Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

List of automobiles notable for negative reception

I created a new article List of automobiles notable for negative reception. I would appreciate any help I could get copyediting and wikifying it. For example for some reasons the citations are not formatting correctly. Karrmann (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous issues with this article. This first is that there is no objective standard for inclusion of cars to this list. The automobiles mentioned are only U.S. domestic market and not representative of a global view. This "list" is also nothing more than a collection of negative opinions that were voiced much after each car's introductions and market receptions. Most of the references provided are not based on rigorous study, but are mainly collections of attitudes or editorials, such as the random musings and sweeping generalizations by some authors without them providing any data or credible sources for their statements. Moreover, many of the cars of this list earned high marks for their pioneering technology and innovations, but some of these advances were too early for the mass market to accept. Another example is the record of exhaustive tests that were conducted years ago for many of the cars on this list that provided the basis for them achieving recognitions such as "car of the year" or other awards. Some of the references in this list note the "recanting" of these awards, without providing any rigorous tests or analysis. These new disavowals do not actually change the history of the models. However, using current editorial "recanting" of these awards in sources that are mostly sophomoric attempts at humor at the expense of vehicles that were unconventional for their era. Such is the case of honors for cars with unconventional styling or technology, and that the objective superiority of such models would be somehow invalidated in hindsight. Many of the cars on this "list" did conform to traditional American assumptions, yet they were highly successful in foreign markets. This could lead to proliferation of "list of notable for negative reception in ______ market" for every nation. In summary, this article is not "notable" for inclusion in a fact-based encyclopedia. Thank you, CZmarlin (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The list is based mostly on American tastes (Wikipedia aims to a worldwide perspective) and is extremely "revisionist" as is based on current opinions on cars and not in how they were considered back in their time. A significative number of the cars listed had positive or mixed reviews. However, supposed "experts", writing almost exclusively on blogs, posted "witty" articles to attack the cars they didn't like. This list is pretty subjective and it should go away from Wikipedia. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Contributors to the WikiProject Automobiles should be aware of the effort to "define" the inclusion of models to a new article entitled List of automobiles notable for negative reception. The initial author, Karrmann, has characterized my referenced contributions and edits as "vandalizing this page," concluded that I "decided to take a personal vendetta against it," as well as placed me on notice to take me to "arbitration," in addition to some sort of action against any new article that I contribute. This is apparently because only the cars that Karrmann decided to include on this list remain, regardless of cited information about other examples. In any case, inclusion of such an article is bound to have numerous issues in an encyclopedia. One problem is not considering a global viewpoint. An example would be models that were successful in their domestic markets, but may have had negative reception among U.S. consumers. Furthermore, there are numerous publications and books offering "revisionist" opinions about cars many years after their actual production and marketing. Another problem are the repetitive mentions of certain cars without any research or background study that are written mainly to enlist entertainment or humor at the expense of an "easy" target. An example are the numerous statements by entertainer/experts "slamming" vehicles they do not like and using subjective terms (such as declaring the worst car of the year) rather than using any facts or statistics. Moreover, Karrmann is now requesting confirmation of the idea that inclusion of models to this list have a threshold of three sources panning the car. No effort would be made as to the validity or analysis used to include the particular models by these sources. In the majority of cases, these sources would include arbitrary lists with zero objective analysis. Therefore, it will make it possible to include almost every model ever made! These sources typically do not use quantifiable measures, such as the manufacturer's production expectations and the model's actual sales in the marketplace. Using such a quantifiable definition - when consumers do not buy them - could be a good metric of the cars with notable negative receptions. Furthermore, almost all the vehicles with major recalls would also qualify of negative receptions. There are many other problems with such a list of automobiles in a fact-based encyclopedia. Once again, I welcome thoughtful input. Thanks - CZmarlin (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Minicar RSV for deletion - can it be rescued?

I've just prodded Minicar RSV. I don't see sources to merit it passing GNG, but as it does "sound cool", I am notifying members of this WP - maybe you can rescue it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Intermediate Shaft Bearing

Dear automobile experts: This old draft will soon be deleted as stale under db-g13 unless someone takes an interest in it. There are plenty of books which talk about this topic; most are repair manuals explaining how to fix it. There are also news reports about mechanical problems in Porsches because of it. Is this a notable topic that should be its own article? If not it could be redirected to Porsche Boxster, although this article doesn't actually explain what it is.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Task forces

Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question but I wanted to see if the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Task Forces was implemented in the template. I don't think it is but I'm just going through the unassessed ones at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"Caravan"

The usage and primary topic of Caravan is under discussion, see talk:travel trailer -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussion

Please comment in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#zeroto60times.com. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

article name: Tricycle or Autorickshaw?

