Open main menu

Wikipedia β

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.


Confusing spread of information for electric vehiclesEdit

I think the layout of information relating to hybrid and electric cars is unclear and could be made more readable, with less information being repeated. Many of these articles as marked as requiring attention and I think this is in part because the purpose of the pages can be interpreted in different ways. This is something that I want to clarify with the WikiProject, so that I and others can start improving the quality of these pages. These are:

  • Electric Vehicle, which gives an overview of all types of vehicle that incorporate electrical power. This does not require modification, but could be updated to better reflect any changes to other pages.
  • Hybrid Electric Vehicle, which says it covers all hybrid electric vehicles, but most of the article talks exclusively about automobiles, focusing on legislation and market. I would suggest that this article should remain balanced with other vehicles such as boats and trains. There is probably enough content to make a page on hybrid cars.
  • Battery electric vehicle, which covers vehicles that only store energy in a battery, no ICE. This article gives a good overview of the different types of vehicles.
  • Plug-in hybrid, which focuses on cars. This article is considered too long. Some of the environmental and subsidies information could be collated into one page, as this is mentioned on most pages.
  • Plug-in electric vehicle, which covers battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. Talks about the advantages and disadvantages which are similar to those covered in electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid.
  • Electric Car covers cars that run exclusively on electric power and is a sub-category of battery electric vehicles. This is a good quality article that does not require modification.
  • Hybrid vehicle drivetrain, covers the way that a hybrid system may be implemented. This article is listed as having issues, and I believe should extend to mention the hybrid system architectures used on trains and ships.
  • Mild Hybrid, which is a short article that discusses cars with this configuration, although there is not a separate page for full hybrid.
  • Hybrid Vehicle, which covers hybrid systems that are not electric, as well as summarising the hybrid electric vehicle page and the hybrid vehicle drivetrain page.
  • Electric vehicle battery, which focuses on the batteries used in hybrid and full-electric cars on the drivetrain. I believe this should also cover the batteries in all Battery electric vehicles.
  • Automotive battery, which just covers the batteries used for starting, lighting and ignition. However, I think one might visit this page and expect to learn about all of the batteries that can be found in an automobile. Also, 48 Volt systems are coming in the future. Whilst at the moment they sit along side the 12 V 'Automotive battery' to provide a mild hybrid, eventually the 12 V battery will be phased out[1]. These 48 V batteries do not fit into the high voltage definition of electric vehicle battery either.
  • Environmental aspects of the electric car, which discusses the pros and cons of EVs over ICEs. Something that is covered on many of the pages above, so could instead be collated here.

As I hope this makes clear, there are a lot of articles on the topic, all of which have varying awareness of others. I'd appreciate community feedback as to which of these should be treated more as part of the Transport WikiProject, covering trains etc. in equal measure to cars, and which should just be about cars. I'd also appreciate help in removing the ambiguity as to the purpose of each page, then they can be bought up to a good standard quicker. Drumncars1996 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There's also Alternative fuel vehicle, which despite its name also describes electric vehicles (electricity isn't fuel!). --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Mayersohn, Norman (8 Feb 2018). "To Power the Future, Carmakers Flip on 48-Volt Systems". New York Times. Retrieved 12 June 2018. 

Plymouth page renaming discussionEdit

There is a discussion at [1] which editors may wish to comment on Lyndaship (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


Should Autozine be considered a reliable source? Link to the site - NealeFamily (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

His about page at says it all. "AutoZine is my personal car website established on September 1997. Throughout the years, AutoZine has been non-commercial at all - no sponsorship, no advertisement thus no income. In other words, I do it just for fun." In other words, it has no editorial oversight and we rely only on his personal goodwill and diligence. He seems to be pretty good at gathering facts but unfortunately we can't use him as a reference. In many ways its similar to my own website - many interesting facts (and we have both lived in Hong Kong) but still not a true reference.  Stepho  talk  11:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Stepho-wrs. It matches my conclusion based on a couple of comments in earlier discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_21#DSG trannies Autozine does little more than rewrite press materials and journalist reviews to suit the webmaster's point of view and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_27#Possible Wiki hoax on Bentley 4½ Litre which implies the site is unreliable In 2009 the claim appears at I see it on a few other blogs but nothing reliable.. I actually like the sites contents and comments but as it draws from more reliable sources, it would be better to use them. The Autozine author refers to

The reports I wrote were based on the findings from different magazines, plus my own technical analysis, background information and opinion. I regularly read 10 or more magazines a month, so integrating them usually result in a more comprehensive view than just an individual magazine.

