seater front-engine rear-wheel-drive compact executive sports saloon car" should be avoided in favour of "the [model name] is a four-door car" or something with plenty of WP:COMMONALITY). Regarding the "android-based smartphone" example, that works reasonably well because it still has the word "smartphone" in it, which is commonly understood by the general public. "Multi-purpose vehicle" does not clearly establish to a non-expert whether the subject is an automobile or a train or a blimp or a ship or a space rocket, so it should be established that the "vehicle" being referred to in that term is a type of automobile first. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I think this opinion and the example (as well as other) edits are at odds with each other. I do agree that the number of adjectives should be limited. While "multi-purpose vehicle" may be ambiguous on its face, I do not agree that without explicitly stating that the subject is an automobile a non-expert would be lead to believe "multi-purpose vehicle" would encompass your examples. Furthermore, if that were the case, even terms such as "car" and "van" might need further clarification lest they be confused for passenger car (rail), railroad car, railcar, elevator car, box car, box truck, box van, or road train. IPBilly (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
In this specific case I see nothing wrong with saying, "The Corolla Verso is a MPV based on Toyotas...". MPV is specific enough for many readers and it can always be linked to the parent article. This is a case where we should be careful regarding what to call the vehicle based on market. Consider 3 cases, North America, Japan and UK/Europe. I think MPV is really a UK English term. As for other European languages, I don't know if their term for an MPV is a roughly literal translation or if it's a totally different word. For example is it a BMW "Estate" or "Station Wagon". Neither term is a literal translation of the German name so I wouldn't favor one vs the other. I would apply the same standard if we are talking about a Japanese car that is sold both in Europe and North America. However, if we are talking about a minivan/MPV that was not sold in North America I would tend to use the UK terms. Consider what it would be called in it's primary English speaking market and use that. Chrysler minivan, Renault MPV. I would avoid terms that aren't common or come off as a marketing term to avoid calling something an SUV or (shudder) a station wagon. Things like "Sport activity vehicle" or "personal luxury coupe". Springee (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Generally agree. The pages WP:CARCLASS and Car classification are generally informative, specifically the table showing various US/UK/European equivalencies and the preferred usage. As "MPV" is an official Euro NCAP class I don't think (at least when spelled out) that it's any less common, or more ambiguous, than "sports car". IPBilly (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree. When compact MPV is linked, any uncertainty over what it means is easily resolved by reading the article. Yes, they're still called minivans in North America, although there are few left on the market. And, realistically, an average American confused about what a compact MPV is will look at the lead photo and have a pretty good idea. "Described in the motor trade" is cumbersome wording that offers nothing to the reader (and, as mentioned above, "motor trade" is no less jargon than any vehicle classification). --Sable232 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Blind and visually impaired people exist and use Wikipedia and there are many people who may be accessing the text of a Wikipedia article who may not be able to access Wikimedia's image servers (eg. because their school has blocked access due to the presence of certain medical images etc.) or who may not be able to access the destinations of wikilinks. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I am well aware of that. The fact remains that the phrase "described in the motor trade as" provides the reader with no additional understanding whatsoever. --Sable232 (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Concerns regarding sourcingEdit

Another concern that I have here is that an awful lot of cars just don't fit into neat little boxes where a single term can definitely be said to describe a car with both maximum precision and accuracy. Trying to find sources for the Honda Stream, Mitsubishi Space Star, and Nissan Almera Tino articles just now I found that different sources had plenty of different terms to describe them with (or indeed the same source will use multiple different terms), and that's just the sources that are easy to grab in web searches for twenty-year-old cars. Part of why I'm keen on starting articles by saying "the Saab 900 is a car" or "the Bedford Rascal is a van" is the various WP:MOS aspects I bought up before (particularly MOS:ACCESS), but there's also the issue of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to consider. Avoiding WP:OR means looking at sources, but that's often likely to reveal a big jumble of different terms used to describe a car (especially if one focuses on independent reviews rather than news articles regurgitating press-releases), and picking one of those as definitive or trying to smash them all together into one descriptor is likely to be WP:SYNTH. That's where the accuracy and precision aspect comes in: It's better to use a term we can be confident is accurate (like "automobile") than to risk compromising on accuracy by trying to maximise precision from the very MOS:FIRST sentence fragment. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
After having a go at adding sources for the article on the Opel Meriva (which is more recent than the aforementioned models and thus has more sources that are easier to find) my concerns about WP:SYNTH regarding car classifications has only increased. Prescribing every car a single definitive class in the infobox seems exceedingly likely to result in cases of WP:SYNTH in a well-sourced article and to be a magnet for WP:OR in a poorly-sourced one. I know WP:OTHERSTUFF, but one place to start would be to look at how music infoboxes are handled: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (a featured article) lists four genres in its infobox, not just one. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
It is true that most vehicle classes in WikiProject Automobiles are based on WP:OR, with nitpicked source, or sometimes by WP:BRD. But this is definitely a tricky issue to solve as you said. One vehicle could be considered a mid-size in one region, subcompact or small in the other, or compact elsewhere. Of course writing multiple classes to represent different views in different sources is not a solution either, one is that it further confuses readers and once we do that for articles that already included multiple vehicle classes (example: Suzuki Vitara) it would become an exhausting list. With music genres it's acceptable because genres are generally short words. Long story short I couldn't come up with a solution for this. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for a new field in the automobile infoboxEdit