The naming of Tricycle Autorickshaws is under discussion, see talk:Auto rickshaw (Philippines) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Pontiac move request

At Talk:Pontiac I have made a move request contending that the car brand is not the primary topic for this term. Your input will be appreciated.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Honda Civic Si info

I know the 2006-2011 Civic Si has 197 horse power. Also it only comes with a 6-speed manual. Where does it clarify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.186.185 (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

At the top of most pages there is a search box. Type in 'Honda Civic Si'. By the time you type 'Honda Civ' it should have made some suggestions. In that article you can see the table of contents with '2006–2011'. In that section there is an infobox on the right hand side that shows the choices of engines (including 197 hp) and the choices of transmission (only 6 speed manual). Also remember that these are global options that may not always be available to you locally.  Stepho  talk  07:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Auto.com

Do any of you know if auto.com can be considered a reliable source? NealeFamily (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Too commercial, their main focus is to sell you a car. Use only if the info is not obtainable elsewhere and is not controversial.  Stepho  talk  06:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Singapore based IP

An editor with a Singapore IP address is currently making many edits of Project articles and has done for some days and with different addresses. The edits are probably well-intentioned and made in good faith but usually if not always have unintended consequences leaving red stuff behind like here. What is to be done? Eddaido (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen him changing a lot of the articles that I edit. Mostly he adds way too many links that violate WP:OVERLINK. Replacing FR layout also seems to be a favourite. I've left hints in the edit summary when I revert and sometimes as comments inside the article but he doesn't seem to notice these. I think he isn't trying to screw things up but is simply working out of ignorance. Unfortunately he has plenty of energy to keep doing the exact same edit again and again on the same article, even after multiple reverts. I don't really want to scare away somebody who actually wants to help. I think polite persistence in reverting will have to do.  Stepho  talk  08:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There's been a similar problem on F1 project related pages. Constantly reverting edits and trying to engage via talk-pages (adopting a cautious approach) has not worked. We were advised by Admin to compile a list of all IPs used and take it to ANI, which eventually we were forced to do. The editor concerned is now on his third range block after several episodes of edit-warring, 'vandalism' and sundry other offences. Eagleash (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet Another rash of edits from IP User talk:202.166.74.165. Is there any way to snare the editor to channel this enthusiasm for red links and personal preferences and learn him to observe WP conventions? Reverts start an instant war and many of the edits are, unfortunately, probably OK if not what I think is best. Eddaido (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, very similar to the problems encountered on F1 pages (see above). Only way has been to block. Eagleash (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo Giulia (952) edits

Greetings, regretfully Typ932 has decided to engage in an edit war over his preference to have 2 engine tables; one that he purports to be European engine range, and the other the North American range. That is the main issue, but there is more to it. With every "undo", Typ932 is causing the loss of significant detail added in the mean time, which is fully and reliably referenced.

What's the view on having multiple engine range tables for the same car? I have tried (unsuccessfully given the edit warring approach instead taken by Typ932) to point out the fact that the engine range is the SAME and the difference is simply due to the well known fact that the USA adopts the SAE standard (hence the 505hp quoted by Alfa in America - see PDF specs sheet [1] here) and the EU adopts the CE standard (see scanned specs sheet [2] here). The difference in acceleration times is even more self-evident: Europe's 0-100km/h times will always be marginally slower than the American 0-60mph standard because it covers a shorter distance. Other issues include Type932 claiming that the name for a 2.0 Turbo petrol powered model is "2.0 MultiAir", when the name of that model (unlike the top-of-the-range Quadrifoglio) has not yet been announced publicly; moreover, that engine uses a "MultiAir2" system anyway and not the older "MultiAir".

Minor issues have included Typ932's preference for "PS" to quote engine outputs instead of (kw or hp) - this was conceded because it is trivial; and his reference to the LA Auto Show presentation without referencing - this too was conceded only because it is where the 2.0 Turbo petrol engine was announced, otherwise nothing would make the LA Auto Show worthy of mention compared to the inevitable other Auto Shows where this Alfa will be displayed worldwide. The overriding issue is unwarranted edits (reverts) that, in the process, are resulting in the loss of fully referenced and reliable additional information, as mentioned above. Importantly, Typ932's edits and references are retained anyway, so it's not as though his contributions are being ignored or deleted - just enhanced.

Now Typ932 is complaining about the fact that there is no mention of engine power for the 2.0 Turbo petrol engine when, in fact, there is a valid and reliable reference in support.

Views on this situation please? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No need for more views, Ill explained this in ur talk page already, LA show was referenced in engine data table, no need to ref every sentence. The whole situation started because you added unreferenced data and made original research and removed data, before removing data add citation needed tag if you need it. This is not the question about technical data but your edits made without good referencing which made it look like original research and the you also used obsole units and so on. Now when you added refecences to article it might meet wikipedia standards. -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you know the term "the pot calling the kettle black"? Look it up maybe :) SAE vs CE was as obvious as tomorrow the sun rising again, as was the difference in acceleration times. You had 2 engine range tables, for the same units, only because you failed to recognise the above standards. In no other page is this pedantic and repetitive approach taken. You also claim to know the 2.0 Turbo petrol model name is "2.0 MultiAir" when that was YOUR invention and the car runs a new MultiAir2 engine anyway - easily verifiable if you had bothered looking at reliable automotive sources. Enough said :) At least the article is much improved now and more detailed, compared to your own earlier version. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Troll time again

174.23.115.41 (talk · contribs) is editing a lot of automobile articles. He adds nothing of value but breaks established conventions and leaves snide comments in the edit summaries about anyone who reverts the article back to the standard way. Obviously a troll.  Stepho  talk  11:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Seeking expert opinions on top speed claims

It would be helpful to have expert opinions in the discussions at Talk:Dodge Tomahawk#Weasel words: derided by land speed experts and Talk:Dodge Tomahawk#RFC: Word "extraordinary" in lede sentence. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Recentist or Old Fart?

