Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 32

Request comment on category renames/cleanup

Hello - I recently submitted a few categories for renaming here, in order to align them with the established scheme in Category:Automobiles by country, which is 'Cars of X'. However, as you can see from the comments, the editors at CfD disagreed strongly with my proposal, often arguing that 'Cars is not a generic-enough term'. I have since withdrawn my suggested renames, in favor of having a broader discussion here with you all in the hopes of finding a consensus way of cleaning up these categories. In the meantime, another nomination has been made here, which I have also suggested be put on hold until a broader discussion about the category tree is held here.

So as I've looked at it, I think one of the issues that is most confusing is the various overlapping/non-overlapping categories of Vehicle, Automobile, Motor Vehicle, and Car. In fact, as currently placed, it is a *long* trip from Vehicle to Automobile:

• Vehicle
  • Vehicles by Type
    • Vehicles by Media
      • Land Vehicles
        • Road Vehicles
          • Automobiles

There is at times an attempt made to distinguish between these various types of things, both in the 'vehicles' tree and in the 'manufacturers' tree, but then you run into these oddities, like Category:Vehicles_introduced_in_1980, which is a subcat of Category:1980s automobiles, but underneath it Mexican missile boats! You also have oddities like category:Motor vehicles manufactured in the Soviet Union‎ parallel to Category:Cars_of_the_Soviet_Union and then parallel to that you have Category:Soviet_automobiles, and I still haven't figured out what the difference is supposed to be! Finally, you have categories of Category:Vehicles by country then Category:Automobiles by country (no relation or link between the two) and then most of the categories underneath refer to cars! You also have cats like Category:Luxury_vehicles under Category:Vehicles by brand, but I assume that Luxury vehicles are mostly automobiles, no? so why is it high up in the 'Vehicles' tree?

One example that seems to be close to what may be intended is this one: Category:Motor_vehicles_manufactured_in_Turkey. It has a few articles about vehicles aren't really cars, then the more specific Category:Cars of Turkey cat is underneath.

Anyway, I would be most appreciative if someone could tell me how this is supposed to be - what is the ideal organization of these categories, in such a way that it facilitates navigation for a user and still allows slicing and dicing by different parameters, and do you agree to rename all of the 'Cars in' categories to something else (like automobiles, motor vehicles, etc?) Is it true that the word 'Car' does not include 'trucks'? --KarlB (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The vehicles listed under Category:Motor_vehicles_manufactured_in_Turkeyshould be under Category:Military vehicles of Turkey. There is a Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers of Turkey. There is also a Category:Motor vehicle assembly plants by country which does not have a Turkish sub-category. The Category:Motor_vehicles_manufactured_in_Turkey seems to be redundant and not grouped with or used by other countries.

As with the others you mention, some of them need the same sort of tidy up. A family tree, which probably exists, needs to be found. If it does not exist then I agree we probably need to put our collective minds to it. NealeFamily (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It can be argued that passenger automobiles and light trucks (pickups, minivans, SUVs, etc.) are both "cars." If you put them together in a "cars" category, I would not object myself. Under no current definition, however, are school buses, dump trucks, sport motorcycles, petrol tankers, or wheeled self-propelled artillery considered "cars." All of these things are found in the "motor vehicle" categories, however, which is why CfD rejected the proposal to conflate "Motor vehicle" and "Car" categories. Either we need to maintain a separate "motor vehicles" tree of which "cars" can be a subcategory, or some cleanup is in order to remove the non-cars from the cats prior to a merger, as clearly Harley-Davidson, Farmall 1026, and DUKW do not belong in Category:Cars of the United States.- choster (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that there are cats for 'motor vehicle manufacturers' and 'automobile manufacturers' and even 'vehicle manufacturers', as well as dozens of different lists and categorizations of vehicles, and of course individual lists by countries, I think another question is, how complex do we really need to make this, and how important is it that every possible categorization of vehicle fit exactly where it should (see above, where I show how a mexican gunboat ends up under 1980s automobiles category. Thus for any suggestions, please consider the cost, time, and likely accuracy of wikipedia eds in following whatever scheme is proposed. I personally would want something simple simple simple.--KarlB (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

From the view point of automobiles, it is reasonably simple. They are primarily passenger vehicles and classified as such under various jurisdictions. The grey area's would seem to be classes such as single seater's (where this is no passenger), multi-seat vehicles in the eight+ seat range (are they a small bus?), and light trucks/utility vehicles. This latter class was mentioned in this debate, although I would view them as not being automobiles because their principle purpose is to carry freight. Other vehicles are dependent on their use and type. NealeFamily (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy on Volkswagen Group sub-templates

With the purchase of Ducati by Volkswagen Group, it's come to my attention that some of the templatees, such as {{SEAT}} are a disaster. If you browse to Volkswagen#External_links, you see the phrase "— a marque of the Volkswagen Group" repeated six times, in a stack of six templates. Is that not a tad redundant? {{Volkswagen Group}} contains a list of the Volkswagen Group brands. Hence the name. Why does {{SEAT}} need to repeat the whole list again? Directly below it? Since every use of {{SEAT}} has a copy of {{Volkswagen Group}} right above it, or right below it. And why is that? If both templates are always used together (they shouldn't be, by the way, but if they are), then merge them. {{Audi}} {{Lamborghini}} have the same redundancy. Some are OK, like {{Škoda}}, though ""— a marque of the Volkswagen Group" should be moved to the bottom, and made more terse. Like Ducat template. By taking that out of the title, you solve the "— a marque of the Volkswagen Group" redundancy problem.

Maybe there is some point to all this repetition that I'm not privy to? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Why you are worried about ""— a marque of the Volkswagen Group" part, only part that is needed is to remove is duplication which is also in {{Volkswagen Group}} -->Typ932 ^T·C 02:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

When I look at Volkswagen#External_links, I it looks like this:

Volkswagen Group

Volkswagen Passenger Cars — a marque of the Volkswagen Group

Volkswagen Passenger Cars timeline, European market, 1950–1979 — a marque of the Volkswagen Group

Volkswagen Passenger Cars timeline, European market, 1980s–present — a marque of the Volkswagen Group

Volkswagen Passenger Cars timeline, North American market, 1950–1979 — a marque of the Volkswagen Group

Volkswagen Passenger Cars timeline, United States/Canada market, 1980–present — a marque of the Volkswagen Group

Volkswagen Passenger Cars timeline, South American market, 1980–present — a marque of the Volkswagen Group

Correcting that requires fixing six different templates. Plus the Audi template, plus SEAT, plus {{Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles}}, plus {{Bugatti road car timeline}}. I think that's all of them. Then, also deleting the redundant list of all of VW's brands from each of the sub-brands' templates.

