Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

More dogmatic case-related renames.

The articles:

• BMC A-Series engine
• BMC B-Series engine
• BMC E-Series engine
• Rover K-Series engine
• Rover M-Series engine
• BMC O-Series engine ‎
• BL O-Series engine
• BL R-Series engine
• BL S-Series engine
• Rover T-Series engine

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

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

It seems like books consistently capitalized series for the BMC A, but for the B and E, mostly they use lower case for series. Sources seem split on the Rover K, mostly not capitalizing. What if we just decided to leave it as it is, and perhaps even move protect them so that we don't have to bikeshed this topic again? For the A-Series, we could write a sentence in the article telling readers that it is formally capitalized, while in the others it's inconsistent. Just so nobody think Wikipedia has issued an official ruling favoring one or the other. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The book title 'Tuning the A-Series Engine' uses title-case, so it uses upper-case for both 'S' and 'E'. The original article title 'BMC A-Series engine' uses upper-case for the 'S' but not the 'E'. If we want to use upper-case for the 'S' then we should also use upper-case for the 'E' - but WP doesn't use title-case for article titles. Conversely, if we're going to use lower-case for the 'e' then we should be using lower-case for the 's'. Unless BMC officially use upper-case 'S' in their documentation in sentences - ie if it's part of the proper name for the engine series. To my knowledge, the official name is 'A', not 'A-Series' but I'm not a BMC expert.  Stepho  talk  22:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the book? It's not written in title case throughout! (but it does use "A-Series engine" throughout). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope, haven't read the book, I used only the information you provided. But I did say that if the official literature uses 'S' then so should we. Is it only that one book or do the majority of BMC books use 'S' in sentences? What does the factory literature use?  Stepho  talk  23:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Another member of this project has gone through and switched all my lower case series to Series quoting some workshop manuals where (I mean in workshop manuals) such issues are of course not intensely important. I have to say I (silently) cheered on the editor concerned (Dicklyon). Eddaido (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Thanks – Andy seems to prefer to talk behind my back. Note that some books use lowercase, e.g. this one and this one and this one, indicating that the caps are not necessary in the A series. WP avoids unnecessary capitalization, per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I had a very quick web search of books and fan sites - they seem to be all over the place and I can't place much trust in either way. I tried looking for some factory literature. I only found a presentation by a factory engineer http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1243/PIME_CONF_1963_178_133_02?journalCode=pcpa https://www.mgcc.co.uk/row/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2016/10/bmc-part-1f-4-1.pdf which uses lower-case 's' and an advert https://www.autopaper.com/1962-bmc-exciting-range-of-passenger-cars-sales-brochure.php for the A60 which uses lower-case 's'. Slight advantage to 's' but my sample size is pitifully small. Anybody have better factory literature than me?  Stepho  talk  05:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Stepho, you mentioned that "if the official literature uses 'S' then so should we"; but that's really a case of WP:SSF. Whatever you find in official sources, if common uses show caps to be unnecessary, then we do not treat this as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, what I'm looking is whether the official name is 'A series', 'A Series' or just 'A'. If just 'A' then we get to choose (although common use in books and fan sites goes both ways). If the official name includes the word 'series' or 'Series' then we should follow that as a proper noun.  Stepho  talk  05:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

(Official literature) I have had no better luck at finding examples. It seems to me that manufacturers rarely define new models in their sales literature as anything other than NEW! Which model it belongs to seems to be an aftermarket issue for dealers and magazines and writers like us in WP. Eddaido (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"Foo X-Series" appears to be a double error for "Foo X series". It's not a compound modifier or anything else that would require a hyphen, and the "series" thing is a descriptive categorization like everything else we're lowercasing: Manx cat, Ford pickup truck, BBC documentary, etc. – the words after the proper names do not take capital letters. No one plays "FIFA Football", prefers "European Newspapers", has favorite "HBO and Netflix TV Shows", or likes "McDonalds French Fries" better than "Burger King French Fries". Someone at User talk:Dicklyon said this was like iPhone, iPod, etc. But that's silly. Sources are nearly 100% consistent in how they treat those names. This is not true of a "Foo X series"/"Foo X-series"/"Foo x-series"/"Foo X-Series"/etc. constructions. And there are no hyphens or descriptive categorizers present in "iPod" and the like. However, if we had an article at the title "iOS-Devices" it would definitely be moved to "iOS devices", minus both the extraneous hyphenation and the overcapitalization. The fact that some people like to capitalize stuff that is about cars and airplanes and such is just the typical specialized-style fallacy. Specialist writing for other specialists in most fields capitalizes the living crap out of stuff that no one else would capitalize; WP doesn't. WP is not written in news style, including automotive news magazine style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

​:"Foo X-Series" appears to be a double error for "Foo X series".

Exactly. You're taking some dogmatic approach, we know the rules of grammar better than the originator, and changing names on that basis. That's not how we should work. We should find the best and most authoritative sources we can do for a topic and follow those. Not a styleguide. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Another one at Ford D Series. Didn't we used to have some policy about discussing these things and consensus? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Assessment page backlog on wiki articles

I'm not a member of this project, but I took out the Tata Estate since someone assessed it already. Ominae (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with proposed updates at John Krafcik

Hi all! I've recently posted a request for auto executive and Waymo CEO John Krafcik, seeking to add an Early life and education section. I'm wondering if editors at this WikiProject would be interested and might have a few minutes to look over my suggestions? I'm making these suggestions on behalf of Mr. Krafcik's company, Waymo, as part of my work at Beutler Ink, so I will not make any direct edits to the article myself. (I've posted a similar note at WikiProject Biography, too, to see if anyone there might be able to help.) Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Automobiles Comment

Dear Sirs/Madams, as keepers of the articles related to autos I thought I should bring this matter to the projects attention. I am a new page patroller and recently I reviewed an article Renault Kangoo (Argentina) I didn't think the Argentinian model warranted it's own article so sent it to AfD here [[1]]. The author had previously been warned and blocked and has subsequently been indefinitely blocked. Worryingly they had made quite an amount of edits/re-directs/deleting re-directs to auto related pages (see here [[2]]) As I am no expert in this field I trust you could check out, or know an editor that could check out, the legitimacy of the edits this author made before their ban. Kind regards and best wishes from Ireland XyzSpaniel Talk Page 21:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