1922 Austin 7

An IP has just changed the class of this Austin car on the right to Supermini. Is that right? Eddaido (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Too small and too austere to ever be a supermini. And applying modern labels to vintage cars is just asking for controversy, edit-warring and angry debate on talk pages.  Stepho  talk  05:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have been 'sub-compact' before the change, which is also a modern term, but is not completely inaccurate. Supermini is just far too recent to be applicable. Eagleash (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought City car instead of subcompact (those in the photos could make at least 5 Austin 7s if not 10) and A segment not B. Is that OK? I've made the change, tell me if I've done wrong. Eddaido (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• See also Renault 4CV, which keeps getting described as a "supermini".

This is all nonsense. "Mini" didn't exist until Issigonis. Whatever "baby cars" or "midgets" (contemporary terms) like the first Austin 7 should be called, it wasn't and isn't a "mini". Nor did "superminis" exist until whatever it was that was better than the Issigonis Mini.

This isn't merely applying an anachronistic term to vehicles that pre-date it, it's applying an incorrect term to vehicles that don't have their abilities. Superminis were better than Minis (luggage space and other features) as car manufacture had developed. A Mini isn't going to be a supermini. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what's up with the indentation, above. How about backing away from the notion that every car has to be in a category? The punters don't care about categories. No one says "I need a new B-class hatchback". The manufacturers don't want to be pigeonholed. I really think that the presence of categories in WP creates more problems than it solves. Actually, remind me, what are the problems that it solves? --Cornellier (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

What are we trying to do here?

Week before last my car died. Partly because it has spent the last 5 years outside. It is millimetres too long for the garage. Solution easy, go to WP and find which ones would fit and be acceptable forms of personal transport.

I was dumbfounded to find with current cars the overall length is of no interest to WP contributors. Why?

Next because an editor writing about an old car (accidentally) indicated he did not know what he was talking about I went to find out the bore and stroke of the engines of the second millennium. That is of no interest to WP contributors. Why?

I've bought a Golf. Length on its page but nothing about the proportions of its tiny engine until through Google I find there is a page in WP called VW Petrol Engines. Yes, I think the answer is there though I'm not completely confident (the enormous number of IP editors clearly regard the info as nearly superfluous) so my curiosity is (probably) satisfied. (I'm distrustful of a layout which is in fact just the equivalent of columns of ditto marks)

If the information we contribute is related to perceived popular demand then whose perceptions do the selections of details belong to?

Yr usually obedient servant, Eddaido (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Most editors only put in what they are interested in, what somebody explicitly asked for or what is easily available. If they didn't put in bore and stroke figures then there was probably little interest in them. Such is life with a user edited encyclopaedia.

You didn't say which Golf you have. The Volkswagen Golf Mk5 article lists engines with the engine code next to it. It would be better to have direct links to the corresponding engine articles where you can find the bore and stroke. Many/most car articles have direct links to the engine articles - at least on the Toyota articles where I am active. The Volkswagen Golf Mk6 article lists engine capacities but show the engine code and doesn't link to engine articles - that would be something to ask for on its talk page.  Stepho  talk  02:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

At risk of sounding bureaucratic, WP:BE BOLD suggests that if there is information missing, then to add it! As Stepho-wrs stated, editors only add what interests them. Bore and stroke is of little concern to me, so I won't be going around adding it. Length does to a degree, but this can be contentious because of the small differences that can exist between trim levels (different bumpers on different trims), updates/facelifts or markets (e.g larger US spec bumpers). This information is better represented in a database, such as RedBook (which is for Asia Pacific only). OSX (talk • contributions) 03:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both but at the risk of sounding disobliging you need only look a little further up the correspondence above to where Swathes of information provided by me is fought over and deleted. So don't go telling me to put something in if I think its interesting! Some of that is about inconsistency with other articles. How about making the VW articles consistent, speaking of course as a consumer. As an editor of some Auto Project experience I would not Dare touch one of them. I hate to sound bitter but I am. All I did was be a consumer of what you people choose to provide and then complain.

Neither of you can tell me who decides these things. Eddaido (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Eddaido, we need more data and less fluff. I had hoped to leverage the Infobox to create Open data that could be parsed by any API to for e.g. do exactly what you wanted to do with vehicle length. My idea was to use structured data and not prose, which can be queried. However it appears that the infobox is meant to be a summary of essential info rather than a db. Fair enough. Especially with the current WP on mobile app. Maybe a "spec box" could be developed that could optionally be exposed and that could be queried via APIs, in the same way that Edmund's is now offering an API to its data (bravo to Edmunds by the way). --Cornellier (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How much detail is too much? Comment

