Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Bomber BFS

Can someone please confirm that Bomber BFS is utter nonsense. I proposed it for speedy delete but it was turned down on the grounds it is an actual car. Before taking it to articles for deletion, am I missing something.

Malcolma (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A Google search seems to suggest it's a car that's in a video game but was never actually produced, but maybe a reference to the real car is buried beneath pages and pages of gamer hits. IFCAR (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

From Googling around, I think it's some kind of Chevrolet Bel Air-based bonus car in the computer game Need for Speed II.[1] I've attached a {{prod}} tag; to encourage quicker deletion, you (or another editor) may wish to second the proposed deletion with a {{Prod-2}} tag. --DeLarge (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: according to the Need for Speed wiki, the Bomber BFS is explicitly described as a "fictional 1957 Chevy Bel-Air".[2] --DeLarge (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Googling on

car bomber BFS -"need for speed" -"need 4 speed" -nfs -soup

(yes, the -soup is needed) gives only random rubbish. The author also created Yamaha RS-100T, which seems to be a reasonable with similar facts on the web. He also added NFS links for Cheetah (disambiguation) and Bullet (disambiguation). So I'd say the user is not malicious but mistakenly thinks every vehicle in NFS has a real life counterpart. Stepho-wrs (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox width

I have set the infobox width field, so that Template:Infobox Automobile generation and Template:Infobox Automobile should now be same size, if there is no picture placed , if there is problem let me know or write here --Typ932 ^T·C 16:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Notable Ferrari Enzo Owners

Is this article okay? It was just created by LemonCrumpet (talk · contribs) and has no sources. I'm not sure if it passes WP:N. Thoughts? swaq 17:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not notable. I also find it hard to believe that a Pope would accept a Ferrari as a gift...--Flash176 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My inclination is that it is a frivolous list but he has certainly put a lot of hard work into it. Since it looks like good faith, invite him over to discuss it instead of scaring off a new recruit. And it's my (poor) understanding that the Pope rarely refuses gifts. It was probably sold on or something - not that I know much about Catholic internal affairs. Stepho-wrs (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal

Your input is requested at a move proposal here. Neelix (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinions in article

I would like to request that the economy car article be reviewed in light of the most recent edits by 85.119.112.102. This is identical to the previous edits by 85.119.112.166; therefore I would think they are one and the same contributor. Please note that I have tried to tone down the statements of opinion and promotion of particular models. They have described my work as "vandalism" (see: here). However, this contributor seems intent on a particular perspective even in the comments to me (see here). It seems to me that the statements added to the "economy car" article by this editor have nothing to do with informing the reader. Thank you — CZmarlin (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this up. I took a go at toning down the language. The whole article is a unsourced mess, but the IP additions are clearly pushing a POV that American cars are crap, which isn't entirely untrue, but the article currently acts as if America was the only source of mediocre vehicles which is completely untrue, both Europe and Japan produced some spectacular duds as well. --Leivick (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rustproofing needs cites

Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."
Rustproofing has been tagged "This article does not cite any references or sources.... Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" since September 2007. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

GM- - Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer

There are lots of editing with these articles, because current happenings, so anybody have free time, could keep these and related articles on eye, that model/production/defunct information is not changed/added until these changes are real (in the end of this year or next year) --Typ932 ^T·C 12:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on the Pontiac articles. The infoboxes and timelines should be left alone until the day the models actually cease production. Also, one should not write about the end of model production until that particular model is mentioned by GM. One can't assume production will end at a certain time because of the general brand-wide announcement about Pontiac. The only place it should really appear now is in the main Pontiac article - but try to avoid "news blogging", i.e. making a new paragraph for every news item and starting it like "On April 27, 2009, GM announced..". --Vossanova ^o< 14:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, may want to keep an eye on Bull-Doser's edits. I've reverted the ones I've caught, but he's been making up rumors about the Chevrolet Orlando taking the Pontiac Vibe's name, the body of the Pontiac G8 being used for the Impala, etc. I've warned him once already, so if you do catch him adding more senseless stuff, please give him another warning.--Flash176 (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este

Hi everyone - i created today a wikipedia entry for this beautiful classic car contest - you can find it at Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este; i would like some help in expanding the article, especially the creation of a contestants list and a past editions section; you can find more info in the entry itself and at the official web site, for which i provided a link. Also please correct any grammar mistakes i made, since english is not my mother language.

Thanks

--Itemirus^{Talk Page} 17:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Jeep

Mitsubishi Jeep has, since I created it about three years ago, been a redirect to Jeep CJ#CJ-5, since it was a version of that Jeep built under licence by MMC between 1953 and 1998. I figured that like Mitsubishi Henry J, another American vehicle built by the company under licence, there wasn't really anything to be said that couldn't be better covered in the parent article.

Recently, a user has come along who disagrees. They made a series of edits about three weeks ago which were slightly malformed,[3] and removed the redirect from Category:Mitsubishi Motors vehicles, so I reverted. A second series of edits followed,[4] which included slightly more information and a copyvio photo. I put the useful info in the Jeep article, and reverted again. Now we're onto a third round of edit warring,[5] so I'm now posting here in an effort to put an end to the back-and-forth.

My own opinion remains that all the information about the Mitsubishi version can be covered at Jeep CJ, and would give a better context from both Japanese and American perspectives. It's the same approach I took with Mitsubishi Henry J, another under-licence American car manufactured by MMC, which is the most similar example I can come up with. I'm also slightly concerned that a page like this would open the door for others to create articles on the (at least) 15 versions of the Jeep built under licence around the world.

Thoughts from others? --DeLarge (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an obvious redirect to me. Nothing particularly different about the licensed Mitsubishi version to require a separate article. I'm going to redirect it back. --Leivick (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Me three. I think DeLarge's approach is the best one. If in future some vast new store of information comes to light that warrants separate treatment of the licenced CJs, then fine, but for now I think coverage in the main article is the best way forward. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the proposal. It would be better for readers to have basic information on all the CJ variants built around the world in the article about this vehicle. — CZmarlin (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Isuzu Amigo requested move

I have proposed to move Isuzu Amigo to its original market name Isuzu MU (see discussion: Talk:Isuzu Amigo). Thanks OSX (talk • contributions) 23:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't we have members with admin powers? Can't we simply move this unilaterally? Opel Frontera and Holden Frontera should be merged into it too. --Pc13 (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Car Desgines

Hi I Created the following designs, Please inform me where they can be used, and tell me where to add them File:LUmbo.svg File:Lumbo2.svg File:Lumbo4.svg

Maen. K. A. (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice! But I am not sure if it is OK to use digitally-generated/produced images in place of actual photographs. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem using SVGs if they are the best quality images available, which in this case (Gallardo Spyder) I think they are. --Leivick (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

First thank you for the appreciation, they may be used on (Gallardo Spyder) or as an illustrations in other articles, thank you Maen. K. A. (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, looks like the user template now uses this pic! Nice. SynergyStar (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Automobiles.