MPM Erelis

Could please someone create an article regarding this new low-budget sportscar-lookalike from France (with Russian background history)? Thanks! Foerdi (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to mention it. There are already articles for the car and the company in the French Wikipedia Foerdi (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Started page, need some cleanup and referemcesstill, MPM Erelis, anyone willing to help? need to to do also that MPM motors main page -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Watching Mr. Magoo

Since Dick Megugorac has been nominated for deletion by somebody who considers him "not notable", I'm hoping some people here, who actually know who he is, might have something to say about it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Brand name of Renault Samsung Motors

Sorry for crossposting this, but I asked this on the disc of the article 5 days ago and there was no reaction. okay: What is the former and the actual brand name of the vehicles made by Renault Samsung Motors? I found evidence of being (naturally) Samsung until 2000, that Renault continued the brand name "Samsung" (and not "Renault-Samsung"), but today on their website and in Renault websites, they are announced as Renault Samsung Motors (as brand name). I assume that Renault changed the brand name from Samsung to Renault Samsung in 2002 with the QM3, but I found no evidence for this. In German and French Wikipedia, the models itself in their articles are being listed as "Samsung" (but here are indications that that the French copied the content of the German articles, which were partly falsified), while the EN wikipedia uses "Renault Samsung". Anybody knows? --Roxedl (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Didnt find exact info of that name change, but it must be sometime after Renault aquired Samsung car unit -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but how would you name the brand today? Is it eg. a Samsung QM5, a Renault Samsung QM5 or a Renault Samsung Motors QM5? Roxedl (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I would use Renault Samsung, altough real name would be Renault Samsung Motors -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Aston Martin

Should we split motorsport info from Aston Martin main page to own page? like some other brands have, the main page looks quite messy now and dont follow the look of other pages -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Of this is an invitation to vote, then yes please. I mean support. At busy times of day our copper wire based system here in a "picturesque" English internet backwater struggles with these >50,000 pages. (And I recall a few years ago it was suggested that >30,000 was the point a which you might at least begin to consider some sort of page split. Other things being equal whch of course they never are.) Also, with these big wiki pages, even after they have downloaded to the screen my brain still struggles, zapping up and down the screen to the bit I'm trying to find. Especially now I seem to have been persuaded by younger family members to try consulting wikpedia on a telephone screen (when the wifi is feeling sufficiently positive about ... stuff). Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Darracq and Company London

Any opinions about this page Darracq and Company London, I think it looks messy (hard to understand what is all about) and its converted from original French company page to London based company page. Whole section is deleted from it when comparing it to some older state as Automobiles Darracq S.A. article . What we should do with that article? Or should we write own articles of Automobiles Darracq S.A., Italian Darracq and other stuff that was removed -->Typ932 ^T·C 21:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops I found that we have Automobiles Darracq France page, anyway the page edit was made wrongly the London page should have been made as new page and leave French page alone.- -->Typ932 ^T·C 21:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

huh this is really messy case, for instance which page this template should be Template:Darracq , something should be really made for these articles, they are too messy and hard to understand whats all about-->Typ932 ^T·C 21:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Typ932. Perhaps you might give more detail about your concerns. Do you realise that Darracq London owned Darracq SA? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the France article is about when it was a purely French company (before being sold to British owners) with a little bit of history while the French factory continued under British ownership. And the London article is mostly from when it was bought by British owners until it was closed as part of Sunbeam, Talbot and Darracq. There is a large amount of overlap between them, so I would merge them into a single article.  Stepho  talk  22:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It is so confusing - as Typ932 indicates - I went to a lot of trouble to break out all the details including discussion with the owners clubs who later thanked me for clarifying all the stuff they could not get a grip on. I would strongly advise against the amalgamation suggested. If Typ932 settles down to detailing his concerns I will be happy to allay them. Eddaido (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

From memory, Darracq made a fortune from bicycles and started making cars. He was in business to make make money not cars, he wanted cash to be got by selling his company to the stock market. It was most profitable at that time to do it in London - this is circa 1904. It remained British owned until the British owners collapsed in the mid 1930s. At that time the Paris manager with personal resources and good financial connections did a management buyout of the Paris operation. So ownership was British for 30 odd years and Anglo-French for its last 25 (really less than 10 useful years removing wartime and the last decade blighted by the French governments punishing taxation of expensive cars.} Eddaido (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Better for me to let the subject experts continue.  Stepho  talk  22:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There is just one authoritative work on Lago and the Paris factory. It is Alain Spitz, Talbot. The Talbot-Darracq to Talbot-Lago, published EPA, 1983. (ISBN 2-85120-170-0). I eventually located a (possibly) borrowable copy in Germany. It would have cost some hundreds of dollars in airmail and other fees to get it to me. Then it would have cost a similar amount to return it. I skipped that but Typ932 may be in a better position(location?) to do this. Eddaido (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes I understand that London company owned darraq, but do we need article of owners? or the car company? having 2 article? s makes this Darraq very confusing and hard to understand. I think something should be done to make these articles easier to understand. Is it possible to make one article of Darraq and mention of owners there. IF you check all other wikipedias there is no different article of Darracq and Company London. And in what page this template should be?

-->Typ932 ^T·C 21:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Talbot is an English name (originally Norman-French). Talbot cars were made in London from more than 110 years ago and their last lineal descendants were Sunbeam Alpines (once Sunbeam-Talbots) still carrying the Talbot crest. Cars made in the Paris factory from about 1920 were sold as Talbot in France and Darracq outside France. (Its as if the French felt as bad about Darracq as some feel about Harvey Weinstein, a name with bad vibes). At the time Paris and London factories had the same owner. Are you confident you understand the many complexities? Should we move to the article talk page where you can show your thoughts as to a better arrangement. The current arrangement is just the best I could think of at the time, there is bound to be some better way to do it. I'd politely suggest the other WP articles are based on an imperfect knowledge. I look forward to reading your specific ideas for improvement. Eddaido (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

About that template. If there were capably prepared articles about those cars an answer to your question could be clear but remember that for much of the period an Englishman's (or Finn's) new Darracq is a Frenchman's Talbot. Eddaido (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe some other editors could give their opionions, or is it just me who thinks these are too complicated articles? and if article name is Darracq and Company London why there is no info when that company was founded? there is just A Darracq et Cie and A Darracq and Company Limited