There are numerous examples of articles with large numbers of templates at the bottom, often corporations with a lot of hierarchy to cover. For example:

BAE Systems

Microsoft

Boeing 777

When you expand all those templates, you see a lot of related topics, but not the same wikilinks over and over. They complement each other. They don't beat you over the head repeating who owns what. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to keep every timeline template in Volkswagen page, they should be used only in specific car model article that stands on the same timeline, maybe the newest one "1980–present" —could be in in the main page

Another RfC

The Category:Production Battery electric cars was recently created. I think that besides some duplication with existing cats, the criteria included for a particular EV to classify is weird, apparently only the Tesla Roaster, Nissan Leaf and i-MiEV meet those criteria. Any thoughts? Is this a candidate for deletion?--Mariordo (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to delete the category because vehicles often change their status from concept car, to production, to out of production, back into production, out again, etc. Too much scope for a car to be in the wrong category.  Stepho  talk  04:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I created the category. I've done so because about 90% of the cars in the battery electric car category aren't available yet or are merely concept cars or prototypes. There needs to be a category people can go to which shows what electric cars are currently being built. While there are only three cars there presently this will change as more electric cars become available to the market (eg Renault Fluence). The reason for having a minimum quantity (arbitrarily 2000 in order to include the Tesla Roadster) is to limit the category to major production efforts, as opposed to small ones. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea is okay in principle, but do you envisage it including historic as well as current models? Also, the threshold seems high - 2,000 units - maybe others would like to comment on that aspect.NealeFamily (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been doing a little bit of category tidying up in relation to concept cars and I've noticed that rarely do articles have their categories updated so I think this is perhaps a category too far. Also the Tesla Roadster is no longer in production... and why a capital B in the title? Warren (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

After discovering the Currently available electric cars page I'm now going to rescind my support for this article. Can someone please delete it who knows all the ins and outs of deleting (I spent about 20 minutes trying to work out how to get an article deleted about a week ago and don't want to go through it again). --One Salient Oversight (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Successor/Predecessor for Citroens

Someone clear this up for me if you can:

• Citroën C3 Picasso - replaced Citroën Xsara Picasso - but was based on the Citroën C3.Y Correct
• Citroën C4 Picasso - replaced Citroën Xsara Picasso - but was based on the Citroën C4. questionable

Now i have references for the C3 Picasso but the C4 Picasso i notice from the history keeps changing and i'm unsure which changes to defend or revert. Thanks Jenova20 13:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ford Seattle-ite XXI - assistance with reliable sources

I can find a reasonable amount of information on various websites about this concept car, but am lacking reliable sources to back them up. If anyone has access to any feel free to add them to the article I am creating at User:NealeFamily/Ford Seattle-ite XXI, or any other significant useful information about it. NealeFamily (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Google books found a few: https://www.google.com/search?q=Ford%27s+1963+World+Fair+Ford+Seattle-Ite&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&q=Seattle-Ite+XXI&oq=Seattle-Ite+XXI&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=serp.3...58265.59169.1.60126.4.4.0.0.0.0.412.1273.2-2j1j1.4.0.Ht9AYV0R6bw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=55d2bfcdf354f7aa&biw=1173&bih=794

Most of these don't have viewable content but you might be able to find them at your state library. Boy's Life and Popular Mechanics have small content but are at least viewable.

http://www.rocketfin.com/ford_seattleite.cfm has what looks like scans of original brochures.

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=cybertour.cfm&file_id=7042&frame=6 looks like a free but professionally edited (ie not a wiki) encyclopaedia for Washington State.

http://www.gizmag.com/ford-seattle-ite-one-of-historys-most-significant-concept-cars/2798/ also looks professional but I'm not sure if we allow it.

And lastly, the guy that thought of that name should be put into orbit - without a spacecraft or space suit :)  Stepho  talk  03:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Our local library has a few books with one line comments, but nothing substantial. We don't even seem to have any Popular Mechanics from the 1950's and 1960's. I had checked most of the Websites you mentioned and drew the same conclusions.

At least the Seattle-ite wouldn't need headlights with that nice green glow ;) NealeFamily (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it, Google Books has Popular Mechanics at http://books.google.com.au/books?id=FtQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA119 and Boy's Life at http://books.google.com.au/books?id=naTGrGZ-MTsC&pg=PA6

Between that and the brochure scans it should be enough to show that it existed and to provide some of its details. I really get sucked into those old PM issues - I often end up reading most of the surrounding issue.  Stepho  talk  10:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Referenced and submitted the article. Thanks for your help NealeFamily (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I couldn't find it outside of your user area. Did you try creating it at Ford Seattle-ite XXI ?  Stepho  talk  04:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Should be in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ford Seattle-ite XXI now NealeFamily (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead sections

A drive-by tagger has slapped a"lead too short" tag on the AMC Gremlin article. I checked various other car article leads at random - AMC Pacer, Chevrolet Impala, Toyota Celica, Ford Mustang, Ford Pinto, Jaguar E-Type - and they are similarly succinct. Should more detail be added? Should car article leads slavishly conform to the relevant MOS guidelines? Thoughts? Writegeist (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily be guided by those articles. However, looking at FAs, Talbot Tagora has a much shorter lead, and Holden VE Commodore is much longer. The question is whether it summarizes the most important contents of the article, per WP:LEAD. To me it looks likes the parts of AMC Gremlin that are not mentioned in the lead are relatively unimportant, so the lead's probably not too short. I'd delete the tag and if they come back ask them to explain what part of the article is missing from the lead and why. If one adds maintenance tags without explanation in the edit summary or talk page, one shouldn't be surprised if it gets reverted. Other editors aren't mind readers.

Then again, go ask Thumperward. I'm sure he'd be happy to explain what the problem is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. Writegeist (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Expansion chamber vs Tuned pipe

We have Expansion chamber and Tuned pipe covering very similar topics. Anybody want to comment for or against merging them? See Talk:Tuned pipe#Undo "merge" and Talk:Expansion chamber#rename to tuned pipe.  Stepho  talk  04:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Pontiac Sunfire

Where can I find out if my 1999 pontiac sunfire is a GT coupe or a SE Coupe ?