Pontiac Vibe notability issue

Could someone please weigh in on this? Jacob Poon has added a section about the Vibe GT-R that Pontiac built in 2002. It's just a car that was pulled off the assembly line and had bolt-on parts added to it to show buyers what could be done to the Vibe. It wasn't a concept car and companies do this all the time, so I feel this is unencyclopedic and not worthy of mentioning on here. It also doesn't help that his M.O. seems to be barely more than poorly written lists of parts - (Vossanova's comment to Jacob) & (Contribs).--Flash176 (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the article, it was shown at SEMA 2002, which qualifies it as a show car (albeit a not very exotic show car) that was seen by a large number of people and probably written up in the press somewhere. It wasn't all that big a section, so I'd like to see it remain. Disclosure; I'm a bit biased because I've been documenting Toyota show cars. Stepho-wrs (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Chrysler production

Someone seems to be changing the production years of current Chrysler models to say that their production ended in 2009. Now, it could be assumed that some Chrysler models will end their production run this year, such as the Dodge Avenger/Chrysler Sebring, since the only plant that produces them is closing under Chrysler's bankruptcy reorganization plan. However, the article for Dodge Caravan also has production listed as ending in 2009. it doesn't make sense to me for Caravan production to end, since it is one of Chrysler's most valuable models. I assume the changes have been made by an editor that got the wrong idea from Chrysler's Chapter 11 filing and the temporary stop of production, and misinterpreted it as Chrysler going out of business. However, I posted this to ask for someone more informed to make the proper changes to the articles. Are the Caravan and the Journey being discontinued, and I just don't know about it? Karrmann (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Caravan and the Journey are arguably Chrysler's most successful models. These would be the last to go, and I would say, like you, that the editor in question is misunderstanding the term "bankruptcy". Outside of the U.S. bankruptcy generally refers to being completely out of business and closing down for good. Chapter 11 has other equivalents in Commonwealth (U.K.) nations such as administration and receivership.

I have also left a note on the IP's talk page, so (s)he will hopefully get understand what is actually happening. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And this confirms what I said above. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ground Effects

There's a little tended article called Ground effects that describes this as a term used for bodykit (airdams, spoilers, diffusers etc), a different meaning to that of Ground effect in cars, which describes the aerodynamic phenomenon such items may produce. I've not heard 'ground effects' used as a name for the bodykit this way in the UK - does it have this meaning, or is this just a misunderstanding? 4u1e (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In Aeronautics, ground effect is where the proximity of the ground effectively causes a cushion of air to give the wings some extra lift - making it harder to land (the plane floats down the runway instead of actually landing). Look up the Caspian Sea Monster for a Russian aircraft that relies on this. In cars it could mean the packing of air underneath a car, causing it to lift at high speed, or the venturi effect, causing more down force at high speed via Bernoulli's principle. I've never heard of the term being used for the actual spoilers except rarely as 'ground effect devices'. This article adds nothing new compared to Ground effect in cars. I would change the article into a disambiguation page to the various car and automobile articles. Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. It's also worth noting that there's a difference between spoilers, skirts etc which would actually produce downforce by exploiting ground effects and the essentially aesthetic bodykits referred to in the "Ground effects" article. Can the latter article be deleted or perhaps merged with body kits? Spute (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Convert it to a redirect to ground effect a disambiguation page (ground effect vehicle and ground effect train could probably be added to that page). This is simply another name for what is more commonly called a body kit. Given the consensu here that it doesn't seem to warrant a standalone article, I'll be bold. --DeLarge (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

DeLarge, I've reverted your redirect on this page for now. I agree that ground effects vs. ground effect is confusing, and body kit is a better page name, but 24 hours is hardly enough time to declare a consensus.--Flash176 (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I did wonder if this was a commonly used term in North America, since a few comments were included in descriptions of US specifications for cars such as the Toyota Matrix (until edits by myself and Flash176). However, checking Toyota USA's official website, the items in question seem to be called "Color-keyed front and rear underbody spoilers". This is what I'd expect them to be called, and apparently supports my suspicion that the term ground effects has been mis-used. Perhaps the material at ground effects should be transferred to Spoiler (automotive)? Spute (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't Body kit (as suggested above) be a more appropriate home for the content? It's not just spoilers, it's the pseudo-diffusers and skirts as well. Agree with redirecting the term to ground effect. 4u1e (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 4ule. Moving the ground effects contents to spoiler would belie the fact that these things are most commonly made for looks and not function, in addition to what he said about other parts being included.--Flash176 (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that the ground effects page has now been deleted in line with the consensus reached here and at the relevant talk page.Spute (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Ground effects lighting? Could this be deleted? Spute (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the act of putting lights under a car is a bit weird but since people do it, it's worthy of an article. But it might be better as a redirect to another article that includes fashion accessories like angel eyes, fluffy dice, bobblers, etc. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Strathcarron

So, I was browsing the List of British cars, and i was somewhat surprised to see no one had written an article about Strathcarron yet. So I wrote it up, cited a couple of sources, and did all that jazz. Obviously, the article could use some spiffying up and would benefit from a picture (if a free one exists). But anyway, that wasn't my point. Strathcarron is basically just known for the one car they (briefly) made. Given the circumstances, I wasn't really sure what to do. I don't know if the SC-5A warrants it's own article. I thought maybe some folks here would know what's best in this situation. I figured personally that it's better to have one average stub article as oppossed to two very short ones with duplicate information. Opinions? →^Jog_Con← 19:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are on the right track. With only one model, there is no reason to have to pages at this point. If either section grows to long, they can always be split later on. --Leivick (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think one article is enough --Typ932 ^T·C 19:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, one article is enough. But for consistency sake, I've added a pair of redirects for Strathcarron SC-5A and Strathcarron SC-6 which go to Strathcarron (automobile). Stepho-wrs (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Constant reverts on Renault 19

I've corrected performance numbers on the Renault 19 16S section, citing the 1991 Automobil Revue Katalog. However, an IP from the UK keeps changing 0-100 km/h time and maximum speed to a previous version. I believe the article may have to be semi-protected. --Pc13 (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Tzen (Cars)

There is deletion tag added to Tzen (Cars) article, if someone is able to find references or make the article better maybe it can be saved from deletion?? --Typ932 ^T·C 21:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Porsche 969