A Darracq and Company (1905) Limited S. T. D. Motors Limited company boxes , or is A Darracq and Company Limited same as Darracq and Company London? if so we should use same name in infobox -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I know I'm coming in a bit late, but I'd suggest leaving two articles. If it's as complicated as it seems on first contact (& most readers will be first contacts), it's clearer to have a page on each with some clarifying 'graphs shared than to have one page with readers trying to untangle which is who is which. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Automobile timeles production years vs model years

Had some discussions about timelines used on autopages (User_talk:Vossanova#timelines) , anyone find the rule or discussion from past whats the preferred style in timelines , most articles uses real production years anyway. Its very confusing that some timelines uses model years, making hard to compare real production times of cars. Any toughts of this matter? -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

To recap for new readers, the problem is that there are competing nomenclature schemes that look identical but mean different things. To an American, a 2018 vehicle was introduced in mid 2017 (usually around August to October but it varies) and went to mid 2018. This is part of their desire to update their vehicles in some way every single year to encourage owners to upgrade (blame Alfred P. Sloan for annual styling changes). Whereas in most of the rest of the world, a 2018 vehicle was introduced in mid 2018 and goes to either mid 2019 or until the next generation change. Our problem is that something like, say, "a 2018 Toyota Corolla" is read by both Americans and non-Americans and means different things. So we settled on calendar years as the default and have to say "model year" when we mean model years. We also try to sprinkle some actual months (eg August 2018) around to help Americans understand what is essentially a foreign concept to them. However, because Americans do have such a difficult time understanding calendar years, we allow them to use model years on articles of vehicles built in America and predominantly sold in America. But even there the |production= field in the infobox must must always be calendar years and the |model_years= field in the infobox must must always be model years (though this hasn't been enforced too well on American pages). This is covered in WP:MODELYEARS on the WP:AUTOCONV page.  Stepho  talk  01:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Stepho is just trying to have some fun at the expense of Americans with a few of those comments ;) Anyway, at least in the US there is another very important significance to model year vs production year (production date). Most automotive regulations apply to cars of a given model year or later. For example, OBD II was a requirement for cars sold in the US in 1996 and later. What that meant is that if a car build in 1995 was declared to be a MY 1996 car then it would have to have OBD-II even though it was produced in 1995, prior to the requirement. In the US the law says a MY can be up to 2 years minus a day and is defined by the Jan 1 that is within that time period. Thus knowing that a car was produced in 1995 doesn't tell you if it was built to 1996 or 1995 regulatory standards. The MY will. I'm not sure how the rest of the world handles that since it would seem impractical to be required to roll out all changes on Dec 31st or to have to refer to try to decide if a BMW produced in 2008 was built to Euro 4 or Euro 5 (2009 and later) emissions standards. At some point during the year the company had to switch. Springee (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, teasing Yanks is fun. Regardless of the advantages and disadvantages of US style model years (I disagree with you but that doesn't change anything), we still have to deal with the US using one nomenclature scheme and most of the rest of the world using the exact same words to mean a different thing. WP:MODELYEARS covers it pretty well. 5-10 years ago the articles were a hopeless mess with years bouncing forwards and backwards as American and non-American editors "corrected" each other. Many pages were a mix of both styles. Confusion reigned. Nobody knew what actual date a 2018 vehicle corresponded to because nobody knew which side edited it last. I've noticed the confusion and edit wars have decreased substantially since the guideline has been in place.  Stepho  talk  06:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

One solution would be that we add some short info to timeline, which system, is used? -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. As long as WP:MODELYEARS is still obeyed, adding 'calendar years' or 'model years' to timelines would be helpful. I've done this in the past to some Toyota timelines (eg {{Modern North American Toyota vehicles}}). I get occasional kickbacks from Americans who think it looks silly to say 'model years' (remembering that they have trouble of thinking that any other system even exists, let alone that people would use it) but there is no avoiding this situation with international readers.  Stepho  talk  00:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That "Model year" line fits perfectly into the existing layout and is certainly not the least bit intrusive. Since most (if not all) timeline templates are broken down by market anyway there shouldn't be a problem. --Sable232 (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. I'd like to think that model years would be implied on at least the North American-only timelines, but I'd rather it be clarified in the timeline title, than see someone changing all the timelines or adding in-between columns for mid-calendar year (yuck). --Vossanova ^o< 18:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeking input on Lamborghini Countach article restructuring

I'd like to invite any Wikiproject Automobiles members to respond to my new posting at Talk:Lamborghini Countach#Restructuring Proposal - seeking input. I'd like to add quite a bit of new, well-sourced information to this "High importance"-rated page (as well as references verifying some currently uncited statements) but I think some restructuring is needed beforehand. I proposed some changes on the article's talk page and would really appreciate the input of more experienced editors. Thanks! Prova MO (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is www.team.net. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Tata Sumo

I added some text to the article Tata Sumo, can a moderator correct any errors? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.126.79 (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Acronym jokes

Couple of kids keeps adding jokes to Fiat article Fiat Automobiles, I would need some help maybe , give some commenting to the case. I dont think we need these old jokes to any automobile manufacturers articles, or what do you think? If we allow this one, others will start adding them also to other manufacturers.... -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think is this case the acronym is within the context of why Fiat left the US market in 1983 and is appropriate. As with all things Wiki, it depends on context and a reliable source, which it seems to have. NealeFamily (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've created a topic at Talk:Fiat Automobiles/Archive 1#Fix it again Tony - round 2 and left my 2 cents there. I suggest others comment there (where all interested parties can see it) instead of here (where only the anoraks will see it).  Stepho  talk  03:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Would be better add comments here, because this is not just Fiat it concerns all manufacturers -->Typ932 ^T·C 05:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

We need more opinions of this case , share you toughts -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Category name change Cars -> Automobiles

There is a new discussion related to the renaming of the Catagory:Cars vs Catagory:Automobiles here [[3]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of racing cars in Template:Lotus

I've started a discussion regarding the continued inclusion of racing cars in Template:Lotus. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (I've advertised the discussion here because I wasn't sure how may people are watching the template). DH85868993 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability for individual custom and drag race cars?

Do we have notability standards here? Mostly for the members of Category:Individual cars, which overlaps with Category:One-off cars. Also Category:Drag racing cars.