C Morrison — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.212.23 (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The full registration on the number plate should tell the authorities in whichever country it is registered in. There's also some websites that can track it. Thanks Jenova20 16:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

From your VIN. There are countless VIN decoders online.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename EVs in the US

This is to invite any interested editors to participate in the discussion I openedhere to rename the article Electric vehicles in the United States to Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States.--Mariordo (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Section headings years

There is no mentioning in conventions about how production years should be used in the section headings for each generation of a car. It happens sometimes that when a new generation of a car is released, the previous one still goes on in production in other countries. Should the years in section headings reflect only the years of manufacture in the vehicle's country of origin or they should reflect the worldwide years of manufacture, including plants in other countries and continents? BaboneCar (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the years should represent the general manufacture of a particular generation. If the Brazilian factory for a particular model keeps the previous generation in production for three years longer, then that is immaterial in the broader context of the car if all other countries received the newer model around the same time. In such a case, I would have the infobox production field show: 1997–2002 and 1997–2005 (Brazil). OSX (talk • contributions) 12:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to be clear and following the global economics concept according to current worldwide distributed manufacturing production, a car (or any other manufacture, indeed)is considered as "in production" when manufacturing continues anywhere in the world by the owner/creator, subsidiaries or licensees. And that is because the distributed manufacturing policies manage a new concept. A product (car) can be manufactured at any factory and be moved to another outside the country of origin (decided by the manufacturer following production strategy or costs, etc) and still have international delivery. So, any manufacture that can be obtained from original source (means company and subsidiaries) being manufactured is considered "in production" nowadays. Following this convention, dates reflect availability and shows the real time period the car has been manufactured. William Barclay (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not omit them entirely? Use the article itself to describe the situation accurately, and keep the section headings minimal and unambiguous. No-one "wins" or "loses" [sic] in the edit war, and passing readers—for whose ultimate benefit we're supposed to be here—are not possibly confused by one or other of the alternative approaches. --DeLarge (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be an interesting solution since I agree that this approach will not misguide the general reader.William Barclay (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with omission from section headings, as I've already seen a problem with a reader that was misguided by following a year grouping outside that of their own market - a market in which their car was actually made. Instead of using a particular market's model years, the manufacturer's platform designation can be used to separate the generations of a given car model. This would also help with the naming convention changes for nearly or effectively identical cars sold in markets around the world. The infobox with key model data for the generation can fully encompass the model names and years for each given market. There seems to have been an attempt at making a generational template, but that seems to have been merged into a whole model template. 76.14.240.12 (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Using bare chassis codes isnt IMO good way to handle this, its very hard to understand those if you are not familiar with that certain brand/model, and dont mix model years and production years. Models years are not used in every country, many uses only production or registration years/dates -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Chassis codes are wonderful for those with a bit if knowledge about the subject and also avoid the problem of half years, mid year changes, overlapping models, calendar vs US model years, etc. But the average reader does not understand them. So they make a good part of the heading but are not sufficient by themselves. Readers new to the subject typically only understand years or possibly generations (generations also have much trouble when the first generation wasn't sold in some countries).

I think the dates covered in the heading should be the total dates the vehicle was made. If that means we have Gen 1, 1990-2010 and Gen 2, 2005-present due to the first gen tooling being shipped to Brazil (for a fictitious but pretty common example) then the headings are reflecting reality. Otherwise it gets unmanageable when a factory in one country produces a model for one year longer than the factories in other countries (eg Toyota's Australian factories tend to be one year behind in changing to new models or even worse when the US Avalon tooling was sent to Australia where we made it for years afterwards). We need to follow reality, not the western market majority.  Stepho  talk  06:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Excluding the Brazil example has nothing to do with western market majority. It affects western markets in so many cases as well. The idea is to illustrate the intended (I can't think of a better word) generational years, usually represented by the home market and the prominent body style (wagons often lag a year behind). As Mr.choppers said, all section headings ending in "present" makes no sense. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in a way, but it also becomes confusing and largely meaningless to have these dates in the headings if they all end in "present" (that would be an extreme case, but not impossible). How about using only the year of introduction (calendar year only, unless the car is only US market) and omitting the end date entirely?: "Mazda Familia Fourth generation (BG), 1980". Chassis codes should be included: if well known then before the intro year; if more obscure then at the end. This would hopefully avoid all sorts of edit wars and confusion.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I can live with that. By the way, ever changing section headings is why I pepper articles with {{anchor}}s.  Stepho  talk  11:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should go as far as to removing the years of the end of production from the headings. I am for having the first and final years of production of the vehicle at its main factory (or factories if there are two or more main ones). If there is still local production going on at a different factory, it should be described in the production field of the infobox and in that section of the article. BaboneCar (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The articles already bear a model name in most if not all cases (and which model name is 'right' is already a contentious matter), so the section headers bearing a platform designation ought to be harmless. The infobox to the right would bear something like 'market name: year range' logically beginning with the earliest market introduction. In the example I came across in my own research and readings here, the Outback in the US was 2 years behind the same core vehicle (Legacy) sold in other markets. The BE/BH platform started in 2000 in the US, and ended in a similarly delayed fashion. Important to note too is that the US Outback was produced in the US, so 'definitive' model years can't be accurate if based only on production of the core model in its original market. By putting years in the headers, you bias toward a particular market. For a more global perspective, keeping the year info in the accompanying infobox serves well. 76.14.240.12 (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with showing a bias towards the home market. Also, I'm not advocating the removal of years in the infobox for other models. I would have production listed as 1998–2003 and 1998–2004 (US). This covers everyone then, but still gives the home market prominence which is to be expected. Also, we tend to put model years second place to calendar years for most articles (except for North American cars like Chevrolet and Chrysler). This is because other markets do not really use model years and imposing a North American convention on a Japanese car sold worldwide is not really a very good way to do things. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Chinese propaganda infecting wiki business and technology entries

Lawrence Ulrich here, the New York Times chief auto critic and shiny-new Wikipedia member. I'll apologize in advance for my Luddite skills on Wikipedia. But something's been setting off my alarm bells: This entry on magnetic suspension technology is about the 10th I've come across that reads as though Chinese propagandists are scouring Wikipedia to promote their companies with half-truths and barely disguised self-promotion. Beijing West Industries, whatever the hell that is, may have acquired the magnetic technology developed by General Motors and its Delphi subsidiary a decade ago -- but the article clearly seeks to downplay any GM connection and to suggest that BWI deserves credit. In fact, this Chinese company has played zero role in developing or advancing the technology. It merely bought intellectual and physical property developed entirely by others -- General Motors first, via Cadillac and Corvette, and now adopted by Audi, Ferrari, Acura and others.