I declined the speedy deletion on this one, but it's a copy from wikicars, and needs help. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an article is needed, it is just a prototype for a 911 model that never made it to production. If it is seriously important it can be mentioned in the 911 article. Left as a redirect for the time being. --Leivick (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Autobodyman

I can't find a suitable "deletion discussion" category, but I thought you guys might like to see this one. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just a synonym for panel beater. I've redirected it. Stepho-wrs (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Automobile ownership

Is it just me or does the article on Automobile ownership cover wildly unrelated topics? It talks about a driver's license identifying the owner (which is not the case in the US if not anywhere else in the world) then delves into the types of automobiles (the antique and customized, more than anything else), then on to the rules of the road, license plates, insurance and vehicle maintenance. I find all of these to be unrelated to vehicle ownership per se, but more pertinent to the right to driving a car, regardless of who the owner is. Moreover, they each have their stand-alone article, so taking sections out will not harm the encyclopedia. I'd like to know if anyone feels strongly against culling down the article in a major way.

I've added a section related to the ownership documents in the US, but I'm at a loss with what to do with the rest of the article. There is already a To-Do list started at the article's discussion page. I think we need to give it some serious attention. Thanks! CFHerbert (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand why this is a suitably notable topic at all. It's so vague. "Driver licensing" might be of value if only to compare systems around the world. But ownership? Do we have articles on "home ownership", "radio ownership" or "fish ownership"? I'd say go further than "culling down" and just cull. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is more suitable as consumer guide or something else.... --Typ932 ^T·C 16:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to WP:PROD the article, see what materialises. I agree with all the above, this article is not a topic in its own right, merely a loose collection of completely unrelated things. If PROD does not succeed will take it to full AfD for further discussion. Zunaid 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The strange part is that this article in much the same amalgamation of unrelated topics actually survived a nomination for deletion in February 2006 - see discussion here. Let's give it a few days to collect more feedback before we go that route again. --CFHerbert (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The 2006 AfD was for the article in a completely different state. The comments at the AfD were along the lines of "keep it because the article has change mid-afd. It's not great but let's give it time". It was more of a "procedural keep" than an outright keep. 3 years later and it has not improved one bit. Plus, three years ago's decision should have no bearing on a decision made now, after all consensus can change. Zunaid 18:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Also relevant is the fact that I don't recall that article being brought here to the project at the time — certainly few of the regular contributors here were involved in the discussion. So it probably went by fairly quietly which is a poor way to reach consensus, thus adding to the weight of justification to discuss it again now. – Kieran T ^(talk) 18:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PROD has been removed since the article had been previously nominated. I have listed it at AfD for further discussion, please weigh in with your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automobile ownership (2nd nomination). Zunaid 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This has now been resolved with the article being deleted. – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003-Present)

See Talk:Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003-Present) and give your opinions (support or not support) there --Typ932 ^T·C 16:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This has now been resolved by renaming in a way that respects precedent. Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003). – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

category for deletion

See Category:2010s_automobiles and give opinion --Typ932 ^T·C 16:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

2010 hasn't arrived yet, so no automobile can be in it yet. Possible exception if a manufacturer has announced next year's models (i.e. a model which will have a major facelift or redesign, not just this year's model that happens to be produced early in 2010). More than likely they are this year's model (ie 2009 calendar year) but using the US model year (ie 2010 MY), in which case they should be pushed back one year to be listed under their calendar year. Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The category can be used for upcoming automobiles which have been announced for 2010 or shortly thereafter (as long as Category:Vehicles introduced by year only goes up to the present). Being in the future doesn't invalidate the category; see Category:2010 films for instance. --Vossanova ^o< 15:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

German ADAC entry

I note that this makes no mention of the very useful ADAC shops which seem to exist in most towns in Germany - a very useful source of maps. Nominally they seem to be only open to members but I have found they will willingly sell to overseas visitors. Clwydd (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not only maps but also snow chains which can suddenly become necessary (and on some roads mandatory) at short notice if you're headed for the hills. As for the wiki-entry, if you think it needs improving you should improve it. Please. Charles01 (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ford

FYI, Ford Motor Company → Ford - a WP:RM rename request has been filed. The discussion is occuring at Talk:Ford Motor Company. As Ford is a company that is related to your wikiproject, this is an informative notice.

70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

GA sweeps review of "Ford Taurus"

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007. Ford Taurus will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted as a Good Article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Lexus

I have done the GA Reassessment of theLexus article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to be great and meet all the WP:GA Criteria except for several dead links in the reference section. I am notifying the interested projects and editors of this. I have placed the article on hold pending fixes of these references. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sport tractor

I was planning on nominating this article for deletion, but I'm not the biggest expert on the subject matter so I wanted to check here first. "sport tractor" seems to be original research and a term coined by the author. The bulk of the article promotes a particular Isuzu truck. Also, the grammar is so poor that much of it is incomprehensible. A google search for "sport tractor" returned only a few thousand hits, most of which had nothing to do with what's in the article. Then there's a "Sport Tractor" category which has nothing in it but this article and Truck. So, is this a well-known concept or something made up? --Vossanova ^o< 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of the term. It looks like a one off mod to a Isuzu truck. Quote from the talk page; "By the way, this is a new idea, my research has found that the term "sport tractor" will have orignated here in Wikipedia." Says it all to me, its OR. Go for AFD. Malcolma (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing 'Daewoo Kalos' article to 'Daewoo Gentra'

The Daewoo Kalos is now sold in Korea as the Gentra and Gentra X, see [6]. Since article names are based on the name of the vehicle in the country of origin, shouldn't the article name be changed?--Mortonar (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)--68.148.133.222 (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The rule was to use the original name of the vehicle in the country of origin, so Kalos is still valid. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Straight-four engine

FYI: there is move/rename request in Talk:Straight-four engine give your opinions --Typ932 ^T·C 06:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just dropping a note to let you all know that this article renaming request has now become a voting hub for the renaming of all article to "inline-x engine". The points raised are quite valid and supported by WP:Common name. For the editors that have already voted, the more recent discussion may warrant a change in vote (not that I am trying to influence this, I am still to be convinced about the change myself). OSX (talk • contributions) 04:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Predecessor/Successor on Audi S8