There are an increasing number of articles appearing here (and some old ones) which are little more than stubs. They're also poorly formatted and wikified and most are seriously lacking in substantial content. Some, such as El Matador (custom car) have a large block of thirteen citations to support them – yet when you look closer, these are repeated citations to just the same couple of pages in a magazine article. See Silhouette (show car) for another example. Yet the reference to this one magazine article is even repeated in the article (across both references and sources sections) just to bulk it out.

Is a single two-page mention in a car mag enough to support notability? These are very thin articles with practically nothing of encyclopedic content to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? This is from somebody who tagged as not notable two entries at the Oakland Roadster Show, one of which earned Bill Cushenberry a Master Builder award. These are customs that have seen national magazine coverage for years. They're thin because finding 40 & 50yr old magazines isn't exactly easy, & even 20yr old ones may not be right at hand. (Many of mine aren't, or I'd have used them.) So complaining about "flimsy" is unjustified. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. WP:BURDEN still applies. You not only have to handwave "they're just notable", but you also have to back it up, per WP:V and the rest. If they're that notable, then aren't they showing up in the (surely vast) range of coffee table books about such? So far they have one magazine article to support them, no more.

The reason I tagged these, rather than AfDing them, is that Google image searching shows up a good few hits for them. So I don't dispute that they probably are notable, just that these articles are failing to demonstrate that, even to barely a CSD A7 level. Articles should do better than this. Especially, as here, when they're unpolished and to a large extent unfinished articles (even the formatting is still messy) Walt's Puffer II sat for months where half of the character count in it was just these duplicated citations, bulking it out. Nor am I seeing a strong encyclopedic content to most of these, as to why they are the important cars to cover (not all custom cars are notable custom cars) or anything past WP:NOTDIR. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I would generally say if more than one or two articles/sources come out speaking about the car then it's probably notable enough. This case is stronger if we have a few more cites that mention the subject car in other contexts. For example the primary articles might be magazine articles about the car's construction or driving reviews etc. Secondary mentions such as a list of winners of a notable car show or cars by notable designer/builder etc would also help. We don't have to pay for the hard drive space so I think erring on the side of inclusion is probably better than the other way around. In cases like this I sometimes worry about FRINGE or other issues with limited/low quality sourcing but these aren't controversial or recent topics so I would rather error on the side of inclusion. I've been interested in a number of junior series racing car manufactures over the years. For example take a marque like Crossle or Piper Race Cars or many other smaller mfrs. The company produced many race cars over the years but it would probably be hard to find an article about the company. There are many less reliable sites on the subject (web blogs such as [[4]]). I in cases like this I think I would rather error on the side of inclusion because the material just isn't that controversial and for a few editor and readers it will be very enjoyable. Springee (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• The question "Do we have notability standards here?" -- "here" being WikiProject Automobiles -- suggests that we could or should have subject-specific guidelines for cars. But if one is bothered by the presence of articles that you think aren't notable topics, the last thing you want to do is suggest creating subject-specific guidelines. That would make it easier to keep the articles, since it adds a path to notability that an article could use in case it failed WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right".

  Anyway, I don't think we should have a project guideline that says a one-off car is notable if it has won a major award or something, even though it doesn't meet WP:GNG. GNG is enough, and I agree with Andy that these articles should have a little more sourcing actually cited there in the article to be kept. No rush to AfD today, but it's inevitable if more sources aren't added sooner or later. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

So now it's not the notability, it's the formatting? Why don't you tell the truth: it's that I've created these pages at all that really bothers you. And "handwave"? I suppose that the very source I used says they were AMBR contenders doesn't count. Or that it treats them as well-enough known to merit mentioning. (And I suppose it's my fault they're 50yrs old, & so it's impossible to get better sourcing. Right, just delete them.) Or that the very source I used lists Walt's Puffer II as historic, or there wouldn't have been an article on it (or mention of it) in the first place. No, that's not good enough, because I didn't bother to consolidate the footnotes well enough to suit you. Take a look at the guideline: they've gotten coverage in a national magazine. It may not be a feature piece, but it isn't by Cushenberry, & it's in a reliable source. No, that's not good enough... I don't see anything that says it has to be in a minimum number of magazines, or that they have to have a minimum circulation, so what's the real beef with only a single source (to start with)? Like there aren't any other stub pages that use a single source, I suppose. Why do I bother creating articles at all, when uninformed editors immediately turn around & call them "not notable"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:59 & 05:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Footnoting is fixable, so it's irrelevant. Is the quantity of sources in existence your fault? No. But notability isn't affected by fault or credit, so that's beside the point. If sufficient sources exist nowhere, it can get deleted, and no one is to blame. It's possible for an article to be kept with only one source, but it's unusual and only when that one source is extremely strong. Keeping these in a draft state would give more breathing room to work things out, or consolidating them in a list of one-off cars would be a workable intermediate step that is less likely to be nominated at AfD. I would just add more sources as soon as possible, and if these get deleted before that, go either the draft or list route to buy more time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't own any of these, & my local library doesn't, either. Maybe yours does.

• Hot Rod Magazine, May 1963
• Popular Customs, January 1966
• Rod & Custom, April 1962
• Hot Rod, May 1962
• Car Craft, June 1962
• Popular Customs, Spring 1963
• Car Craft, February 1963
• Popular Customs, January 1966
• Classic & Customs, July 1983
• Custom Rodder, March 1998
• Barris, George. 20 Top Customs. Petersen Publishing/Spotlight Books, 1962.
• Dregni, Michael. The All-American Hot Rod. Motorbooks, 2009.

I suppose that won't establish notablity, either, will it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With this source, if you footnoted it without a page number, I'd be compelled to accept AGF your assertion that it is significant coverage, until proven otherwise. It can be tagged {{page needed}} and fixed later, but for purposes of notability I'd say that's sufficient. When you name sources this way, and assert they have the coverage we need, then WP:AGF takes the burden off you and puts it on anyone who wants to challenge your claim that these offline sources are significant, in-depth, independent coverage. Until someone else checks the magazines themselves, we have to take your word for it. I'd !vote keep in a hypothetical AfD.