I am curious as to the amount of detail and trivia should be included in car related articles. This question is based on the Honda Ridgeline article. It now includes details and minutia such as the operation of storage compartments and notice that "Honda officially announced it will be debuting the second generation Honda Ridgeline at the 2016 North American International Auto Show on January 11th at 1:15 PM Eastern Standard Time." My understanding has been that this type of information should not be included, even if properly referenced. This article has become almost an "owner's guide" and it reads like advertising for this model. In other words, how much fawning is too much? Of course, many WP automobile articles contain boastful superlatives (BS), most often suppled by the carmakers and complicit automotive journalists and publications that are beholden to the auto manufacturers for their positions. Most peacock sections are eventually removed in due time. Nevertheless, it seems that this article has an overabundance of such BS and thus a non-encyclopedic tone. Furthermore, the main contributor to the Honda Ridgeline's expansion has also included drawings and graphics taken directly from the manufacturer. These do not typically appear in other automobile articles. Some guidelines and suggestions would be appreciated! CZmarlin (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTMANUAL, so any how-to information can be deleted. I'm also against complete features/options lists, although I can't put my finger on a specific written rule against that at the moment. A summary of noteworthy features in one paragraph is enough. As for the notice, I hate "On (date), (x) announced that (y)" edits. There's no specific rule against this, other than a guide at WP:PROSELINE. I would change it to "Honda will debut the second generation Ridgeline at the 2016 North American International Auto Show on January 11th." The exact time isn't important. The sentence should be changed to past tense and grouped with more info after it happens. --Vossanova ^o< 21:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTMANUAL is a good guide, but it doesn't actually say that there are facts that must be excluded because they involve descriptions of how things operate. It just says you can't address the reader like, "here's how you do it". You phrase it descriptively, not prescriptively. But WP:INDISCRIMINATE is important too. We don't want a catalog of every detail. So for example, we don't list every color a motorcycle came in in every different market. We focus on important facts that distinguish each model: dimensions, performance, etc. We *do* list a color if we have sources that give us a reason why that color was worth mentioning. The way a cruise control or door opening operates should be included if sources, especially more than one source, take the time to focus on it and give some reason why it mattered. Like it's innovative, or caused problems in usage, or in production. Or maybe it became a meme that got a lot of media buzz for no logical reason; somehow some fact about a car got attention. Good enough. It's within the bounds of WP:INDISCRIMINATE if an independent source tells us it mattered. If the only source is the owner's manual or manufacturer publication then you know it should probably be left out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing fluff as we speak. --Cornellier (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

... and reverted by User:McChizzle. --Cornellier (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz C-Class W203 and W202: Layout information missing

In the Mercedes-Benz W202 and W203 articles the layout information is missing. All C-classes have a rear wheel drive layout, and it says so on the main C-class article. However if you enter either the W202 or W203 articles, you will not find this information. Knowing the layout of a specific car may be important to a new owner or such. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_C-Class_(W202) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_C-Class_(W203) Signed by User talk:Lucas Kroon 13 January 2016

Please feel free to add the information yourself. Everyone is an editor at Wikipedia. Please ask if you need help learning how to do it.  Stepho  talk  19:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What should go in a Controversy section of a manufactures article?

I recently removed some material from the GM article that was in the controversy section (talk discussion here [3]). I've posted a similar comment on the Ford talk page [4]. In both cases the thrust of my question is how should we decide which "controversies" should make it to the article? It seems like often the controversies that are listed are things like recent recalls or individual lawsuits containing accusations but no outcome. Are these really the things that should be the encyclopedic entries about some of the largest industrial companies on the planet? I would like to think any thing that makes it to the controversy section is there because the impact on the industry, public and/or company is significant. For example, the Pinto cause Ford a huge black eye but also gave safety regulators a big soap box on which to stand. The Ford Hunger March of the 1920s (or was it 30s) and the shooting of workers by Ford related goons helped to hasten labor reforms and changes in labor laws that brought about the unionization of the car industry in the US. That is a HUGH deal. The Corvair and the Nader affair gave GM a black eye when it was at its peak of power. The Nightline-C/K Pickup truck story and subsequent NBC retraction both distracted the public from any issues that may or may not have been wrong with the GM trucks but also lifted a lid on "activism journalism" regarding auto safety. It also helped end Nightline and cost the head of NBC news his job. The point to all this is that each of these cases had some sort of large scale impact. Do people have a suggestion for how we could setup some guidelines for establishing and judging which "controversies" are worthy of the article space? Springee (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_39#Recalls-notability we discussed removing mention of recalls unless they receive attention in mainstream media for having a significant impact. Many recalls are routine and we felt they violated WP:UNDUE unless there's an expert source who says a particular recall was significant. I would apply the same standard to lawsuits. "Encyclopedic" is a vague, ill-defined idea and I wouldn't lean too hard on it. Policies like WP:UNDUE give you clearer guidance.

In general, criticism, negativity, and controversey should not be segregated in their own section, per WP:CSECTION. You get a better article if the event is integrated into the other sections of an article. If it's arranged chronologically, place the recall or suit or whatever in the correct point in time. Or if it is arranged by topic, like a suspension section, then put suspension problems (if sources say they're significant) in that section. General reviews or critical reception discussion can go in a critical response or similar section. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fenyr

Does someone think a dedicated page for the Fenyr SuperSport should be created like for the Lykan HyperSport, or is it better just to merge all the information under the W Motors page? JohnWMotors (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As the Lykan page is likely to be merged into W Motors, my suggestion is to put the details on the W Motors page and create a redirect from the Fenyr to that location. NealeFamily (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"Built to compete with BMW"

There's a discussion about the above claim in Talk:Mitsubishi Magna. In essence, I found a quote from a senior Mitsubishi product planner stating this car (also sold as the North American Mitsubishi Diamante), was a luxury vehicle built to compete with BMW. Another editor is now complaining this does not belong in the article, as it is self-serving, but the claim does not say "it is as good or better than a BMW". Moreover, 3 independent articles (going back almost 20 years now) have now been found, which they all confirm this car competed against BMW or it resembled one (in looks and engine noise). This is all fully referenced information. Other people's inputs would be welcome. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Splitting the article for Honda NSX