An anonymous user has re-added the predecessor/successor fields on Audi S8 which are just anchor links. I think this is inconsistent with other automobile articles and only serves to confuse the reader instead of aiding in navigation. Basically what it's saying is that the Audi S8 was succeeded by the Audi S8... I don't think that is the purpose of those fields. I've already reverted once, so I thought I'd ask for opinions/help here. Also, I quickly looked at the anonymous user's contributions and it looks like this isn't the only page he's done this on. Thanks. swaq 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep this is same user who made these aka fields and other messy stuff, those are only confusing people, there is no need to put D3 S8 as successor , nobody doesnt even know what this d3 s8 means, btw this anonymous user reminds me about some old user who was keen to edit vag articles.... --Typ932 ^T·C 20:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I modified yesterday this certain article to same style as other car articles are, what do you think? My opinion is that its much clearer and not so confusing, the codes can be told in main text aswell--Typ932 ^T·C 06:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. It appears this problem is also on Audi A4, Audi S4, Audi RS4, Audi A6, Audi S6, and Audi RS6. There might be more, but those are the ones I've noticed so far just from checking Audi articles. swaq 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It does seem unnecessary to use these fields to link recursively to the same article - I'm not sure why they even exist in the "Infobox Automobile generation" template. But I think the bigger problem here is edit-warring behaviour. Letdorf (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

Solid engine block for RR cars

Sirs/Ladies Many years ago round about 1960 when I was an apprentice aircraft mechanic, our lecturer informed me that the Rolls Royce car engine block was emersed into the sea for 10 years for curing the block. Please tell me wether this is true,as I cant find any info on the Internet.

Regards, Ernst Wolfgang Kruger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.205.62 (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like complete nonsense to me, almost definitely false. --Leivick (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely false. Not only would this serve no purpose, but being immersed in the ocean for a decade would be highly detrimental to an engine.--Flash176 (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd reject it on economic grounds. Even if it made engineering sense, building a 10 year supply before the first engine can be used would bankrupt almost any company. And it would add a 10 year delay to new innovations - also a company killer. I have no knowledge of how RR actually made their blocks but perhaps they put them through some form of brine solution as a cleansing stage (to remove grease) and then washed out with fresh water (to remove the salty from the brine). But that's just a guess. Stepho-wrs (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems unlikely since even though R-R did maintain their engine block designs for a long time, they simply wouldn't have been able to ramp up production numbers whenever they needed to — such as when they were supplying engines to BMC. What engineering basis is there for this anyway? "It's already corroded as much as it's going to"? Naw. It sounds like the sort of slogan people might proudly say about their R-R though — "You could leave that block in the sea for 10 years and it'd still be fine!" – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was the new engine blocks were left some long time outside behind the foundry where freezing each winter could reveal any faults in the casting. This was the reason for the long periods between design of new RR engines and their sale in cars. Ten years might well be about right. Eddaido (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

New oil-consumption conversion template

While copyediting Chevrolet Vega, I encountered a need to convert an expression of engine oil consumption from U.S. units to metric, holding the volume fixed at input (1 qt) and output (1 litre). Some discussion over at Template talk:Convert, and a fine effort by one of that template's wizards, has resulted in the following new provisions. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

*{{convert|123|mi/impqt}} *{{convert|123|mi/USqt}} *{{convert|123|mi/U.S.qt}} *{{convert|123|mi/impqt|abbr=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/USqt|abbr=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/U.S.qt|abbr=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/impqt|lk=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/USqt|lk=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/U.S.qt|lk=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/impqt|abbr=on|lk=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/USqt|abbr=on|lk=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/U.S.qt|abbr=on|lk=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/impqt|adj=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/USqt|adj=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/U.S.qt|adj=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/impqt|abbr=on|adj=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/USqt|abbr=on|adj=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/U.S.qt|abbr=on|adj=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/impqt|lk=on|adj=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/USqt|lk=on|adj=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/U.S.qt|lk=on|adj=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/impqt|abbr=on|lk=on|adj=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/USqt|abbr=on|lk=on|adj=on}} *{{convert|123|mi/U.S.qt|abbr=on|lk=on|adj=on}}

123 miles per imperial quart (174 km/L) 123 miles per US quart (209 km/L) 123 miles per U.S. quart (209 km/L) 123 mi/imp qt (174 km/L) 123 mi/US qt (209 km/L) 123 mi/U.S. qt (209 km/L) 123 miles per imperial quart (174 km/L) 123 miles per US quart (209 km/L) 123 miles per U.S. quart (209 km/L) 123 mi/imp qt (174 km/L) 123 mi/US qt (209 km/L) 123 mi/U.S. qt (209 km/L) 123-mile-per-imperial-quart (174 km/L) 123-mile-per-US-quart (209 km/L) 123-mile-per-U.S.-quart (209 km/L) 123 mi/imp qt (174 km/L) 123 mi/US qt (209 km/L) 123 mi/U.S. qt (209 km/L) 123-mile-per-imperial-quart (174 km/L) 123-mile-per-US-quart (209 km/L) 123-mile-per-U.S.-quart (209 km/L) 123 mi/imp qt (174 km/L) 123 mi/US qt (209 km/L) 123 mi/U.S. qt (209 km/L)

Article renaming to original market name

After repeated attempts to move various articles to the original market name title, this almost never occurs due to an overwhelming number of opposes and not enough support votes. These opposes are generally not from WP:CARS members, but from users who see the proposed move on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. Their opposing votes always say something like, "Name X is the most common name, as per WP:Common name." No matter how many times I try and explain our original market name policy here, the request is always dismissed.

As a project, this policy seems to have almost zero standing outside of WP:CARS. I think the only chance of this happening is if we are able to make it an official exception to WP:Common name. Considering the number of members willing to participate here compared to WP as a whole, I think this will be an almost impossible venture.

Solution: instead of wasting more time with talk page requested moves, I have began a list below (#Articles to be renamed) where we can vote on all the renames as a whole, and then have them renamed by a WP:CARS admin. If you know of any other incorrectly titled articles, add them to the list below. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not "impossible", the Mazda articles were successfully renamed and protected from "de-name" attempts. I wouldn't be that negative, it's usually only one or few people, most often not that involved in Wikipedia, who propose denaming or oppose renaming. I think the key is also not in the number of disputants, but quality of arguments. I think we've got it, one can look into Talk:Mazda Axela, Talk:Mazda Atenza and Talk:Mazda Premacy for examples.

You can call on me anytime a discussion ensues, I will sure try to convince the opponents our arguments are valid.

On the other hand, I would be careful with Hyundai Avante. Somebody more involved with HMC would have to opine on that, but I have a faint conviction the first generation was an Elantra in Korea too. I will add a few articles requiring renaming I came accross though. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the problem is simple: our "policy" is no such thing. In fact, it's not even a "guideline"; it is, as the page title suggests, a "convention": nothing more than a long-standing habit with no formal basis to support it. Until we get something formally drafted which does not conflict with Wikipedia's wider naming conventions, we're going to keep running into the same brick wall. Even the Mazda page move requests were only turned down because the admin involved chose to ignore the guidelines in favour of counting votes, which they shouldn't really have done. I have to confess that if someone requested that Mazda Axela be moved again, I'd probably argue in its favour.