FWIW, all this drama and hairsplitting is avoidable, by using the draft namespace to take care of all this before going live, or building a list first and spawning articles later. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange can solve this! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• WP:GNG: but multiple sources are generally expected

If these cars are so important, why do they only appear in a single source? If they appear in multiple sources, why are articles getting published using only one of them? Why are they being published with a dozen citations (so that they look well sourced), but actually they've only got a single reference behind them? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Grand Master (custom car) A one line article? With one reference? How does this pass WP:NOTDIR, or even WP:GNG? It's a 2002 car, so it's post-web and there's no excuse of not being able to access 50 year old magazines. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

And just edit-warring to revert the tag is not the way to go here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Cars not automobiles

I see that for "Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices" all the Wikipedia categories which had the word automobile are being speedy deleted and now have the word car in place of automobile. Will this WikiProject change too? Eddaido (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Vans (E.g. Commer FC) are/were also included in the 'automobiles' category but do they count as 'cars'... Maybe for Wiki purposes? Eagleash (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

And why they are making these changes before consulting this group? I already left message to Mitch Ames, who has been deleting cats, I think hes removing categories wrongly? we have or had for example 2 cats for Bugatti Royale 1930s (ex cat name Category:1920s automobiles) cars and 1920s (ex cat Category:1920s automobiles) cars, so every decade when the cars was produced and one cat for exact year Cars introduced in 1927. I really dont like this habit in Wikipedia that such big changes are made without consulting wikiprojects at all-->Typ932 ^T·C 18:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree that consultation would have been a very good thing. With just how blurred the lines have become between cars, SUVs and trucks having separate categories seems like one more thing to have intractable arguments over. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Mitch Ames, who has been deleting cats, I think hes removing categories wrongly? — Per existing discussion at User talk:Mitch Ames § Car categories, the removal of parent categories per WP:SUBCAT is (so far as I can tell) independent of the renaming of the categories. If anyone one wants pursue the SUBCAT issue, I suggest that it should be raised in a separate talk page section to the renaming issue, to avoid conflating the two. (It might be simpler wait until the renaming issue is resolved.) Mitch Ames (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is that British English and American English have different definitions of Car, which is causing confusion. User:RGloucester, who participated in the old discussion in Talk:Car/Archive 4 and Talk:Car/Archive 5 and made all the recent speedy move requests, is clearly for the British English definition.

• BE: A car is any type of passenger road vehicle, including sedans/saloons, pickup trucks, passenger vans, and SUVs.
• AE: A car is one type of passenger road vehicle (i.e. "automobile"), including sedans, coupes, hatchbacks, and wagons, but NOT pickup trucks, passenger vans, and SUVs, which are other types of automobiles.

At least, that's my impression, correct me if I'm wrong. Being an AE guy, I don't know how limited the use of "automobile" is in BE, but there should be more consensus before pushing one definition over the other. --Vossanova ^o< 20:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not correct. Your mistake is in saying that 'automobile' has a broader definition than 'car'. It doesn't, per reliable sources (Oxford British, Oxford American, Webster). 'Automobile' is equivalent to 'car', in every variety of English, per all reliable English dictionaries. 'Trucks' are not automobiles, nor are they cars in any variety of English. This is not an ENGVAR problem. In any case, the move discussion took place four years ago, category standardisation is set down in policy, and was determined in a consensus-based CFD. There is a broader category and article at motor vehicle for other motorised forms of road transport. RGloucester — ☎ 21:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Funnily enough, this phantom broader definition of 'automobile' to suit the needs of certain parties came up at this project in 2006, during debates about the scope of the project close to its founding. The result then was the same. You can't change the definition of the word 'automobile' to satisfy your idea of what the scope of this project should be about. RGloucester — ☎ 22:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the definitions you linked to? Oxford's US English definition is "A road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motor and able to carry a small number of people." Not even remotely as restrictive as you imply it to be.

"Car" and "Automobile" are not equivalent in common North American usage and I don't understand where that idea comes from - nor why it's been parroted repeatedly here over the years - because it has no basis in reality. In the US (and probably Canada), "car" almost universally excludes vans, light trucks, and SUVs. "Automobile" is typically understood, as a more formal term, to encompass all passenger vehicles. ("Automobile industry", "Auto mechanic", etc.) You can't accuse people of trying to change a word's definition because you don't believe that North American varieties of English are valid. --Sable232 (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"Auto mechanic" is derived from "automotive", which does have a broader meaning, but that's not related to "automobile". It is not normal to write "automobile industry"...you write "automotive industry", which is where that article is located. I do believe North American English is valid...in as much as we follow the dictionaries, and don't use WP:OR definitions, there is no problem. An "automobile" is a "car"...it does not include trucks. That is a fact, supported by RS (Cambridge American Dictionary, Collins). Collins gives a particularly nice definition: "An automobile is a car". I'm sorry to say this so harshly, but we here do not have the right to contest RS definitions of words. We cannot make up our own definitions, or go off of your anecdotal knowledge. We follow RS. RGloucester — ☎ 22:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

And you're again ignoring the definitions you're citing. "Engine, four wheels, carries a small number of people." That doesn't exclude what you claim it to exclude. Renaming the project is inevitable at this point anyway but apparently the scope of the project will need to be revisited? --Sable232 (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring that definition...it aligns with what I said. Anyway, no one wants you fellows to rename your project...but don't project that name onto content and ignore past consensus/RS. RGloucester — ☎ 23:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Words can be used in their strict sense, and in a looser sense for the sake of convenience. A North American will say "The ferry was full of cars today", and another North American who was on the same boat at the same time will agree, even though they are both aware that there were many trucks, SUVs, vans, and even tractor-trailer rigs on the ferry as well. A North American driving an SUV will say "get in the car" and nobody will reply, "What car?" A minivan driver will say, "I'm shopping for a new car. I think I'll get another Dodge Caravan." Nobody will think this is a strange thing to say. Not grammatically, anyway. Aesthetically perhaps. When we speak of "car culture" or a car-centric society, we don't just mean passenger cars. Trucks and SUVs are very much integral to "car culture" and "car centricism", and tractor-trailer combinations are too. In some senses, generally when speaking of infrastructure, motorcycles, firetrucks, and ambulances are also cars, though this isn't as common.