Hello

I noticed that the Honda NSX article had info for both generations. I believe in creating an article just for the second generation of the NSX in its own article. Is this fine? Winterysteppe (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I support this, especially as the only common thing is mainly the name. In my mind, the new US-built car lacks the impact and heritage of the original. The second also arrived decades later and carries completely new (hybrid) technology. Wish they had called it a NS-Z or similar (as they did with the CR-X to CR-Z) or distanced it, just as Nissan did between the Skyline GT-R and GT-R.CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that given the history of the first generation and the publicity surrounding the replacement, there will be more than enough reliable content to support two articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: @CtrlXctrlV:, if i were to create the page for the second generation NSX, what would be the official name? it can't be just Honda NSX. Is there such a designation like BMW's E90 and so on? Winterysteppe (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Winterysteppe I am not aware of such designation, sorry. The project name was NSX = New Sportscar eXperimental, and I think it still applies, although this press release [5] defines NSX as "New Sportscar eXperience", which may not help much. What about "Honda NSX (first generation)" and "Honda NSX (second generation)" (as done here Fiat Croma) or "Honda NSX (MY16)"? (apart from generations, the only other key reference is that one if made in Japan and the other in the US, though I guess it would get messy to include in the title. A very apt question to ask... CtrlXctrlV (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

CtrlXctrV I have created a separate page for the Honda Nsx (First Generation) and Honda NSX (second generation). I haven't changed the first generation page as it seems more of a catch all. Maybe the original page introductory paragraph should be rewritten a bit and separate pages created for the first generation as well. For now, i have created separate pages for both and left the first and second to reference them. This might be needed or could be left the way it is. I hope the original page be lef the way it is. Winterysteppe (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think some tweaking will be inevitable. For now, is it possible to change "Honda Nsx (First Generation)" to "Honda NSX (first generation)"? (note the case letters) I don't know how to do it myself... it will make each consistent and help with the "About" tag I added to cross-reference each article now :) For the second generation, I think it would be good to refer to the new NSX definition of "New Sportscar eXperience" CtrlXctrlV (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@CtrlXctrlV: done. you know the "more" with the drop down function to the left of the search button and right of the phone button? look on a desktop. When clicked on it, it will show the "move" function. To "move a page" is the same thing as "rename" a page. Winterysteppe (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Winterysteppe: excellent, thankyou :) I have turned the Honda NSX as a generic introductory article that leads to the other 2. I will stop here, for others to improve as they see fit. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Porsche 718

Hi WikiProject Automobiles. I noticed that recently, details of the 2017 Porsche 718 models have been added to Porsche 718, which was previously solely about the 1957-62 open-topped racing car. Should both cars be described in the same article, or should they have separate articles, with Porsche 718 as a disambiguation page perhaps. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Pretty obviously separate. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, separate. Add a hatnote at the top to point to the other article. Also be aware of WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:PEACOCK terms such as 'boasting'.  Stepho  talk  21:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I have transferred info about the 2017 car to Porsche 718 Boxster and added a hatnote at Porsche 718. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Motorcycling Conventions

There is a new RfC on Motorcycling Conventions. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"Vehicles introduced in YYYY" categories

Am I right in thinking that many of the articles currently in "Vehicles introduced in YYYY" categories, actually belong in the corresponding "Cars introduced in YYYY" categories? (e.g. does Aston Martin V8 Vantage (1977) belong in Category:Cars introduced in 1977‎ rather than Category:Vehicles introduced in 1977? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@DH85868993: Yes DH. There's been at least one editor changing them on a a fairly regular basis recently and 'cars (year)' is a sub-cat of 'vehicles (year)'. Eagleash (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Glad to hear someone is on the case. I'll try to help out whenever I have spare time. DH85868993 (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. "Vehicles introduced in" includes cars, motorcycles, ships, and locomotives. However, I would say that while passenger cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks should be moved into the Cars categories, heavy-duty construction vehicles, farm vehicles, tractor trailers, etc. should stay in the Vehicles categories. --Vossanova ^o< 15:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Having said that, I would suggest that the "Cars introduced in" categories should be renamed to "Automobiles introduced in" to make it more clear, and be consistent with "(decades)s automobiles" categories. --Vossanova ^o< 15:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This inconsistency is a major problem here. For example, automobile layout and car platform. The article "automobile" was moved to car a few years ago under the WP:Common name policy. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Custom car Modified car

I would like a few opinions regarding these articles. Obviously the term (and article) "hot rod" is very specific to a certain style of car, but surely a custom car and a modified car are one and the same? Are there some sources regarding the class American style that the article is biased towards? I'm wondering why it shouldn't cover all of the modern and classic styles of modification such as European custom BMWs VWs etc. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'd say merge Modified car to Custom_car, increase the emphasis on the latter on European and Japanese cars that in fact have a greater influence to the market as additionally there are famous non-American customisers that specialise in American customization. Donnie Park (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Merged it. Donnie Park (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Help needed on Village Pump

Would someone who is interested in automobiles and/or attends car shows in Southern California please try to help the person at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 51#Pays, ville et circonstances? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Bugatti Chiron

Hello. I think it would be appropriate if the Bugatti Chiron (2016) page be moved to "Bugatti Chiron". The other Bugatti 18/3 Chiron model is a prototype. What are thoughts on this? Winterysteppe (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Add comparison of oil grades?