. Hopefully this will prove informative to Typ932 and Drachentötbär who were getting into a fairly terse debate. NealeFamily (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no proofs its unreliable site, its more reliable than user Drachentötbär added references, I have nothing more to say this thing, all is already said many times, but these two users keep insising it unreliable and only prrof they have its a blog (when it isnt actually). They keep removing it with no reason or adding worse references or adding tags unreliable. That site is more reliable than many other automotive sites. I dont know the reason they have attacked against that site, because there isnt any reason for that . If these two editors dont like that site, they should not remove or add worse referecnes or add unreliable tags to articles. If they have so much energy they could then add more reliable refs. This is just silly, really hard to understand why they dont learn when said what to do , they are like small kids. -->Typ932 T·C 13:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Any personal site is unreliable for Wikipedia purposes, no matter how well it's regarded by an editor. An enthusiast pretending to be a motoring journalist is still nothing more than an enthusiast. That's it really. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Did you actually read what I wrote? they should not remove or add worse references or add unreliable tags to articles. If they have so much energy they could then add more reliable refs. basic idea in wikipedia editing is make articles better not worse, good reference is better than reference at all or "professional journalist" made unreliable reference , and not all personal sites are unreliable if you read wikipedia policy . "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. -->Typ932 T·C 19:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
They were clear on why they were doing what they were doing. I don't see the problem. You can disagree with them, but no-one has supported your point of view up to this point. Drachentötbär was in fact making the effort of replacing a poor source with better ones where possible. WP:RS makes clear a motoring magazine (even if somewhat biased) is always preferable to a non-RS like a personal site. RS makes clear "self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", which means Autozine was being improperly used. There is more leniency for experts, but the Autozine webmaster admits he's not one. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes I disagree if they add unreliable references (ref with wrong info) instead reference which has right info (see this one ) (and this is the right info (same info as in autozine) They are so keen to replace these that they add bad references. Do you really think that someone here really supports these bad refs? -->Typ932 T·C 19:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
If you think that the new reference has the "wrong" info, you can search another RS with the correct data. But if you say Autozine is an any way better than the new source from a Wikipedia perspective, I can only say in response that idea is wrong. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
If the new reference has wrong info its worse than any type of reference with right info, its very simple to understand or is it?? . And if you noticed I replaced it with new ref with right info. There is really no idea to just replace autozine refs if you dont know what you are doing, it makes more harm than good -->Typ932 T·C 20:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Autozin, like any blog is generally a poor source. That doesn't mean it can't be used but that it's use should be very limited. I've been reading the guy's work for many years. Much of the material is subjective opinion presented as fact or is a generality being treated as an absolute truth. I'm not sure that Autozin should be included as a general "See also" for an article. It may be OK as a source for a non-controversial fact but not much else. I remember when many car forum discussions would cite Autozin. I suspect that was in large part because there aren't many good sources about technical automotive topics on the web. That the sort of thing that really lives in the world of specialty publishing/trade knowledge. Anyway, it shouldn't be blanket removed and we shouldn't replace it with low quality sources just to avoid Autozin. At the same time we really shouldn't rely on it as a source for anything that resembles expert opinion. Springee (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I conclude that Autozine is only worth using if there is nothing better, and even then, it is a use with care because the site does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. In particular WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:RSSELF. I think Springee's comments above nicely sum up the approach to take NealeFamily (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID providing external links to personal webpages like Autozine should be avoided and according to WP:SPS they are not acceptable as sources, there's no "acceptable if nothing better" or "acceptable for non-controversial facts". This would even apply if everything on the webpage was correct but Autozine is biased and the author even intentionally tells things which are not correct, like reporting 0-60 mph times from magazines which do not measure them, so even for an unacceptable source it's lacking in quality, not worth making an exception from the guidelines. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Drachentötbär. Because we are dealing with a living person can you back up your statement the author even intentionally tells things which are not correct with a reference. NealeFamily (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of pages (for example the Lamborghini Countach and Ferrari F40 pages) on this site which quote 0-60 mph times from Auto, Motor und Sport and Quattroroute who use kph and not mph. shows that he once tried to handle such times the exact way but he obviously decided against it on other pages. He also leaves other errors on his site he was notified about. It's his personal webpage, he's free to do whatever he wants there to make himself and others happy but it doesn't work as a source for Wikipedia.Drachentötbär (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Based on that - the inaccuracies, Autozine shouldn't be used as a reference as it fails WP:RS NealeFamily (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hummer H2‎Edit

A couple of IPs have been changing all the dates at Hummer H2‎. It looks quite suspicious to me, so maybe someone from this WikiProject can have a look and see if the changes made during the last couple of days should all be reverted. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That's why references are essential - otherwise its your word against his word. I followed the references and they agree on model years 2003-2009 and the equivalent calendar years 2002-2009. If somebody changes it to disagree with the references then either they are wrong or they need to add supporting references. If their changes are not supported by references then you are free to revert them.  Stepho  talk  17:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Many more changes were made than just the start and end dates of production. Other dates were changed and don't have references in the article to support one value or the other. So, was the article full of wrong dates before, or is it full of wrong dates now? Gnome de plume (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
We don't really know the correct value of some of those dates (implying that more references are needed). But since changed referenced correct dates to incorrect dates then I would feel safe in bulk reverting whatever he did. 2600:1700:3f00:8020:3c09:a2eb:b878:f0c6 already reverted most of them, so I'd feel safer trusting his edits (although more references are still preferred). PS: 'Category:Cars introduced in 1999' was missed in the revert - should be 2002.  Stepho  talk  11:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

New Image for BMW F90 M5Edit

Can someone please take a proper photo of the F90 M5? The photos at commons have poor angles and the photos of the car from IAA, 2017 are too smokey and poorly taken.U1Quattro (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

More dogmatic case-related renames.Edit

The articles:

have all just been renamed as BMC A-series engine, etc. Undiscussed, naturally. Are we happy with these?