Lawrenceulrich (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You said "Beijing West Industries, whatever the hell that is" - are you serious? They well covered in The New York Times. They now own the companies that made the products. NealeFamily (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

BeijingWest Industries and several associated pages (Electronic stability control, MagneRide, Delphi Automotive) do appear to have been heavily edited by a single purpose account, Mandrin2011 (talk · contribs). I think this deletion is probably the kind of thing Lawrenceulrich is concerned about. Even aside from that, there are serious issues with puffery and press release language on these articles, and a noticeable lack of independent sourcing. It would be worth while to review the pages and bring facts with good citations and delete the marketing-speak. I'll post an invitation to discuss on Mandrin2011's talk page as well.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the added comments Dennis. MagneRide seems to be the worst one. ESC and Delphi have had a number of regular Wikipedeans working on them quite extensively and don't appear that bad. A quick Google of BeijingWest indicates that it is a significant sized Chinese Government Corporation which has invested heavily in the US automotive scene. There should be enough in the global business media to tidy the article up.NealeFamily (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Larry, I have noticed similar efforts at times. Will keep my eyes peeled.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue was cross-posted on the COIN board as well. May I suggest a merge nomination for MagneRide and BeijingWest Industries? It hardly seems necessary to have one article on the company and another on one of its products. I also did some minor cleanup, but the product page probably needs the most. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Subaru Outback and friends

After lots of acrimony, I would like as many eyes as possible at a second discussion regarding whether the Subaru Outback deserves a standalone article or if it ought to be merged into the relevant generational articles of Subaru Legacy (and Impreza). Thank you,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

ID help requested

Seattle - Car in alley, 1958.jpg

Can anyone ID the car in this photo? - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not a car guy, but it's a 1949 Packard.[1][2]. Wha'd I win? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• An accurate caption. - Jmabel | Talk

Merger of Mercedes-Benz CLC-Class to Mercedes-Benz C-Class (take two)

Following on from this previous discussion, I believe that the Mercedes-Benz CLC-Class page should be redirected to Mercedes-Benz C-Class (note the merger has already been done, but we have two pages of identical information).

To summarise, the W203 series C-Class was available as a sedan, wagon, and coupe. The coupe was marketed as the SportCoupé and was identical to the sedan in all ways except for the coupe body style and a different grille insert.

In 2008, Mercedes-Benz faclifted the SportCoupé to resemble the W204 series C-Class, and renamed it as the CLC-Class. The update involved a W204-esque front-end (with revised sheetmetal) and updated rear end (identical sheetmetal). The interior renamed unchanged. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support as per my reasoning above. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose these are two different cars and wikipedia has not to second-guess the car manufacturer. In addition a second generation CLC-Class, code named C117, completely different from the C-Class, since it will be based on the platform of the B-Class, is expected to be presented on April 20 in LA. Therefore there is no hurry to perform the merge, we can at least wait three weeks for the official announcement. Hektor (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Any new CLC-Class will not a be a successor of the same style, so it would be best to separate the two (rear-wheel drive C-Class hatchback coupe versus front-wheel drive B-Class derived sedan). We have done this already with the Chevrolet Cruze and Suzuki Ignis; also the Opel Antara and Saturn Vue. However, I'm happy to wait the three-weeks just to make sure that the new CLC isn't going to be the same formula again.

You also mention that the CLC is a different car, but it is merely a facelift of a car that was originally badged "C-Class", was facelifted to resemble the new C-Class and shares virtually all major componentry with the W203 series C-Class. The W203 wagon is also a different car, but like the coupe, not sufficiently different to warrant a page on the C-Class sedan and wagon. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else? OSX (talk • contributions) 04:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - and I will be happy to wait for the new CLC's release.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to wrap this up soon, so if anyone else could weigh in here, it would be appreciated. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Performance car twice?

There are now two articles named "performance car." A unreferenced opinion under the title Performance car that seems redundant because there already exist many other ambiguous automobile categories, and a second article about a defunct magazine that was called Performance Car. This is probably a less than ideal situation, and at minimum confusing. It would be good for other contributors to weigh in. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename the magazine to 'Performance Car (magazine)' and place a {{for}} or {{about}} hatnote on each pointing to the other one.  Stepho  talk  22:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done the hatnotes:

• Performance car - "For the magazine of a similar name, see Performance Car (magazine)."
• Performance Car (magazine) - "For tuned up cars, see Performance car."

Thanks Jenova20 09:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like original research to me. No references. Warren (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Autoweek article updates

In my ongoing effort to make the Autoweek article more accurate, I have drafted an update for the intro, infobox and external links sections for Autoweek. The proposal is in my sandbox at User:DetroitSteele/AWAboutSandbox & User:DetroitSteele/AWExternalLinksSandbox, and I posted the proposal to the Talk:Autoweek page, but with no feedback. Could someone please take a moment to review the proposed edits, provide any feedback, and/or post if you think it would help improve the article? As noted in past posts and on my user page, I am an employee of Autoweek Media Group so this is a section I would prefer to have another editor review and/or post. I'm happy to hear feedback if it appears changes or additions are necessary. --DetroitSteele (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Checked and added NealeFamily (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

thank you for reviewing and updating. --DetroitSteele (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge Audi A8 and S8

Give your voice here Talk:Audi_A8#S8_merge_to_Audi_A8 -->Typ932 ^T·C 07:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Subaru Impreza and friends

Main page: Talk:Subaru Impreza § Proposal 1.0

Following the successful merger of the Outback with the Legacy page, Regushee has suggested the same be done with the Impreza. Like the Outback case, I think this one will need many eyes as well.