The image on this page ( http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/viscosity-charts/ ) which compares lubricants would be pretty handy I thought, what you think?

150.101.228.58 (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

First Crown Vics

The first Crown Vics were in 1949 and were two-tone hardtops. The colors I remember were maroon and black and lime green and black. I have no info on mechanical or performance attributes.

Back then any kid worth anything could ID any car at a glance! Today, most cars look alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barebonez (talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Audi quattro A1 o A2?

Hi and sorry for my english. This problem refers Commons so I preferred to consult the community more numerous, that English. This file could be wrong both in its name and categorization. According to this identification guide the air intakes for the rear brakes are characteristic of A2. The file has been uploaded from Flickr where there are no useful information, and the user who uploaded it appears to be inactive. Confirmation or denial? It should be enough recategorise or is it better to rename it as blatantly misleading?--Stefanobiondo (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

DriveTime logo and article update

Hi, I'm curious if anyone who is interested in editing articles about automobiles would help update the article for the used-car sales company DriveTime. The existing article that has evolved over the years is currently tagged as reading like an advertisement. In fact, the article contains unencyclopedic language and focuses a lot on DriveTime's predecessor, Ugly Duckling. The draft that I created and am proposing eliminates WP:POV issues. It is neutral and well-sourced. I'm new to Wikipedia and I've studied the site's guideline on conflict of interest and policy on paid editing. As an employee of DriveTime Automotive Group, Inc., I won't edit the article directly. The draft you'll see in my user space is essentially a complete rewrite. I originally posted an edit request on the DriveTime Talk page. Another request for editors was posted at WikiProject Companies. I also uploaded the company's logo (File:DriveTime_logo.png) that needs to be attached, otherwise it will be deleted soon.

Can somebody give a look?

Thank you, CP at DriveTime (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Volvo 900 Series

• Volvo 900 Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone please check Volvo 900 Series#Engines. I was alerted to that page because recent edits broke a {{convert}}, but the whole table seems strange. The "Torque @rpm" column shows a lot of entries as 1 N·m with no rpm. Is that intended as a placeholder for unknown values? If so, they should be commented out to remove the junk from the article? Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Crossover vs SUV

What is the difference between compact SUV vs compact crossover vs compact crossover SUV? We should use a clear, common form, depending on each case. For example how shall we designate the Peugeot 2008 or the Renault Captur? Mini crossover, Mini SUV or Mini crossover SUV? Also, I find it inappropriate for the Mini Countryman to classify it as an SUV.

I believe cars with the height below 1,600 mm should be classified as crossovers, without the term SUV.

Examples of vehicles with height below 1,600 mm that should be classified crossover, and not SUV (in my opinion):

• Peugeot 2008: 1,557 mm
• Renault Captur: 1,567 mm
• Mini Countryman: 1,561 mm
• Citroën C4 Cactus: 1,480 mm
• BMW X1: 1,535 mm

Examples of vehicles with height above 1,600 mm that should contain the term SUV in their designation (in my opinion):

• Dacia Duster: 1,630 mm
• Ford EcoSport: 1,679 mm
• Opel Mokka: 1,646 mm
• Mazda CX-5: 1,670 mm
• Jeep Compass: 1,631 mm

I would like to know some other opinions about this subject. I don't know whether there are sources on the internet that clarify this matter. There are a few talks about it at Talk:Crossover (automobile).

And secondly, is there SUV accurate for body style designation, instead of the more clear hatchback or station wagon, depending on the case? Thank you. BaboneCar (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

We can't just make up our own definition of what designates a crossover vs. an SUV, especially not using an arbitrary measurement. I understand that the term "crossover" has been overused/abused as a marketing term, and that the auto industry may not have any clear definition of the term, but it's still best to go by what term the majority of media sources (and the automakers themselves) use to classify the vehicle. For what it's worth, "crossover" and "crossover SUV" seem to mean the same thing and are interchangeable. --Vossanova ^o< 18:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Vossanova is entirely correct: we follow the sources. Hopefully secondary, but primary if need be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

New Hyundai Ioniq

Hi everybody, long time no see. I would like your experienced opinion on how to deal with the Hyundai Ioniq new line-up that consists of three electric drive models,: HEV, BEV and PHEV. Such electrified powertrain line-up is completely new, so I do not know how to cover the three models in the infobox. Also, any suggstion as to how to organize the article is more than welcome. So far, I created a dedicated section for each type of powertrain. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If the body is similar for all three powertrains, I would say make a primary infobox at the top, and then either break down the powertrain info in that infobox, or, add a new infobox to each section (Electric/Plug-in/Hybrid) that includes only info specific to that model. --Vossanova ^o< 15:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I like your suggestion, an infobox for each powertrain works just fine. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Businessweek a RS for automotive styling comentary

As part of the reception and criticism section on the Ford Pinto page there is a kind of list of "worst" articles discussing the car. Two of the sources, Time and Forbes, list the car as a "worst" related to the fuel system fire issue. Businessweek lists the car as a "worst style" [[6]]. Is a click bait type article really a RS for automotive design opinion? Springee (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

In particular, is Bloomberg Businessweek a reliable source, for its own views, with clear, in-text attribution, not in Wikipedia voice, as in:

In 2009, Bloomberg Businessweek included the Pinto in their Ugliest Cars of the Past 50 Years., saying "The design devolved into hexagonal headlight housings, a grille that's only a few inches tall yet wide enough to become the car's focal point, and a rear end that apparently melted from the roof."