The wiki-dogma is obvious, yet policy is that title case is appropriate when proper names are involved. These are used as such, and they're sourced as such in works like David Vizard. Tuning the A-Series Engine. ISBN 1859606202.  (there is little more definitive on this engine than Vizard's books). Nor do we see US engines, like the Chrysler Hemi engine being renamed similarly. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems like books consistently capitalized series for the BMC A, but for the B and E, mostly they use lower case for series. Sources seem split on the Rover K, mostly not capitalizing. What if we just decided to leave it as it is, and perhaps even move protect them so that we don't have to bikeshed this topic again? For the A-Series, we could write a sentence in the article telling readers that it is formally capitalized, while in the others it's inconsistent. Just so nobody think Wikipedia has issued an official ruling favoring one or the other. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The book title 'Tuning the A-Series Engine' uses title-case, so it uses upper-case for both 'S' and 'E'. The original article title 'BMC A-Series engine' uses upper-case for the 'S' but not the 'E'. If we want to use upper-case for the 'S' then we should also use upper-case for the 'E' - but WP doesn't use title-case for article titles. Conversely, if we're going to use lower-case for the 'e' then we should be using lower-case for the 's'. Unless BMC officially use upper-case 'S' in their documentation in sentences - ie if it's part of the proper name for the engine series. To my knowledge, the official name is 'A', not 'A-Series' but I'm not a BMC expert.  Stepho  talk  22:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Have you read the book? It's not written in title case throughout! (but it does use "A-Series engine" throughout). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Nope, haven't read the book, I used only the information you provided. But I did say that if the official literature uses 'S' then so should we. Is it only that one book or do the majority of BMC books use 'S' in sentences? What does the factory literature use?  Stepho  talk  23:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Another member of this project has gone through and switched all my lower case series to Series quoting some workshop manuals where (I mean in workshop manuals) such issues are of course not intensely important. I have to say I (silently) cheered on the editor concerned (Dicklyon). Eddaido (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


I have informed Dicklyon of this discussion, since he made both sets of title changes.  Stepho  talk  04:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks – Andy seems to prefer to talk behind my back. Note that some books use lowercase, e.g. this one and this one and this one, indicating that the caps are not necessary in the A series. WP avoids unnecessary capitalization, per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I had a very quick web search of books and fan sites - they seem to be all over the place and I can't place much trust in either way. I tried looking for some factory literature. I only found a presentation by a factory engineer which uses lower-case 's' and an advert for the A60 which uses lower-case 's'. Slight advantage to 's' but my sample size is pitifully small. Anybody have better factory literature than me?  Stepho  talk  05:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Stepho, you mentioned that "if the official literature uses 'S' then so should we"; but that's really a case of WP:SSF. Whatever you find in official sources, if common uses show caps to be unnecessary, then we do not treat this as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, what I'm looking is whether the official name is 'A series', 'A Series' or just 'A'. If just 'A' then we get to choose (although common use in books and fan sites goes both ways). If the official name includes the word 'series' or 'Series' then we should follow that as a proper noun.  Stepho  talk  05:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
(Official literature) I have had no better luck at finding examples. It seems to me that manufacturers rarely define new models in their sales literature as anything other than NEW! Which model it belongs to seems to be an aftermarket issue for dealers and magazines and writers like us in WP. Eddaido (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
"Foo X-Series" appears to be a double error for "Foo X series". It's not a compound modifier or anything else that would require a hyphen, and the "series" thing is a descriptive categorization like everything else we're lowercasing: Manx cat, Ford pickup truck, BBC documentary, etc. – the words after the proper names do not take capital letters. No one plays "FIFA Football", prefers "European Newspapers", has favorite "HBO and Netflix TV Shows", or likes "McDonalds French Fries" better than "Burger King French Fries". Someone at User talk:Dicklyon said this was like iPhone, iPod, etc. But that's silly. Sources are nearly 100% consistent in how they treat those names. This is not true of a "Foo X series"/"Foo X-series"/"Foo x-series"/"Foo X-Series"/etc. constructions. And there are no hyphens or descriptive categorizers present in "iPod" and the like. However, if we had an article at the title "iOS-Devices" it would definitely be moved to "iOS devices", minus both the extraneous hyphenation and the overcapitalization. The fact that some people like to capitalize stuff that is about cars and airplanes and such is just the typical specialized-style fallacy. Specialist writing for other specialists in most fields capitalizes the living crap out of stuff that no one else would capitalize; WP doesn't. WP is not written in news style, including automotive news magazine style.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
:"Foo X-Series" appears to be a double error for "Foo X series".
Exactly. You're taking some dogmatic approach, we know the rules of grammar better than the originator, and changing names on that basis. That's not how we should work. We should find the best and most authoritative sources we can do for a topic and follow those. Not a styleguide. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Another one at Ford D Series. Didn't we used to have some policy about discussing these things and consensus? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Automobiles".