Please see this discussion regarding a complete overhaul of Subaru Impreza, including the creation of generational articles, the merger of the WRX and WRX STI pages, and the creation of a new one: Subaru Impreza in motorsport. Thank you, OSX (talk • contributions) 04:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Tuckered out

This is getting really old. Since February, User:96.18.132.23 has done nothing here but try to establish a notional convertible prototype is a genuine '49 (& has edited no other pages). He has yet to provide any sources, reliable or otherwise. He's been warned at least twice to quit. It's had no effect. This is getting really old. Any assistance would be welcome. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am having trouble following what is going on, but in general non-factory versions shouldn't be discussed in the article. If there is confusion about the 1949 model being either a sedan with a revised rear window or in fact a new convertible body, then maybe the mention is warranted. But... everything needs to be sourced if it is as contentious as claimed. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be some question whether Tucker intended to build a 'vert for '49, & somebody has custom-built one. It wasn't a factory-built car. The IP is trying to make out it was, with no sourcing & no attention to any other subject. There was a (heretofore) stable mention of the notional 'vert, sourced, before said IP started mucking with the header to try & make it into a gennie '49...which it most assuredly isn't. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03

24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay that clears things up. Then mention that a convertible was (maybe) planned, but if someone has made their own custom convertible based on this assumption, then I don't think it is relevent here. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's not the add of the 'vert that's been the issue. Coverage of a potential model was in & I had (have) no problem with it. What I have a problem with is the IP trying to make out this was a factory project, which is both unsourced & contrary to what is sourced. Not to mention that it keeps getting changed... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess revert once more if it happens again and then look into a block. There's not a lot you can do really. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Citroën Jumpy

If the article says in the lede it's called the Dispatch in English-speaking markets can we use the Dispatch name for the article rather than the Jumpy? Any figures for how many are redirected rather than going straight for the Jumpy page would be useful for this too. Thanks Jenova20 09:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Titles, as long as all English speaking markets use the same name then English WP should also use that name. So yes, the article should be called 'Citroën Dispatch'.

For links, look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Citroën_Jumpy and Special:WhatLinksHere/Citroën_Dispatch. As long as both names work, there is no great need to change the articles they come from.  Stepho  talk  09:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

To recant on that it actually says "In the UK, Ireland, and Australia, the van is badged as a Citroën Dispatch, because in these English-speaking markets"

This may not be a Dispatch in all English-speaking markets after all. Jenova20 10:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

To expand on that again there's no other info on the article about markets or countries and "Jumpy" is only mentioned in the lede. The rest of the article uses references for "Dispatch" and calls the van a "Dispatch". Thanks Jenova20 10:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Nice to see the article was improved so quickly. Perhaps we need a wikiproject project every month of doing up a random automocar article of poor quality? Jenova20 08:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Colibri

I don't know much about cars. Are five decent refs enough?

User talk:Anna Frodesiak#new article about the electric car .27Colibri.27

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Should be, it depends maybe how long the article is. -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it notable yet? Looks intriguing, but apart from one blog site everything is in German (promoter appears to be Innovative Mobility Automobile GmbH). If the company hasn't got an entry yet, I would be surprised if a future product would warrant a page quite yet. Warren (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I'm not sure if I'm permitted to take part in this discussion, so if I'm not, feel free to delete this entry. @Warren: it's everything in German because we are based in Germany so most press coverage is in this language at the moment. We don't have an entry about the company yet because the car is way more notable imho. The customer availability of the Colibri is currently limited to nonbinding pre-orders, but that's far ahead of some show cars (like for instance the Audi e-tron concept cars) which are also covered on Wikipedia. Also, one reference (http://www.cleanthinking.de/die-zweite-rendite-der-energiewende-wieso-deutschland-vorreiter-fur-die-welt-sein-muss/27175/) mentions the company together with BMW and Daimler (4th paragraph, second sentence). Also, please don't say promoter. I'm an avid fan and long-time user of Wikipedia and was very careful in wording the article in a neutral and objective way (yes, I already have it here). Oh, and thanks for calling it intriguing :-) @Typ932: The article would be a little less than one page, including the info table. Alltogether there will be eleven footnotes, maybe twelve if I add the data sheet from the company home page as source. Thank you all for your time! --RobertW83 (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can take part in this discussion. You are a Wikipedian. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, thank you :-) --RobertW83 (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovative_Mobility_Colibri is proposed for deletion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC) FYI: Is this licensing even possible for a Wikicommons image? "...picture will only be used on its respective Wikipedia article and not be altered..." http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Innovative_Mobility_Colibri.png Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The german version is proposed for deletion on the grounds that the vehicle can't be bought yet, ignoring the presence of similar articles and the solid referencing. I came up with good notability arguments, but haven't received any reply from an admin yet. Regarding the picture: I was uncertain what license template to use - our designer said it's ok if we use the picture, and it's also been published in various media. What license would you recommend? --RobertW83 (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have now created the article. Any help on how to improve it is welcome of course. Thanks again! --RobertW83 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Chinese cars and "copying" claims

It's true that Chinese cars are notorious for copying Western models - however, it seems, when looking at Chinese car pages, some Wikipedians have decided to add in these "copying" claims themselves without adding a reliable source (most of them make little sense anyway, they look nowhere near like the Western cars).

Basically, I believe that if there is a copying claim of a Chinese any car that does not provide a reliable source, shouldn't it be considered as WP:Original research? I have really had enough of those "claims". Thanks, CyanGardevoir 08:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I know of one example i personally worked on and cited reliably. Chery QQ + Daewoo/Chevrolet Matiz. On second check there were no sources in the Daewoo article, like someone had removed them? I've readded them anyway. Problem solved there. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Jenova20 09:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes they need to have reliable source(s) put citation needed tag, and if nothing happens just remove those claims after month or so. They need to have good, reliable maybe more than one source. Or if there is no sense at all just remove those straight away -->Typ932 ^T·C 09:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

More categorization questions

Since the Categorization subproject is quiet and WP:TRANSPORT appears to be moribund, I extend a request to the editors here for some background information on vehicle categorization. Several issues have been identified in recent weeks, but no one from the WikiProjects has answered the invitations to the CfD discussions.-- choster (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nissan Micra

There's a hobby section near the bottom of the article that has no citations and talks about scale models and who makes them. Should this be deleted as advertising? I don't see the value encyclopedically of this information. Thanks Jenova20 09:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I could list over a hundred scale models of my favourite car. I'm sure many enthusiasts could make a similar list for their favourite car. Unless it is something really, really unusual, most cars should not have a long, boring list of scale models.  Stepho  talk  11:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. They make these things for most cars and i personally own about 30 (still mint and in the boxes) so it's no personal bias. I'll remove it later unless someone else sees a reason to leave it? Thanks Jenova20 11:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless it's a gold-plated kit, or a special commemorative for the company's 100th anniversary, or something, take it out. If it was one of a very small number made, maybe, but that would seem to better belong on the kitmaker's page anyhow. (Even at model kit, this wouldn't be notable...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

---

 Done - thanks to OSX Jenova20 17:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mini vote

There is a Mini article vote going on, give your opinions here Talk:Mini_(marque)#Vote -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Rover Chair (as used on Top Gear TV show)

Hi. I'm seeking clarification on something. The Rover Chair[3][4] designed by Ron Arad (industrial designer) is claimed to be made in 1981 and use a Rover 200 seat. Could this be a mistake? Maybe the Standard 2000 is what's meant.