Rather than getting a little campaign going to move pages "on the sly", what we should do is get something properly written and submitted to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Other specific conventions for approval. After all, we can't act as if they don't apply to us. After our convention is accepted, then we have a guideline which will actually hold water during move requests. I keep meaning to get around to doing this, but I've been to busy to give WP a lot of attention lately. It doesn't need to be hugely different from what we have now, as long as we can justify our exceptions—WP:FLORA gets to use scientific names ahead of common names, because they presented a good case for it.

However, I should point out that we'll most likely have to relax our convention slightly. In most cases it'll hold true just fine: Mitsubishi vehicles tend to be sold under many different names worldwide (see the Pajero, Challenger, or Chariot), so choosing the home market name is a very consistent, simple solution. But if the Mazda Axela is branded as a Mazda 3 everywhere outside Japan, including every single English-speaking market, then I think we're going to have to compromise there and accept that in those cases our convention is butting heads with WP:Naming conventions (common names). --DeLarge (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Small addendum: I do confess, mea culpa, I've supported the old convention in the past in discussions and move requests. It's not so much that I disagree with it—for consistency, I'd prefer it—but it's simply not tenable to continue to try and enforce it. --DeLarge (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as of right now, I support keeping the articles where they are.--Flash176 (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a slight amendment to the existing policy could be adopted, along the lines of the failed move of Hyundai Coupe > Tuscani, in which we would use the home market name only if that name is used in any English-speaking markets, and if not, we would use the most common name. I don't see how it's helpful to English language readers to see a name that's unused in any English-speaking countries.

It's especially silly when the domestic name is used when the car's primary market is elsewhere. This isn't the Japanese, Korean, or German Wiki. There is a good reason this convention is not accepted outside of WP:Auto precedent. IFCAR (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we should not use those if they are not in use any English-speaking markets --Typ932 ^T·C 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think DeLarge is completely right; this "policy" here on the Automobiles project is in fact nothing of the sort, and holds no water or weight against Wikipedia-wide article naming protocol. Certain editors have very vocally favoured always naming every article with the vehicle's original home-market name, but that is not an adequate reason for us to do so. It is increasingly untenable to do as we're doing, and we need to look at harmonising our article naming protocol with WP:NAME. That's in the long run. In the short run, I think IFCAR's suggestion is a very good one. Adopting it will quickly bring our naming practice much closer to compliance with WP:NAME, while at the same time avoiding a naming crisis or a mountain of unnecessary work. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

But what if any English speaking country is for example, New Zealand with 4 million people? This argument does not hold up either. What I am saying is that no single way is going to be perfect, but original market name tends to fit best. As DeLarge pointed out, Mitsubishi articles would be a nightmare if decided by common name, and so would many others. For example, at the moment we have Honda Accord with two sections: Japan and the U.S. . The U.S. info should probably be merged with Honda Inspire if original market name is used, but then most Americans would not like that. I feel that common name is going to be very hard to determine accurately, and it will almost always be a substitute for the "American market name convention". Now as others have said, exceptions are needed (Lexus), but what I would hate is collection of mismatched article titles. For example, having some Hyundai articles based on the Korean name, others the American and the rest based on the European title simply because one particular model sold better in that particular market. Consistency is need, and as much as many of us hate it, original market name certainly delivers. OSX (talk • contributions) 16:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As a non-native English speaker from a non-English speaking country, I respectfully disagree. To me, a language version of Wikipedia is not one to present LPOV (local point of view) [which is one of the reasons I am active here, not in "my" language version of WP]. This especially pertains to this WP, which I regard more as a "general Wikipedia" than a langauge version. There are many contributors and readers here from various countries, and I wouldn't wager a bet on whether native English-speakers still constitute a majority of either group.

I do agree it's not a formal policy or guideline, and I do agree it needs to be submitted and made part of WP:NAME, just like many other areas had specific conventions devised by respective WikiProjects. I would however not want to switch from "original market" to "English-speaking-market-when-somebody-feels-so" rule.

May I politely remind you why the rule was devised - it was NOT meant as a vehicle for promoting obscure names of cars, but rather as the only solution found to the lenghty debates on automobile article names (and proliferation of articles dealing with various versions of the same car). Contrary to arbitrary assertions of what's "most widely used" or which English-speaking market should get the right of way, determining the car's original market is relatively easy and undisputable, in most cases. This is the one and only, but to me - absolutely convincing, reason this was proposed and "adopted" by this WikiProject. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

>>>Typ932, please stop interspersing your comments. We don't do that here; it makes it impossible to keep track of the conversation. Per WP:TALK, we add our comments to the end of ongoing conversations. I've (again) moved your comment back to its proper sequence within the discussion, by date and time. Thanks for participating coöperatively. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

>>>Scheinwerfermann, could you please stop right now that moving others comments to wrong places, thnk you. Could you put it back to the original place. And stop adding comments here in wrong place, remove this also when you revert the changes you made in error? --Typ932 ^T·C 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Typ932 on this. The "don't intersperse" rule applies to interrupting one person's comments, i.e. you don't insert your own comments in between paragraphs in a person's post (see WP:TPO). But to avoid it looking like he was agreeing with a later comment, he inserted it in the correct place, with indentation to show that the next post was not a reply to him. I've restored it to its original place. --DeLarge (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, sorry, my mistake; I wasn't recalling WP:TALK properly. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles to be renamed

• Hyundai Elantra ---> Hyundai Avante PrinceGloria, you are correct the original was in fact Elantra in Korea
• Isuzu Amigo ---> Isuzu MU
• Isuzu Trooper ---> Isuzu Bighorn
• Kia Concord ---> Kia Capital
• Suzuki Esteem ---> Suzuki Cultus Crescent (btw, the Crescent needs to be de-merged from Suzuki Cultus)
• Suzuki Grand Vitara ---> needs to be merged with Suzuki Escudo
• Scion xA an Scion xD -> Toyota ist
• Daihatsu Materia ---> to be merged with Toyota bB
• Holden Gemini ---> to be merged into Isuzu Gemini

Possible heirarchy of rules for establishing article name?