• Joseph, Damian (October 30, 2009). "Ugliest Cars of the Past 50 Years". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved March 6, 2016. The Pinto doesn't seem so bad—that is, until you remember how sexy Fords from the 1960s were. The design devolved into hexagonal headlight housings, a grille that's only a few inches tall yet wide enough to become the car's focal point, and a rear end that apparently melted from the roof.

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Barring odd circumstances, a self published source would always be considered reliable for it's own views. However, the question is article weight. Do those views carry enough weight to make them worth including in an article? If your source was Car and Driver or Road and Track then I think you would have a case. I can assure you the car forums I participate in always are dismissive of non-automotive sources that put together auto opinion articles such as that one. Springee (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Weight? These “click bait” type articles are typically sophomoric attempts at humor that consist of anecdotes and the author's perceptions. They frequently rehash similar previous opinion pieces and never contain verifiable facts nor provide any references. Most often, these authors have likely never experienced a particular car they are reviewing, nor the contemporary models that competed against them. They consist of juvenile editorializing, such as making fun of the then popular styling and colors, as well as sweeping generalizations about their performance, engineering, or quality without any context. Encyclopedia articles should contain information that is factual, not unsubstantiated claims or original musings that are characteristic of these so-called sources. CZmarlin (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your general comments about "click-bait" type articles. Would you care to look at the specific source, linked above? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI from Wikiepdia:

Bloomberg Businessweek has received numerous awards since the Bloomberg L.P. acquisition. In 2011, Adweek named Bloomberg Businessweek as the top business magazine in the country. In 2012, Bloomberg Businessweek won the general excellence award for general-interest magazines at the National Magazine Awards. Also in 2012, Bloomberg Businessweek editor Josh Tyrangiel was named magazine editor of the year by Ad Age. In 2014, Bloomberg Businessweek won a Society of American Business Editors and Writers Best in Business award for magazines, general excellence.

Hugh, the RS question does not relate to Bloomberg in general but this specific article Springee (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"The "Ugliest Cars of the Past 50 Years" piece written by Damian Joseph (October 30, 2009) is unreferenced hyperbole and heavy on irreverent humor. It contains only the author's opinions, and none of them are based on any facts or automotive history. The author has a degree in journalism from Northwestern University, but apparently lacks experience in the automotive field. There is no evidence of a background in the design area, which would seem to be a prerequisite for expounding on the "ugliest" cars. Even though Damian Joseph writes for Bloomberg Businessweek, this article is nothing more than a "click-bait" piece that is not worthy of any inclusion in an encyclopedia. CZmarlin (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There are some other issues related to WEIGHT currently under discussion at the Pinto article page. As an editor involved with automotive topics we could use your voice on the subject if you are interested. Springee (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

AFD

Ed Bolian has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions of roadtest.com links to car articles

• roadtests.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Hello, I stumbled upon the recent addition of roadtests.com URLs to various car articles (see link summary above, most of them during the last 1-2 weeks). As I am not a topic expert, could interested project members please comment on the site's reliability? www.roadtests.com seems to lack any author information or other credentials. I have opened a thread for further checks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#roadtests.com - spam? - any input about the site's usability from topic experts would be appreciated there. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• I wouldn't consider their opinions reliable. It looks like one of those compilation websites, similar to a click-bait list site where the content is likely paraphrased from one or more other web sources and/or manufacture's websites. I would think any facts from the site such as vehicle options, prices etc can be taken from other more reliable sources. Any editorial statements or opinions can't be attributed to an author. I would say no as a RS. Springee (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. The site is now blacklisted (after repeated citation spamming during the last months). As always, legit single usages for reliable information per WP:RS could be whitelisted on a case-by-case basis. GermanJoe (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested images

Hello, can you update that list? I can collaborate a little, especially with Chinese cars, which we have plenty of in Uruguay, and of course Latin cars (Gol, Agile, Palio). --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Greetings NaBUru38! I am not sure where the list you have linked comes from because it is hopelessly incomplete. However, you can go to "Category:Wikipedia requested images of cars" that is made up of all the templates attached to the talk pages of articles that need pictures. Hope this helps. CZmarlin (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Requested images is very outdated. Should it get deleted or redirected elsewhere? OSX (talk • contributions) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I can do the Mahindra Bolero Camper and Peugeot 408. Any Chinese cars? --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Chevrolet Captiva size class

How should we classify the Chevrolet Captiva? Compact SUV (438,000 results) or Mid-size SUV (311,000 results)? We can find references for both on Google. Not to mention that adding the word "crossover" to the classification makes it even more complicated. BaboneCar (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, its rivals include the Mazda CX-7, Kia Sorento, Hyundai Santa Fe, Mitsubishi Outlander and Nissan X-Trail. Europeans call it D-segment.

So it's larger than the CX-5, Sportage, Tucson and RAV4 (C-segment), and smaller than the CX-9, Montero, Murano and 4Runner (D-segment).