Some pics at [5][6][7][8][9] if they're any use. I realise that any info as a result of discussions here would be WP:OR for inclusion in the encyclopedia itself, but it'd mean wording could be chosen carefully, and/or a disputed tag included in text I'm working on for future inclusion. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Arad's originals used P5 seats. Later ones, sold from the workshop just off Covent Garden, had P6 seats. No idea about Clarkson's - I think they were modern copies and Arad had no involvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you With this info, I've now located [10][11], which contradict [12]. So much for reliable sources! As for Top Gear, this blog seems to imply originals were used in the show. -- Trevj (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've incorporated the info into Rover chair. -- Trevj (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Automobile factories

There seems to be separate organization and duplication of categories and lists. There is an incomplete and very broad List of automotive assembly plants in the United States that falls under "Category:Automotive industry in the United States". At the same time, there are several separate automaker specific lists (such as List of Chrysler factories and List of General Motors factories that are more complete), yet they are grouped under "Category:Motor vehicle assembly plants". The two general categories seem to cover similar material, but they do not link. This makes navigation difficult. I hope grouping of the articles can be better grouped, and that the similar categories be simplified. I think it would help avoid duplication and going among them be made more user friendly! Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Beware that not all GM/Chrysler/Ford factories are in the US. For example, the Ford factories in Australia can not go in List of automotive assembly plants in the United States or "Category:Automotive industry in the United States".  Stepho  talk  03:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Straight-two engine or Parallel twin engine?

Should it be Straight-two engine or Parallel-twin engine? Discuss at Talk:Parallel-twin_engine#Move_discussion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Straight-twin or Parallel-twin are the general terms I've always known for motorcycle applications in the UK. Straight-two sounds like the american version.Mighty Antar (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nissan Micra

On merging in the Renault Pulse (the Indian market rebadge of the Micra) into the Nissan Micra page, I noticed the Micra article is in desperate need of copy editing (especially the duplication of UK content in the various generation paragraphs and the separate UK paragraph). Also there is a claim that the Nissan Verso is the same as a Nissan Micra but as far as I can tell they do not share body or wheelbase which would suggest it is a different car. It may well be related, but doesn't seem to be a rebadge of a Micra! Warren (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I sell car parts mr, i can guarantee they are different cars in the UK at the least and share nothing in terms of parts or looks. Thanks and have a nice day/evening Jenova20 18:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

2/3 completed merge

• Opel Vivaro - standalone article
• Nissan Primastar - merged Y
• Renault Trafic - standalone article

Why do we have 2 articles and a redirect for essentially just 1 van with 3 different badges? Thanks Jenova20 16:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at this before and agree that it probably should be one article. The current generation is built by GM Europe in Luton and by Nissan in Spain, so would the Opel be the primary article? This would then leave the problem that the Renault Traffic was a Renault design for the first generation, so maybe that should be the primary article... Warren (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Primastar already redirects to Trafic so maybe make Trafic the default article. There certainly isn't much poit here duplicating content like this. Thanks Jenova20 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

According to a Renault press release, the Trafic was "designed by Renault's Corporate Design Department based within the company's Technocentre outside Paris, [and] developed by the engineering team of Renault's LCV unit at Villiers St Frédéric near Paris. Manufactured at the IBC plant in Luton - beside the GM version, Vivaro - it is the first Renault vehicle to be built in the UK for over 30 years." This to me suggests Renault designed the van and "Renault Trafic" should be the title used.

I am unable to find information on the entity responsible for the design and engineering of the Renault Master and its Movano twins. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Renault Master, Renault designed the first generation (implied as was it was only sold as a Renault), the second generation was "primarily developed by Renault", but I still cannot confirm the origin of the third series. However, based on what I have found, I would choose the Renault title for the Master/Movano. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Master + Movano are another issue and i'm primarily trying to deal with the rebadge of the Trafic, Primastar and Vivaro. I don't know if you're trying to sort something else at the same time or misunderstood my earlier question? Thanks Jenova20 09:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You have clearly missed my original reply above this. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

With the additional information above, Renault Trafic sounds like the reasonable contender for the primary article title. On a tangent, it's the first time I noticed it only has one "f"... Warren (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed it. It would show agreement with using Trafic as the de facto article. Unsure about the mention of the Movano and Master though, i didn't quite follow that bit Jenova20 11:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the Master/Monavo is almost the same concept: it is still a Renault sold as an Opel. I was trying to kill two birds with one stone so to speak. If we are going to merge the Trafic/Vivaro then it would make sense to do the Master/Monavo as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There's tonnes of rebadges. Go for it. And the merge is for the Trafic + Vivaro and also the Primastar, which has already been turned into a redirect and deserves more of a mention in the article. Jenova20 12:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Opel Movano has now been merged. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Opel Vivaro has now been merged. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Daimler 2.5 & 4.5 litre

On 10 June 2012, I initiated a move discussion at Daimler 2.5 & 4.5 litre, proposing that the article be renamed Daimler V8 engine. No-one has responded to this. Should I assume that the move is not controversial and move the article? If not, how should I proceed? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Y moved Penyulap ☏ 12:48, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Wolfrace Sonic

In Wikipedia lack/missing one article: Wolfrace Sonic, sport car. Other info: [13] and google. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that looks like the ultimate small-penis car, but if you want to see an article then be bold and write it yourself. I'll be happy to review it once I stop laughing. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting -- they made it to market wheels.[14] So if you're going to market wheels, you need something with a lot of wheels. Don't you? Don't you? No? You don't? OK, never mind.