Looking at a heirarchy of rules which complies with WP:NAME, while sticking as closely as possible to WP:CARS' current conventions, I've come up with:

1. The most common name, if one exists (e.g. Toyota Prius).
2. The most common English language name, where only one exists and it conflicts with the home market name (e.g. Mazda 3).
3. The home market name, if more than one English language name exists (e.g. Mitsubishi Pajero).
4. The most common name, if no English market name and no home market name exists (I ain't kidding with that one, see Mitsubishi Freeca).

The first two comply with WP:NAME, while #3 and #4 are exceptions which use our own convention, in cases where the WP-wide rule isn't sufficient to settle things. Are there any actual car articles which couldn't be settled by one of the above rules, and would they need these rules amended, or new ones added? I'm guessing Honda Accord might be a problem, although a cursory glance suggests that page could perhaps be split into multiple articles first. --DeLarge (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with this, but I'd support adding a provision that anything that doesn't fit cleanly can be decided case-by-case. I'm not a fan of setting a policy on something as significant as the names of the articles based on a concern that we'd have to, you know, DISCUSS what might be the best use. IFCAR (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe this actually only complicates things. The Toyota Prius case does not require any rule - there is simply one name for the vehicle in all markets. The "home market rule" would cover for that too. The second one is VERY tricky. First of all, what's "English language" name? Is "Pontiac Parisienne" a French language name? I believe you mean "name used in an English-speaking country", so I'll go by that in my further comments.

Anyhow, why English then? Many vehicles are much more popular in countries where English is not an official language. Moreover, if we go by most common English name, how about renaming Hyundai Atos to Santro Xing, because India is by far the most populous country with English as an official language. And if you think we can disregard that, please submit your comments to the Indian editors and readers here, they'd be delighted to know why they are second-rate to Americans, Australians or Britons.

As concerns Mitsubishi Freeca, I believe Freeca is the name originally used by CMC, so "home market rule" would solve that for you. Good luck determining "most common name" here, do you have sales stats for those and are willing to update the naming as they change (i.e. if the Chinese model outsells the Indonesian model or vice versa)? Or will you conduct a poll to check which name has more currency?

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. IFCAR, it's obvious that whatever is not clear needs to be, and is, discussed. That's how Wikipedia works. We need a policy though, because the discussions were never-ending, unconstructive and ugly. I do believe a policy needs to narrow down, if not eliminate, "unclear cases". Which is why I support ONE rule, not a hierarchy.

I just wouldn't want to have a policy that's so rigid that it can't be set aside in a case where it produces a result that's obviously incongruous to the rule's intent. IFCAR (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

IFCAR: see WP:Ignore all rules—no policy is that rigid. We're not proposing anything that doesn't already exist, merely trying to amend what's there to avoid conflicting with WP:NAME. Aside from a very few specific cases like Mazda 3 which have already proved contentious, I don't think anything will really change.

PrinceGloria: It'd be nice to have "one rule", and if not for wider WP conventions I'd support what we currently have, as I have done in the past. But the fact of the matter is that WP:NAME exists, and it is a policy, which takes precedence over any WP:CARS conventions. We have to work around that; we can't just dismiss it as if it doesn't apply to us, just because we don't approve of particular bits of it.

I used Toyota Prius as an example of an article whose only rule followed the general naming conventions; it's still a rule though, even if not a WP:CARS-specific one. Hopefully, most vehicles will be like this. Hyundai Atos would stay where it is, because two different English language markets use different names (Amica in UK, Santro Xing in India), hence it's covered by rule #3. And Mitsubishi Freeca did indeed use the Chinese/Taiwanese markets' name because Taiwan seemed closest to a "home" market, and because it was the the most commonly sold nameplate (and yes, I do have the sales figures, which appear in the article itself).

As for the pages listed above by OSX, the suggested guidelines would give the following results (as far as I can see, feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken):

• Isuzu Amigo ---> Isuzu MU. Yes, per rule #3. Amigo is only the name in one particular English-language market, so we go with the home market name.
• Isuzu Trooper ---> Isuzu Bighorn. Assuming Bighorm is the JDM name (the article doesn't specify), then yes, per rule #3.
• Kia Concord ---> Kia Capital. Going only by the information in the article, Kia Concord is the only name used in English language markets. Is it sold under another name in Australia, South Africa, or elsewhere? If not, then no, per rule #2.
• Suzuki Esteem ---> Suzuki Cultus Crescent (btw, the Crescent needs to be de-merged from Suzuki Cultus). Yes, per rule #3, and agree about the split.
• Suzuki Grand Vitara ---> needs to be merged with Suzuki Escudo. Yes, per rule #3.
• Scion xA and Scion xD -> Toyota ist. I suspect no, unless ists are sold anywhere outside Japan. This would be per rule #2.

I omitted Daihatsu Materia and Holden Gemini because they're not really to do with these naming conventions directly, more about content merging. Any comments? Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with PrinceGlora, this 4-point proposal is too complicated. What might be possible is home market name, except when the car is sold as something else in all markets except the (non-English speaking) home market (i.e. Mazdas, Lexus). If there are too many exceptions and complications, I see little chance of approval by Wikipedia-wide editors. We need something that is simple, and something that works. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

DeLarge, OSX is rather right, the hierarchy you propose seems complicated and the results it gives - slightly illogical. If I were to you use my own gut feeling and try to assign the "most popular English name", I would go by Isuzu Trooper and Suzuki Grand Vitara. Those names were used in markets I feel are important and I'd say the "majority of English-speaking world" would know them by those names. I am bringing that about to point how never-ending could discussions be if we tried to comply with WP:NAME literally.

Some well-established and, AFAIK, undisputed "local" conventions do divert from WP:NAME in many ways, and in no smaller way than "our" home market rule would. See e.g. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), where Mitsubishi Zero actually became A6M Zero (I am still not sure why, which already makes our proposal better and more clear), but appropriate redirects and lead make sure nobody's lost or confused concerning that.

IMHO, with the way Wikipedia works (i.e. the abovementioned redirects, the leads, the general fleixbility), the title of the article is one of the least important issues, but then due to its prominence (even though I find myself often not even checking the title of the article if I got what I wanted, so I might not realize I got redirected) it generates undue attention and disputes. We need a policy not to "honor the mighty article name", but rather quickly cut down any disputes and move to actually important stuff. Many articles have serious issues, but editors spent their energy and time arguing about the title.

Given that the nameplate is a rather specific case of an object's name, I believe we can submit a proposal that, in some cases, might seem not totally in line with WP:NAME (as so many "local conventions" are), but be very helpful in settling this rather unimportant matter once and for all.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. Toyota ist was sold as Toyota xA in some non-North-American markets, I would hate to have to check whether any of them are English-speaking or not (which is also contentious - Toyota and other automakers make rampant use of English in Middle Eastern marketing, even though it's not an official language, but has much currency there). I however know that the ist first debuted in 2002 as a JDM car and only became a Scion for 2004.