Dictionaries, already cited, confirm these facts. You can call it "wrong" if you like, but it's a factual description of English to say car and automobile can be equivalent. At the same time, a North American might refer to "cars and trucks" or "cars, trucks, and SUVs", and nobody would think they were being repetitive. There's no lexicographical reason for Wikipedia to not use car and automobile interchangeably, though there could be other arguments made favoring one or the other or a combination. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nobody has suggested doing anything with encyclopedic content. This discussion was started regarding the name of this WikiProject, and you then implied a change in its scope as well (removing vans/light trucks/SUVs). This has nothing to do with encyclopedia articles and therefore RS and OR are not pertinent. If you don't care about the name of the project, then don't come here with a patronizing attitude and tell everyone how wrong they are for having an opinion on it. --Sable232 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course I don't care about the name of the project...I simply do not want misconceptions that originate here to spread into encyclopaedic content, as is being suggested below. There is a claim that this Wikiproject has the last word on this subject, and will fight to the death for 'automobile' whether it makes sense in broader Wikipedia policy terms or not. What is supposed to be a routine change is now a mess. The article title car has been stable for FOUR YEARS...and yet, routine changes become nightmares because of strange and unsourced definitions of the word 'automobile'...a nightmare, truly. RGloucester — ☎ 04:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• If this change was done without community consolation or support then we need to apply WP:BRD. It doesn't appear there is community support of the change at this time so it should be reverted. Springee (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

There was a requested move at Talk:Car four years ago which replaced 'automobile', and a CFD for the category to match the article per WP:EPON. So yes, there is consensus. How is it possible that four year's ago's change is a controversy now? RGloucester — ☎ 01:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how renaming the article "automobile" to "car" (a change that failed several times and had some post closure opposition) justified changing a category without further publication. Let's start with the obvious, was this project notified? The category name change was decided by just four editors. I'm not saying the move was wrong but it was NOT adequately publicized. Clearly we have at least 4 editors here who are concerned with the change. I would suggest reopening the question if this change is to remain. Springee (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Your project has no veto power, no control over car-related topics, nor is there any requirement for notification. This was a routine move. Categories and their main articles are meant to have the same title. Feel free to make a new requested move to automobile at Talk:Car, if you feel otherwise. RGloucester — ☎ 03:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not power, it's the fact that a number of interested editors monitor the topic via the project. Anyone who makes mass changes on a topic without making an effort to notify the relevant WikiProjects is deluding themselves if they think they have broad consensus behind them. Also, common courtesy. Why wouldn't we try to loop in a Wikiproject? They'll find out eventually, and then you have to duplicate a lot of consensus-building process, unnecessarily. It doesn't make sense. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Cabal consensus is not Wikipedia consensus. There is, again, no requirement for notification of projects, and CfD is the normal process by which to make these changes. If the normal process, set down by policy, is followed, that's well and good enough. Of course, you're welcome to also follow that process and propose another change. RGloucester — ☎ 04:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Cabal? What cabal? You’re being deliberately bureaucratic. I’m reminded of the Vogon commander: “There’s no point acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. For heaven’s sake mankind, it’s only four light years away you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that’s your own lookout.“ --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Should the change in category question be revisited? This change in catagory name appears to have been decided by 4 editors and with no obvious notification.[[5]] If a second editor supports this proposal I would suggest protesting the recent closing and getting wider community consensus for the change. Springee (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking at all the debates on the car talk pages seems to indicate no consensus at all on the topic. Re-opening the debate will no doubt bring it to that point again, but I agree it should be discussed to see if a viable compromise can be worked out. I do not think that those advocating the changing the names of categories from automobile to car have established a point where they won't be challenged, not withstanding the notice in the planning office. NealeFamily (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"This was a routine move." This is the wikipedia problem, editors here do very big changes without consulting 1st, only small changes should be allowed to do in routine. "There is, again, no requirement for notification of projects," no there isnt but when you make so it can cause lots of trouble or errors, like now and I dont think 4 year old "concencus" is really valid anymore, like seen in many other articles which are arqued now even they had concensus before -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm finding the reliance on dictionary definitions missing one thing: usage. "Car" is an informal term, & as such should not be standard for encylopedic (formal) writing; for that, "automobile" should be used. You'll notice, any time there's even a semblance of formality, it's "auto industry", not "car industry"... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this is clear support for at least the notion that the category shouldn't have been changed without wider review. When I get a chance I will reopen the change discussion. Note that I don't currently have an opinion on the car/automobile article. I think I would have to see what the scope of the article is meant to be before deciding. Regardless I don't think that name should drive the category title (nor this project's name). Springee (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

'Car' is not an informal term (see OED definition 4 and its subsequent link to 'motor car'). Read the requested move discussion from four years ago. 'Auto industry' is derived from 'automotive industry', which is a broader term that includes trucks and other motorised vehicles. I linked you the definition of 'automotive' above. It has nothing to do with 'automobile'. In any case, Wikipedia uses common names, not formalisms, and 'automobile' (def 2) is also an Americanism which does not occur elsewhere, so 'car', which is the most common term for the subject the world over, including in America, is preferred per WP:COMMONALITY. Even in American English, usage of 'automobile' in formal publications has always been significantly lower than that of 'car', as can be demonstrated with Google ngrams, which only tracks formal publications, and its usage has only continued to sink into obscurity. Like I said, you're welcome to propose changes via the appropriate processes or challenge the consensus at the parent article car, but please don't spread blatant falsehoods. I see that people here seem to have a serious disregard for Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and reliable sources. We do not base our article or category titles on personal opinions...we base them on RS per WP:V. RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree with the people here seem to have a serious disregard for Wikipedia polices. The issue is quite simple. A change was made that reflects a view that many do not agree with. Yes it will come down to WP:RS and all the other policies that are quoted. For the comment about Americanism's, I would state that the English language version of Wikipedia is made up a community of editors stretching across the globe including American's and British, among many others - so finding common ground is not always going to be as straightforward as heading to an Oxford English Dictionary. As I stated previously, I think the debate needs to reopened as the present position has not been reached by any consensus, with or without the rule book. NealeFamily (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@NealeFamily:, I've opened a name change request. See the link below. Springee (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, some bot is renaming categories while the discussion is still alive , not nice to see that watchlist of hundreds of changes- -->Typ932 ^T·C 09:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Followup Based on the difference between the results of the first and second RM discussions related to the category names I opened a move review here. [[6]]. This may be an appropriate point at which to discuss what appear to be overlapping scopes between articles like Car vs Project Automobile vs Truck etc. I've found a few examples of such discussions in this project's archive. It's not clear what the automotive article hierarchy is meant to be. This may be a good place to establish it. Springee (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Spy shots/photos