The former group is compact, but is the latter full-size? --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you meant the first group, not the former, is compact. Though, in European classification, SUVs are collectively grouped in the J-segment. You are right with your comparison. All of the rivals that you named have similar dimensions (I would also add the SsangYong Rexton) and they have smaller compact siblings in their brands' range: the CX-5, Sportage, Tucson, ASX and Qashqai (and the Korando). In the latter group, the CX-9 and Montero, classify as full-size, while the Murano and 4Runner seem to be mid-size, because there are the Patrol and Land Cruiser as full size. However, having smaller compact siblings doesn't necessarily make them mid-size (they could be classified as compact too, as you can find references for that, see my first message). My question remains how shall we classify it in the article? BaboneCar (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've had pondered this same issue before with the Captiva, and from memory external sources quote both. As such maybe we should state that it straddles the compact and mid-size segments. OSX (talk • contributions) 16:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

":I think you meant the first group, not the former"

wikt:former: "First of aforementioned two items"

Good luck! -NaBUru38 (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it's my mistake, I admit. Thank you for correcting me. Good luck to you too. BaboneCar (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft for Rolls Royce Cullinan

I had created a draft for Rolls Royce Cullinan a while back in anticipation of it. I was wondering if anyone else wanted to update it. It a brand new model. also the Draft:BMW 9 SeriesWinterysteppe (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Handling of recalls and controversies on manufacture's pages

What general guidelines should be followed when dealing with recalls, product problems and other specific product feedback on a manufacture's article page? Not long ago I asked if the group had feedback regarding what controversies were notable enough for inclusion on a company's main article page[7]. The archives includes a discussion regarding which recalls are notable [8] but based on the context of the discussion and the example of the Ford Falcon AU I think the editors may have been thinking in terms of a model's page vs manufacture's page. The consensus of that discussion seemed to be that only recalls that were covered by perhaps more than one mainstream, non-automotive, source would be significant enough for inclusion. Does that mean inclusion in the corporate Ford Motor Company article or just on the Ford Falcon AU product article? I would think if we included every recall discussed by at least two mainstream news outlets the manufacture pages would be dominated by recall notices. Hence I'm asking what limits should we generally follow when talking about a manufacture's article.

I would propose that only the most significant recalls, product related problems, or feedback would ever make it to the manufacture's primary page. This should be material that is notable enough for a stand alone article (even if one doesn't actually exist). Thus the Ford-Firestone tire recall may be significant enough for inclusion at Ford Motor Company. Conversely, even though the extraordinary number off recalls associated with the Ford Focus (first generation) is notable in context of the model page, it would not be notable with respect to the article covering the manufacture as a whole. I would propose a similar standard be used with respect to controversies which would be added to the parent page.

Feedback, support and suggestions requested Springee (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I think that regular recalls correspond to articles on models. Articles should include recalls that were widely covered, such as Ford's SUV tyres, Toyota's pedals and Chevrolet's ignitions. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

NaBUru38I agree with that. What becomes problematic is how do we decide what counts as widely covered. For example (and why I asked), look at some of the recall material that is proposed for the Chrysler article.[9] There is no question that the Chrysler brake booster recall was covered by some mainstream news sources. However, it's hardly the same level as the recalls you mention. I would propose leaving it out. The editor forcing the issue simply states that because it was covered by some mainstream sources it must be included. It seems to me that low bar/standard allow a motivated editor to justify flooding an article with recalls. Basically, I think you and I are agreeing on the standard but I'm hoping for a more definitive definition to deal with cases such as the Chrysler example. Thanks! Springee (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Asked and answered in July 2015 on this project talk page, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_39#Recalls-notability. The consensus was clear: recalls are no different than any other content on Wikipedia, application of our project-wide policy WP:DUE is straight-forward, and coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I already included that link in my original question and noted that the example was for a single car model, not for the entire company. What is of reasonable weight with respect to the model may not be with respect to the parent company. Springee (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction

I'm not sure why the editor responsible for the below RfC failed to notify this board. Link [[10]]

Should the following content be added to the Chrysler article?

Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. In 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat finished at or near the bottom in the Consumer Reports 2015 Annual Auto Reliability Survey. In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing."

"Chrysler has performed poorly" - when? In the 1940s, in the 1980s, in the 2010s? When discussing a century-old company, any comment must describe the time frame. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Excellent point! Please join the collaboration at Talk:Chrysler. Thanks again! Hugh (talk)

Ford Pinto

Hello, please see Talk:Ford Pinto#RfC. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC, Ford Pinto article related to fuel tank fires

I'm not sure how to make the RfC system auto generate a message so I've copied it from another page that was notified. I didn't create the RfC but given it's automotive it clearly should include a notice here: Should the following epigraph, a long direct quote from Lee and Erdmann (1999), and content sourced to Schwartz (1990) and Danley (2005), be included in the section lede of the "Safety issues, recalls, and lawsuits" section?

Springee (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. The inclusion of content drawn from three commentators, including a long direct quote, in the lede of section Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation of article Ford Pinto, is disputed. Please comment. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Tesla station

Shouldn't Tesla station be about any Supercharger installation, instead of Supercharger V2? -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the Tesla Station is for battery swapping, while the Supercharger is for fast charging. The article said that if the Tesla Station trial was successful then the Supercharger stations would be upgraded to included both features. But the trial seems to have good badly and the upgrade didn't happen. I would keep the articles separate.  Stepho  talk  01:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)