Maybe it's a matter of presentation, and I overcomplicated things? Rules #1 and #2 could probably be combined, and instances of rule #4 will hopefully be so few and far between that they can just be handled on a case-by-case basis? So how about just two rules as follows, one of which is a reiteration of WP:COMMONNAME...

“

1. The most common name in English language markets (where only one exists), per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).
2. If more than one name is used in different English language markets, the home market name shall be preferred, to avoid WP:ENGVAR-related conflicts and systemic bias.

”

We're trying to draft a proposal which keeps most vehicles at their home market names as they are now—at least, I assume we are. But bear in mind that while we could submit an even simpler "home market name at all times" proposal (which conflicts with the general guidelines just like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft)), the discussions which established that mostly date from 2003/2004. Wikipedia's changed a lot since then, and I think it'd be much more difficult for us than it was for them.

Maybe we can go to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions with the "home market" rule in the first instance, using examples like Isuzu MU and Mitsubishi Challenger to support our argument. But if we get shot down then we go back with the above rules as a fallback? --DeLarge (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This indeed makes it a much more simple guideline, one that could easily pass. That said, if Wikipedia has evolved since 2003/2004, it is rather in the direction of more flexibility, more recognition of countering systematic bias and the role of WikiProjects in helping maintain the different areas of knowledge Wikipedia has branched into. Taking into account that leaving the door ajar for disputing whether the home market rule should be used or not (this is perfectly logical for you and me, but for some people insisting on the Isuzu Gemini being a Chevrolet Spectrum any inconsistency would be a great fodder for endless disputes and edit wars), I would go with your proposal to submit the home market rule alone first.

We should, however, first establish a unified understanding, and an actual consensus, on supporting that rule. Otherwise, people around Wikipedia will of course read this page and ask why didn't we submit the two-step hierarchy in the first place. PrinceGloria (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am more than happy to support the change (especially if it can be proposed as an official exception to Common name). OSX (talk • contributions) 04:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-member here, can I weigh in? I don't think the #1 is a reiteration of WP:COMMONNAME at all. What the policy (and that one is an official policy) says is that articles should be titled using the most common English name. That's the letter of the policy—the spirit of the policy is to use a name that most readers would most easily recognize, the argument being that the name should be helpful for the largest number of readers possible. In your proposed wording ("The most common name in English language markets (where only one exists)"), the words "most common" are actually redundant: the sentence would say exactly the same thing if it was written "The name in English language markets (where only one exists)". That's not compatible with WP:COMMONNAME at all. The reasons for not using the common name in the proposal above are "avoid[ing] WP:ENGVAR-related conflicts and systemic bias". What WP:ENGVAR means is that no spelling of English is preferred in Wikipedia articles, so that people can use their favo(u)rite flavo(u)r of English without someone "correcting" them all the time, which would result in useless debates over which spelling is to be used. Alternative names of cars are not a spelling issue. A car's name does not depend on the variant of English used, but on the name with which it is marketed in a given area. If I understand correctly, your concerns about systematic bias are based on the fact that if we were to use the most common name in English, that would almost always be the one used in the American market. Or have I misinterpreted your view? Anyway, if you look at what WP:COMMONNAME is trying to achive (article titles are recognizable for the maximum number of readers), why should that be a problem? I don't want to interfere with your decision-making, but remember that if a naming convention is agreed on by a small number of people, it doesn't override community-wide consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'm more than happy to hold off doing anything for a week or two until we have a decent consensus—I'm in no great hurry with this, even though it's long overdue. I still suspect the blanket "home market name" rule will sink like a lead balloon if anyone so much as mentions Mazda Axela. Even if no-one does, Wikipedia tends to favour English language names for movies (e.g. Amélie), books (Love in the Time of Cholera), and so forth if they exist, but we shall see. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK now:

1. Books, movies and other "texts of culture" are a different matter, there is an established real-world convention to use a name of the translated work in a given language should a translation/language version exist.
2. We clearly aren't dealing with "language version", nor anything related to WP:ENGVAR, I believe both are irrelevant
3. What Jafeluv says is the central issue here - "if we were to use the most common name in English, that would almost always be the one used in the American market". This is where we tend to gravitate, but that's not quite right. I don't think we can rightfully claim the American-market name is the most common name in many cases, but American editors tend to take it as given. I don't want to single out American editors though, many other people would naturally assume their POV is the "most popular one", and that's why we have so many clashes over such trivialities
4. Think, for example, of Jeep Liberty, which is marketed as Jeep Cherokee in all non-North American countries. I wouldn't dare to claim that Jeep Liberty is the "more common name", it would be a matter of personal guess to determine which name should be used as such. I could argue for both, but since I find this issue trivial, I'd hate to argue about it at all.
5. I do believe, just like with aircraft, many cases of fauna and flora, local names and many other topics, this is an area to be regulated by a separate convention, rather than WP:COMMONNAME. This is because WP:COMMONNAME simply has little practical application here, IMHO, as indicated above (if not immediately clear, I can expand on that -> you have been warned), and experience shows sometimes "topic-specific" guideline serve their purpose very well in lieu of WP:COMMONNAME.
6. All in all, what we need, I believe, is establish a strong argument for the fact automobile names are indeed a different case which does require a specific guideline, and only then submit anything as a WP:NAME proposal. I firmly believe we can do that, since it is pretty clear to anybody more familiar with the topic they indeed are.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

New infobox field: Type

In response to the acrimonious debate ⇑up there⇑ over insertion of vehicle type codes in the AKA field of the infobox, I propose a new Type field be added. We have evidence that type codes are valid, common, and (at least in some markets) exclusively used to discern one vehicle from another. We also have evidence that the AKA field is being misused as a place to state these type codes. It's a misuse because that's not the AKA field's purpose. The easy way forward here is to create a new infobox field called Type. As with most other infobox fields, its use would be optional in any section of any article. That means it wouldn't cause any clutter in articles or sections where its use isn't warranted. It would free up the AKA field for its intended use, and I don't foresee any problems it would create. There's been no response to my previous statement of this proposal, perhaps because it comes at the bottom of a longish quarrel. So, I propose it here under its own section. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If it gets introduced it should have another name other than "type" — because that might be mistaken by some readers to be similar to "car size classification" (or whatever we're calling that this week!). In the case of obscure codes like "B3" or whatever, that could well be imagined to be some kind of industry standard class/quality/size/cost measure. "Type code" wouldn't really solve this. Not sure there's a "safe" alternative that's snappy... maybe "Manufacturer's codename" or something of that sort which'd be unambiguous. – Kieran T ^(talk) 21:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather keep manufacturers' codes (types) for "generation" section headings than keep feeding the ever-growing Infobox Monster. PrinceGloria (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The type code can go in the section headings and the infobox headings, with an explanation in the body. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Im also against new fields in infobox, unless we made collapsable infobox which would allow more data, and I prefer to keep the codes only in main text not in headings. --Typ932 ^T·C 07:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Suits me fine — my main concern is that there should be a designated appropriate place to put these codes. If one of the existing fields meets that need, terrific. OSX, when you say "The type code can go in the (...) infobox headings", what (where) do you have in mind? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am refering to the "name" parameter in the automobile infobox. So rather than having {{Infobox automobile | name = Toyota Camry}} ....