I'd like to see some consensus on the discussion of spy photos in car articles. It's pretty safe to say we don't like having the photos themselves in the articles, but I've seen a trend lately of edits to upcoming vehicles, stating merely that spy shots exist, with an external link to them as a reference. I argue that it encourages speculation, and provides no verifiable facts about the car itself. Some car fans tend to see Wikipedia pages as fan sites, where any piece of new information is notable (WP:RECENTISM). Once the car is officially introduced, the fact that spy shots exist is no longer relevant and has very little, if any, historical value, and just clutters up the article. Agree or disagree? I'd like to point editors here rather than get into revert wars. --Vossanova ^o< 23:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Don't link to stuff that should not be in the article. Greglocock (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think the fact that spy shots exist is notable - there's inevitably spy shots of most everything, and it can never be completely certain as to what vehicle the spy shots are of. Without any direct information from the manufacturer, it's pure speculation - and, as you mention, useless information once the manufacturer has released the details. "Acme Motors has stated that a new generation of the Model 10 will be released for 2021" is worthwhile information; "Spy shots of what <random automotive blog> believes is likely the new Acme Model 10 were captured on November 21, 2018" is not. --Sable232 (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

♠This isn't an auto enthusiasts' magazine. Even the linkouts are a bad idea. The goal is encyclopedic content; wait for the actual vehicle to appear.

♠One exception I'd offer (& one IDK how it would be included, presuming it could be) is well-known fakes, like BMW's April Fool's joke of an M3 ute, or publicized prototypes (like Pontiac's mooted variant on the Camino), or the NHRA April Fool's streamliner FCs & 3-axled diggers. Same standard of notability & independent coverage would be wanted, of course. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on the coverage in reliable sources. If a new car is eagerly anticipated and there is a lot of RS interest in its development progress, then spy-shots might be considered to be a notable part of its pre-reveal background. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree (to no spy shots) For several reasons, mostly (though it is very interesting to discuss). While I am somewhat on the inclusionary side, I can still say no to these types of photos in article content. The most obvious reason behind including them is them as free-use content; as most spy photos come are related to car magazines and car-related blogs, that makes the issue a non-starter anyways. The second reason is related to the most intriguing reason behind this content (which upcoming car is this?); while photographers have an idea, it's not 100% certain and photos could make it into the wrong article. While automotive articles are far more dynamic than other segments of Wikipedia, we have to keep in mind (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL). --SteveCof00 (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I could see a spy shot appearing in a "Development" section of a car page (with acceptable copyright/ownership), if there is a noteworthy amount of pre-production media coverage and anticipation (mid-engine Corvette comes to mind), or if it shows how the car evolved from pre-production to production. But I would be careful supporting this, since editors could see it as precedent to add spy shots wherever they please. But again, this discussion is more about adding text about how spy shots exist, with an external link to the photos. --Vossanova ^o< 20:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Jaguar I-Pace... a "Sport cross car" (YouTube)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IvBqt4bruE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.65.148 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

What about it? Toasted Meter (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Land Rover MENA

There's an issue at COMMONS about photos released by Land Rover MENA's Flickr account not being their property. See Commons:Commons:Village pump. Land Rover MENA is the division of Land Rover dealing with the Middle East, it is headquartered in Coventry, England, UK, where Jaguar Land Rover has its corporate headquarters. -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Audi R3 -- and help for a editor

I have asked EurovisionNim and another editor to add sources to Audi A3--they are the top two editors to the article. EurovisionNim agreed to do so. I'm not familiar with any particular sourcing requirements that are specialized with regard to automobiles. I don't know, for example, if we allow sourcing directly from the manufacturer for data on engines, etc. If anyone could help make sure he stays on track, that would be much appreciated. --David Tornheim (talk)

I'm 19 David Tornheim. I'm not young. Can you send me the links to me (preferably by email) and I can print them out and rephrase them. My dad will be helping me out --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't have the links for the reliable sources. They are absent from the article and should have been provided by those who inserted the material originally. The material in the article needs to be grounded in reliable sources, or it is likely to be deleted. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Chill out Nim, no need to get so defensive at everything someone say. 19 is relatively young for a editor as comparison to most editors on here. The Audi A3 does lack citation, mostly due to neglect, but what exactly is needed citation, from the looks of it David, you seem to requested citation on the whole article. --Vauxford (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm 50+ and so are a lot of the editors here. In our eyes, you're still carrying baby fat. We're also jealous of your youth, so that's no bad thing :)

3rd party references are best - which is typically books and magazines. Manufacturer data is okay as long as it doesn't form the majority of the references and should generally be limited to pure factual data - eg engine sizes, vehicle dimensions, years offered. Any controversial facts, outrageous claims and any subjective facts (eg phrases like "Europe's favourite car for 2006") must be backed up by non-manufacturer references. I normally think to myself about how much money the manufacturer will gain from a statement. If they stand to gain lots of money then I treat it as suspect (especially 0-100 km/h times and fuel economy). If it doesn't really affect much (eg dimensions) then I trust them. Avoid forums and blogs unless they are hosting scans of official data or snippets from books and magazines. So called information on forums is often wrong, applies only to a local market or is just an opinion. Books and magazines double check their information and pass it through editors and lawyers - just in case they get sued. Forums rarely double check and practically never run it through a lawyer.  Stepho  talk  03:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You might want to try the following Haynes manuals: ISBN 9781785210150, ISBN 9780857339942 and ISBN 9780857339126. If you're really keen, there are also at least two similar manuals available in German (ISBN 9783613019676 and ISBN 9783716820605). I have added similar references to many of the articles about Mercedes-Benz models (eg Mercedes-Benz W124), but I haven't got around to Audi models as yet. As the A3 is not an enthusiast model, there aren't any books about them published by Brooklands, Crowood, or Motorbooks, and, as far as I am aware, none in German either. However, you might be able to find road test reviews of them in old issues of motoring magazines, which can be bought cheaply on eBay. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Usually its not hard to find reliable sources from internet, technical details is IMO best get from manufacturer pages, also performance data and maybe some independed data also to backup those claims, but its not good idea to add only some magazine results, those can vary a lot and there is in my experience quite often errors (in technical data) in many big magazines evo, auto motor und sport etc , and its easy to find all kinds of performance numbers bad or good. And in generally yes that A3 article needs lots more citations and references. -->Typ932 ^T·C 08:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This volume might help (though I am NOT suggesting necessarily buying it from Amazon: probably better value is available on the second-hand market). The earlier volumes certainly carry a bit more credibility and are more carefully checked pre-publication than most magazine articles (though they are NOT error-free). But I'm afraid my collection doesn't get past volume 4 which stops at 1990. Success Charles01 (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Ridler me this