Hello! I'm seeking for consensus to add a new field in the automobile infobox, which is 'model_code'. Model codes of vehicles are already incorporated in many infoboxes of car articles, just not in a dedicated field which provides no context, causes clutter and problems in referencing. If you would like express support for or object to the proposal, then you are strongly encouraged to do so at the talk page. Thank you! Andra Febrian (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Gulf Oil listed at Good Article ReassessmentEdit

Gulf Oil has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

photo for lincolnEdit

As some of you may notice, Lincoln Motor Company does not have a photo, which negatively impacts the ability to search for it. Since it does not have a headquarters to use as the photo, I would like to discuss using an alternative image for the brand. I suggest an advertisement photo that contains both a continental and a mark series vehicle. I would suggest one from 1969, given that the suicide door continental and the Mark III are the most well known of their respective product lines. GeorgeRoush5 (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion is at talk:Lincoln Motor Company#Added a photo. Please answer there.  Stepho  talk  01:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Car layout § Requested move 27 July 2022Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Car layout § Requested move 27 July 2022. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Variants?Edit

As a brief overview, the CLK GTR (W297) is a racecar manufactured by Mercedes-Benz. It has a variant, called the CLK LM. There is a separate infobox for the CLK-Straßenversion (street legal version), my question is should I create a separate infobox for the CLK LM? I think I should, but I'm not too sure. X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 23:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As long as the 2 variants have substantial difference then a separate infobox is fine. if they are the same except for a few points (eg engine size/power) then use the same infobox with both variants mentioned by name in the appropriate field.
It's useful if you give us a link to the article as part of your question.  Stepho  talk  01:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Stepho-wrs, yes I suppose a link would be useful. The article in question is Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR. The CLK-LM has slightly different measurements and has an entirely different engine (V12 vs V8). I just think that if there's another infobox for the road-going version, there should be one like there is at Maserati MC12. X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 21:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for the ping Stepho-wrs, upon further deliberation I reckon a separate article is necessary. Why, you may ask? Well it's not a variant in the sense that the C7 ZR1 is a variant of the C7, and deserves to be under that page. It's more an evolution, like BMW V12 LM and BMW V12 LMR, or Peugeot 908 HDi FAP and Peugeot 908. What do you reckon? If you agree, I would also just like to ask whether we should overwrite the redirect or tag it for speedy deletion & then create a new article? I ask this so that the page can be reviewed again. X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 00:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I would leave them in the same article - mostly due to size. If the 2 articles were significantly larger then I would probably agree with your reasoning. But some editors are deletionists who like to delete small articles, claiming that they are not notable enough. The current article is large enough that they will leave it alone. Theses cars are related closely enough that they still make sense together and provide some context for each other. Plenty of other race car articles have done similar - eg Toyota 7.  Stepho  talk  01:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll be more than happy to fight the deletionists, Stepho-wrs. Your decision to support me or not is totally within your own prerogative, but I'll boldy make a new article. The question remains though, do I overwrite the redirect or is there some {{db}} template that I can use? X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 01:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
No problem. Simply overwriting the redirect will do the job.  Stepho  talk  02:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Ford Thames (car)Edit

Hey guys!

I recently nominated this problematic article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ford Thames (car).

Any insight would be welcome! Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Chevy Blazer and Equinox EVEdit

Hello! I would like to get an opinion on these articles. Currently, I don't believe they are notable enough to be separate from the normal Blazer and Equinox articles based on their current state. A quick search reveals a lot of sources, however I'm unsure if they say enough different things to make these 2 electric vehicles notable enough to have their own articles. Chevrolet Blazer EV and Chevrolet Equinox EV are the links. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a tough call in my opinion. As both the Equinox and the Blazer, ostensibly, share only a name with the non-EV versions, I don't think they are appropriate for inclusion in the respective ICE vehicle articles. Perhaps, for the time being, they could be combined into the same article. I couldn't easily glean how either of these vehicles is different enough from the other to warrant a separate article anyways. IPBilly (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@IPBilly: Thanks for the response! I'll wait to see other people's opinion before starting a merge discussion for both articles. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Knight XVEdit

Hello again. I came across the article Knight XV and it caught my attention because the image looks very fake. I checked and it appears to be real, however I Don't think it's notable. I'd like to get another person's opinion on it before nominating it for deletion. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The Flickr page the image came from has comments which make it clear it is photoshopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: I mean, I could tell it was photoshopped. The image doesn't look remotely real (I have a bunch of reasons why but I"m not gonna detail). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)