... we would instead use {{Infobox automobile | name = Toyota Camry (XV30)}}. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be maybe good idea to use the code in parenthesis after name in infobox, there its not so confusing because there isnt usually other stuff so much like years and so on. But we should make some rule what to follow in every article --Typ932 ^T·C 07:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm allright with a type code appearing after the model name in the infoboxes under each generation. I think a "type" field in the infobox is a bit ambiguous. --Vossanova ^o< 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Audi S4 article which seems to have provoked this, doesn't the platform field in the infobox seem a better place? "C4 (Typ 4A, 1991-1994)" is a pretty terrible sub-heading to me in what's supposed to be a general purpose encyclopedia, not a technical manual; it makes the Table of Contents look just ghastly. Especially since, as I've previously bemoaned, the various codes are never explained; it's as if readers are expected to know all this stuff before they start reading. Even "Audi C4 S4 (Typ 4A)" at the top of the infobox looks a bit ugly and cluttered.

If you follow the wikilink for the Volkswagen Group C4 platform, sure enough you find "C4 (Typ 4A) platform cars" listed. The codes are still not explained, but at least on that page there's a slightly better context for the endless acronyms, abbreviations and so forth. Therefore, if Typ 4A is an alternative platform code, that's where it can go in the infobox, as follows:

• Platform = Volkswagen Group C4 platform (Typ 4A)

Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in this case they could be in there, because nobody knows what these codes are, this article should be fixed its horrible at this current state, the whole artilce needs some rewriting, its full of acronyms, abbreviations, technical data , numbers and so on, very hard to read , looks like exploded databook. --Typ932 ^T·C 19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

VAG typ numbers are not platform codes, they identify specific models, not platforms. The A/B/C/D platform codes generally used for VAG models can be confusing, though, as the same code is sometimes used to refer to cars built on different platforms (e.g. the "B6" Passat and the "B6" Audi A4). But that's another issue. Letdorf (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

I agree, "Typ" is the exact model definition for VW vehicles. It should be kept as a section heading, in lieu of the contentious "first/second/third generation" or model/production years. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

infobox related field

I think this field needs some more clarifying, now the doc says "# related: cars which share most of components like platform", I think this should cover only cars with same platform(floorpan), now its quite unclear. I have come across these pages lately Talk:Fiat Nuova 500 and Opel Insignia (see history), I have used this field only for cars with use same platform dont know what others have made, but I would change this field name to something else eg. cars with same platform or similar. --Typ932 ^T·C 07:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't even use it for platform, that is what the platform page is for. I only use related if the cars are very closely related; i.e. the Holden Monaro is essentially a coupe version of the Holden Commodore; the Lexus LX is a luxury Toyota Land Cruiser. The Buick LaCrosse and Opel Insignia are related by platform, but do not appear to share any obvious components. If we defined "related" by platform as a minimum, all GM Epsilon platform vehicles would have 10 other related cars. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep but "most of components" is very unclear, if platform is used so many cars It would need only platform field to filled, the related field would not need at all if all platforms would have own page. I think this need clear info how to use and only one way to fill, not "most of components" this is not very encylopedic term and this should be filled in same way in every article. Arent those cars you mentioned using same platform? if cars are using same platform they have major part as same. If cars have same headlamps, bumbers or so its not worth of mention in infobox. --Typ932 ^T·C 10:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarrify, by "most [...] components" I mean obvious ones. Like doors, interiors (Toyota Vitz and Toyota Belta (aka Yaris hatchback and Yaris sedan) have mostly unqiue bodies, but almost indetical interiors) or if the car is a re-enginnered verion of another car (like the Holden VB Commodore; despite looking almost identical to the derivative Opel Commodore there is only 35% commonality). OSX (talk • contributions) 05:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep but they seems to have same Yaris platform, is there really some cars with only most same components but not common platform/floorpan? I dont think there is any cars with same doors, bonnet and "most of components" or so if they dont have same platform? --Typ932 ^T·C 07:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I have been thinking for some time it would be good to make those fields serve as alternatives, i.e. indicate the platform whenever one exists, and in case there is no common platform that can be referred to by name, but the cars nonetheless have a similar relationship (i.e. encompassing the floorpan, driveline, and/or other important components, but not limited to sharing engines and transmissions) - an example would be Chrysler Avenger and Chrysler Sunbeam.

As a sidenote, you can have cars sharing platforms but not sharing floorpans. FWIK, Mazdas have different (i.a. narrower) floorpans than their Ford platform-mates. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As someone who thinks {{Infobox automobile}} should be pruned back a bit, I'm in agreement with PrinceGloria—if I haven't posted the very same idea myself in the past, then I've always meant to. The "related" field nowadays is usually just a (non-exhaustive) list of cars sharing the same platform, at least for modern vehicles. A wikilink to the article about the platform serves the same purpose, provides a more comprehensive list of those related cars in a much clearer context, and takes up less space in the infobox.

As PG says, this logic doesn't work for older vehicles of course, before platform sharing became de rigueur among manufacturers, but if the infobox was tweaked to ensure the related field was only used if the platform field wasn't filled in, I'd be pleased. --DeLarge (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be potentially helpful to have a clearer focus on what the 'related' field encompasses; some infoboxes get a bit cluttered with 5+ vehicles that have been added due to similar platform, even if they are different types (sedans and vans etc.); a more specific 'very closely related' criteria as mentioned above might be better, although that could be specified even further. At least we no longer have the extended debates over the now-defunct 'similar' category, which was subject to differing opinions and difficult to define. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bumper image selection

Hi, all. We've got an editor with a long history of ownership and other bad behaviour (ANI #1, ANI #2). Please take a look at the discussion I've started at Talk: Bumper regarding image selection in that article. I'm trying to get the focus onto the image(s)' illustration of the subject matter, rather than what make of car they depict. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)