I kind of like the Ed Roth charm of the thing, sort of. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I just want to say, "Holy sports car, Batman!" That gives me Thunderbirds flashbacks. ;p Dick Grayson gimme a wing, Bruce 22:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure the car warrants an article by itself as it was a one-off custom-built job. The guy who built it - Nick Butler, built several famous custom cars in the 1970s and his creations used to appear regulalry in British custom car magazines. He has a web-site at [[15]]. Mighty Antar (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Depending on how notable he was/is in the UK mags, it might be better to make an article about him or his company and then put all his notable creations together there. But like I said, it depends highly on how notable he was/is - otherwise it just becomes advertising for his company. You would need to provide references from a number of magazines or books with more than just a passing mention.  Stepho  talk  05:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Presuming the coverage is on the order of Buttera (rather than, say, Barris), that shouldn't be hard. Also, let me put in a vote for separate pages for each of his projects, per California Kid. (I haven't been able to find my mag refs with the article on her construction... :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's as notable as any other concept car. It gained plenty of coverage around the time, both in the car mags and in show appearances. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that Wolfrace as a company is more notable than the actual car, so maybe what we need is a new article about Wolfrace, with a section on the car as a marketing tool. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That meets strict notability policy, but fails for lack of interest. Wolfrace are not an especially interesting company, nor are their wheels especially interesting. The Sonic car though, is the sort of topic that does attract enough interest to find someone who might bother to write it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

AfD Sustainable energy vehicle

For any editors interested in participating in the discussion, this is to let you know that I have opened an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainable energy vehicle.--Mariordo (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Tuner versions of cars

Should third-party tuner versions of a car be in the article? They seem to be a dime a dozen and generally not really notable. For example, at Range Rover Evoque there is a section for the version by Overfinch and one by Kahn (I can see keeping the in-house versions). This question goes beyond this particular article because there are tuner versions of many cars, so I'm hoping for some consistency among articles. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

For me the key is to never judge, but to blindly follow the sources. Per WP:TRIVIA, it's not a good idea to have a grab-bag or random list of every single special package or version or kit. That would be making the mistake of presuming every special version to be notable. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says that a collector's guide, or manual, or a database, might list every single variant, every frame number, every paint scheme, but Wikipedia does not seek to do that.

But it's also a mistake to presume every special version to be non-notable; some get a lot of attention. So let the sources be your guide: if the LA Times and NYT and Boston Globe all run features about a car with a custom-house's brand name and nothing but an extra racing stripe added, so be it. If the sources think that silly racing stripe was a big deal, then put what they sources said about it in the article. If some other car gets completely rebuilt by a tuning shop but nobody publishes anything about it, ignore it. That means articles will not be consistent because reliable sources are not consistent, and it isn't Wikipedia's role to publicize what the sources failed to note, nor to play down fads that we judge to be inconsequential. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

♠I'd tend to go a little farther, & say the tuner versions need coverage in more than once source, but also more than one occasion. A single appearance of a tuner version, even in the New York Times & the Chicago Tribune, isn't itself notable IMO. (In Car & Driver or Hot Rod, maybe, but even then...)

♠I'm drawing a distinction, here, between tuner cars & customs, like, frex, the Hirohata Merc or Silhouette, because the tuners are built for a wider audience. If they can't attract one, & so attract broader coverage, they've failed to be notable IMO.

♠That said, I'd call, frex, AMG versions notable (& not only because it's a M-B subsidiary...). Others? I'm not so sure. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally-speaking, no. That is, unless the tuner is endorsed by the manufacturer, such as AMG originally and Braubus today. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking: no. If relevant sources (NYT, WSJ, BBC, and such) all cover a car, then go for it. Being mentioned in an issue of Sport Compact Car does not cut it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What about being tested (as opposed to being mentioned in a column) by Road & Track, like the AMG Hammer? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"What about being tested" I'd say a single appearance is still pushing it, but I'd probably let that one go. If it was Popular Mechanics, fail. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think those well known tuners are ok, but I have never heard for example Kahn, Overfinch is much more familiar name to me. Usually there is only one or two "well known" per brand. No point to add all small tuning/spoiler companies -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done a little copy edit on this - model names and superfluous details hopefully now resolved. I will head over to Kahn's page to update and expand in due course - there was an article in Car Magazine only recently on this chap. Warren (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Overfinch section wasn't referenced and the Kahn section was only referenced with what amounts to a press release reprint, so both are history. If someone wants to come up with references then I believe these special editions belong on the tuner's article, not the vehicle article - i.e. put the Evoque special edition on the Overfinch page. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your work on that article, and to all for the feedback about this area. 72Dino (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Biker Biker makes a good point when tuned versions are not widely covered. Warren (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

technology, parts, engineering??

Suggesting rationalization of categories Category:Auto parts, Category:Automotive engineering, Category:Automotive technologies. I'd do it myself when I got the time but I don't know if the universe will live that long.Gzuckier (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Move Daewoo Matiz to Chevrolet Spark

After posting on the Daewoo Matiz page, I was told to post here. As the Daewoo brand name is no longer in use, and the current generation of the car is known as the Chevrolet Spark, I feel that the page should be moved to reflect this. Fleetham (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly support this if someone wanted to swap them around. In the UK there is no Matiz anymore, it was replaced by the Spark. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The car was originally sold as the Daewoo Matiz, and retained that name in the South Korean domestic market until 2011. Since it is sold under various names in various different markets (as a Holden, f'rinstance) I would have originally said keep it at Matiz - but now that its name is changed in Korea, there is no real need to retain the "Daewoo Matiz" title. Support. One question though: the first generation is listed as having been sold as a Spark, but I have some reservations about that fact. To me it seems that the "Spark" badge was introduced sometime during the second generation, although I don't know too much about the Latin American market.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, in some markets it was sold as the "Chevy Matiz", but I believe all current generation models are "Chevy Sparks" except in India, where it may be known as the "Beat". Fleetham (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

IDK if 1st gen. was ever sold as "Spark". Fleetham (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Support: and merge Chevrolet Spark EV while we are at it (see previous discussions here and here). OSX (talk • contributions) 10:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: The first and second generations were sold under the Daewoo brand in Europe. AFAIK (I could be wrong), the first generation was not sold as a Chevrolet apart from Latin America. The more international usage of the Chevrolet brand only started from the second generation (sold as a Pontiac in Mexico), and in Europe only halfway through the car's lifecycle (it started as a Daewoo in UK as well). It's only the current model (3rd gen) that is sold as Chevrolet in (nearly) all markets. --Pc13 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I would suggest that the Matiz page remains and could even be split into generation articles if needed for 1st and 2nd generations, and might help a copy edit as it is not a good article at the moment. A new Chevrolet Spark page could then be for 3rd generation? Warren (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The car is currently called a Chevy Spark, so the page name should be "Chevy Spark". When a company is renamed, no one would argue that the article retain the no-longer-in-use name because it has only had its new name for a relatively short period of time. Fleetham (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This suggestion doesn't make sense - the Chevrolet Spark has no relation to the first generation Matiz, so it would be a false rename. It would be like putting the Ford Cortina into the Ford Sierra article, just because it happened to be the direct replacement. Warren (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Warren's idea is not a bad solution for the naming quandary, it's just that the articles will be rather short. Definitely second the merger of Spark EV, but sense trouble ahead and would prefer to resolve the general naming question first.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like the Spark EV merged too. Here's what i have for the UK concerning the spark:

• Daewoo Matiz 98-05
• Chev Matiz 05-10
• Chev Spark 10>

Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why can't things all go in the same page? The first generation was called "Chevrolet Spark" in several markets, notably in China, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, and South America. By the time of the second generation in 2005, Daewoo had vacated just about all major export markets, with the "Chevrolet" brand used in lieu. There are numerous examples of articles being combined under a single title with a particular generation also included that is better known as something else. For example, the 1999–2005 VW Bora (as it is known in the European home market) remains a part of Volkswagen Jetta for convenience. Other examples are the Mercedes-Benz E-Class and S-Class which detail the entire history since the 1950s, despite neither becoming part of those "classes" until 1993 (i.e. 500 SEL became S 500). Likewise, the first two generations of Mitsubishi Galant were not known as such in Japan. In summary: support page rename to "Chevrolet Spark", oppose article being split up.

Spark EV has been merged since Mariordo supported it last time (no joke). OSX (talk • contributions) 11:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As I'm unsure the proper waiting period, when will the page be renamed? Fleetham (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - As the Matiz name is more established than the Spark name, while the Daewoo name is defunct, might the best name for the article not be "Chevrolet Matiz"? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The current series is not called "Chevrolet Matiz" anywhere. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - OSX points out that the "Chevrolet Spark" badge has been used on all generations of the Matiz, including the first for some markets. This makes me withdraw whatever reservations remained, and I am now in full 100% support of renaming. Maybe it's already been carried out?, haven't checked in a while.  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I still do not support the use of Chevrolet Spark for all generations. I didn't know the Spark name was used for the first generation, even now I can only find uses in emerging markets such as Latin America, and I can't even be sure if the name was used in India. The first Daewoo Matiz was sold as a Daewoo in every European country, including the UK (maybe Russia was different? I can only find evidence for the 2nd gen - Ukrainian ZAZ sold the car as a Daewoo). The second Matiz was sold as a Daewoo until Chevrolet arrived in Europe in 2004, including the UK, but was known in Spark in more countries (Latin America, Middle East, India, South Africa). Anyway, the fact that the name Daewoo is now extinct shouldn't be a factor. I more inclined in favor of splitting the article, with the first generation as Daewoo Matiz, and I wouldn't mind much using the Spark name in a joint article for the 2nd and 3rd gens. --Pc13 (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what redirects are for? Why split an article simply because a particular name was not used in Europe? Generationally, it is the same concept and all models have been badged "Chevrolet Spark" in some markets. Obviously for the first generation, emphasis would be placed on the prominence of the Daewoo-badged versions in most markets. The second generation did not arrive until 2005, by which time Daewoo had departed most markets. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

So how about Daewoo Matiz and Chevrolet Matiz and Chevrolet Spark EV as redirects to Chevrolet Spark? And then just list the models under headers in chronological order with sections including other markets' names? That's the de facto in situations like this right? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I would use the continents as headings, but it's no big deal. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Listing the continents means we have a much bigger article space wasted than if we listed the cars as in other auto articles (under vehicle generation headings), but with an AKA section in the infobox explaining the name for different markets. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you were advocating a section for each badge not the AKA field. For first generation only, this would comprise: GM Daewoo Matiz II, Chevrolet Matiz, Chevrolet Spark, FSO Matiz, Pontiac Matiz, Pontiac G2, Chevrolet Exclusive, Chevrolet Joy, Formosa Matiz, Chevrolet Taxi 7:24 Chronos. However, considering there are really only five continents at best that will be applicable (Antarctica no, and I have yet to see Africa feature in car article continent lists thus far), I believe this will work well for the Spark/Matiz page. Most articles utilise the continent format as used executed at Toyota Camry (XV40). OSX (talk • contributions) 12:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well for cars where they're not sold throughout the world it's one or two names. This one will be a handful whichever way it's done but i still see listing it in the infobox in a presentable way as the best option. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Page move done. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Footnote explaining what S.p.A. means?

Does anyone else think there needs to be a footnote at the top of Lamborghini explaining what S.p.A. stands for? There is already an article, S.A. (corporation), which is linked to in the first use of S.p.A. after the bold title. Because I think this IP is going to stick the same footnote on Fiat and Abarth and Ducati and every single other Italian S.p.A. to make absolutely positively sure that the first and most vital thing we learn about every Italian company is that S.p.A. stands for Società per Azioni.

What is particularly irrelevant about this little factoid is that these companies, Ducati and Lamborghini, are wholly owned, so it makes no difference how the shares are divided up on paper. They're not traded and there is no voting or power sharing among directors. The shares 100% owned by the same company, so what difference does it make? Maybe some obscure difference found in Italian corporate tax rules, yes, but nothing significant enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say, if it's linked, shut up--but I don't have much patience with stupidity. ;p Any action to pre-empt it gets my vote. (I suppose a block on the IP is too much...? ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

S.p.A. (public liability company or joint-stock company) is merely the Italian equivalent to "public liability company" (plc) in the United Kingdom, "Limited" (Ltd) in Australia, and GmbH (corporation with limited liability) in Germany. Other countries have similar forms as well, although the concept behind each differs in each jurisdiction. France has SARL, and Sweden has AB for example. What each stands for is irrelevant in the article about the car—as it means nothing to English speakers. What is important is the type of entity that each represents; that is, a legal person with limited liability. Thus, it is the definition that should be explained. I would say a footnote is over-the-top, so why not this:

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., commonly referred to as Lamborghini, is a joint-stock company (S.p.A.) based in Italy and a subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group since 1998. Lamborghini is responsible for the design, engineering, manufacture and distribution of exotic performance-oriented automobiles.

Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 03:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

S.p.A. used to redirect to Joint-stock company, but I moved it to S.A. (corporation) because (apparently?) that's more accurate and specific, and it lists SA and AG and AB and so forth. In either case, it's in one of those two articles, not the one about the car, where the reader would go to delve into the particulars. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the introduction to the article to reflect the above proposal. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The quote above should do it everywhere SpA appears. (It also explains it for me; I've always understood it to roughly mean "Ltd"... Glad to see I was right. :) ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)