Is the George Poteet who won the '96 Ridler the same one who ran 426 mph (686 km/h) in Speed Demon? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Why you think hes not? I tried to search some info from net, and I think its the same (90% sure) -->Typ932 ^T·C 09:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

When I put that up, it wasn't clear, & I didn't want to attach them & end up with somebody complaining they were two people & deleting the page. It now looks like he's the same guy. (Only now, somebody's complaining Speed Demon isn't notable... I can't win.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

EurovisionNim

People here may wish to be aware of this exchange at the page "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Though I'm afraid the various strands take a bit of disentangling in order to figure out what's going on. Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Im so tired of this photo war, so I dont even try to read that mess, basically they are using or trying use their own photos in articles, and in many cases they insist putting worse pictures than there is at the moment. -->Typ932 ^T·C 09:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Typ932 Just in case you mistakenly think me and Nim are the same person which a few people have done. In a nutshell, I started the ANI myself and provide a range of evidences to prove against and his disrupting editing, after about a week another user made a proposal which was when other users came forward with their interaction with Nim. --Vauxford (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Photo locations

Since the absent of certain individuals, I been wondering. Other then a few exceptions with some manufacturers such as Toyota and Honda as they make different versions for certain markets like the Honda Civic and Toyota HiLux. Is it really necessary to have the country where it was taken in? OSX likely to have started doing it as a shown of dominance for a country. That how Nim seem to have interpret it as anyway. --Vauxford (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

no photo location isnt necessary until it has some value, for example car is different in that specific location. -->Typ932 ^T·C 21:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

A photo location is most likely not necessary as it hardly offers any useful information. Even if the vehicle on display has some region-specific differences from the "regular version" (yellow headlamps, steering wheel on the right-hand side, etc.), I consider it much more useful to tell the reader about these specific differences rather than saying "this photo was taken in country xyz". --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I find them entirely unnecessary unless there is some external difference like extra impact absorbers. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd go so far as to say that the location of car photos should never be given, unless the car is in a museum or other public exhibition or rally. I say that to protect the privacy of the car's owner/user/driver (which is also why I think registration numbers should be disguised). If the car has a specific market peculiarity, that can, of course, be mentioned without giving the location of the photo. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The country is often vital information. Global manufacturers often change the grill, bumpers and lights to suit each market because these are cheap and easy to change and have a drastic affect on the style of a car. Some markets like Australia prefer a clean and harmonious look. Some markets like the US prefer a bold "look at me" look. The same car with different grill, etc can service both markets while looking quite different. The Corolla and the Yaris/Vitz are good examples of this. How the Holden Monaro#V2 became the Pontiac GTO#Fifth generation is another example (Holden had the make the slim aerodynamic grill into cheesy beaver buck teeth in order to make it saleable to Americans, who thought the original version looked like a sucked caramel). Manufactures know that style is a big factor in car sales and that every market prefers different styles.  Stepho  talk  22:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure add the market that the car was made for, but not the location where the photo was taken (other than for the exceptions I outlined above). -- DeFacto (talk). 22:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's yet another case where you have to judge each case individually. One-size-fits-all rules are going to give wrong decisions unnecessarily, and add a potentially unnecessary element of standardisation/monotony. Stepho-wrs' examples are of instances where it makes sense to spell out the locations. But I don't see that as a reason ALWAYS to give locations. And - on a slightly frivolous note - as things currently stand, if you ALWAYS insert sufficiently detailed locations you will confirm, for the casual en-wiki-reader, that half the cars in the world are concentrated either in a small corner of Western Australia or within a 20 mile radius of an otherwise unremarkable town called Leamington Spa. BUT when uploading pictures to commons, it probably does make sens, generally, to try and include information on where the car was photographed. Because you will never know for sure precisely what the picture may be used to illustrate. For instance ... maybe, not the car at all, but the unexpectedly famous street or city park where it was photographed. Regards Charles01 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 I don't see a problem if the cars that are photographed are in a fix location. What I mean is adding the location in the caption of the articles is unnecessary unless otherwise as per Stepho, you can write the location and other stuff in the description on the Commons which readers can view as they wish. --Vauxford (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs: There is just one problem with this: The location where a car was photographed does not have to match the region the car was originally made for. Especially in countries with lax motor vehicle regulations, low motor vehicle taxes, and low GDP, you will find a wide variaty of cars, e. g. a photo of a car taken in Hungary can show an American vehicle. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "have the country it was taken in?" Have it noted in the image description on Commons, or in the caption on the article? In the former case, it is neither harmful nor cumbersome to do so, and with most automobiles being "global" now it is likely to be worthwhile information. But in the latter case, only if it's needed to clarify details of its appearance. For example, File:79 Caprice Rear.JPG is of an export model and has amber rear turn signals. In the article, the caption states it as an export model since the vast majority of these Caprices were sold in North America, making the non-standard appearance worth noting. Or in an article on a European-market vehicle from the 1970s, a photo of one with U.S.-spec bumpers should have that fact noted in some fashion, because it isn't "standard" as far as the original design is concerned. If a vehicle has cosmetic differences from one market to another that are explained in the text, and an image shows that, the caption should have enough information that the reader knows which iteration is being shown. Not necessarily the country the picture was taken in per se, but something to tell the reader why it's different. --Sable232 (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

In answer to questions above, the location of the market that car was originally sold in is good to be in the caption because this shows what other cars of the same model in that market will look like. The location of where the photo was taken is almost always unimportant (concept cars at specific motor shows would be an exception) because grey market imports and cars driven across borders are not typical of that car in that location and hence not important for an encyclopedia (unless the event itself was of importance). Eg. A car originally built for the Japanese market, originally sold in Japan but later sent as a second hand car to Australia and then photographed in Australia should have Japan in the caption and not Australia.  Stepho  talk  22:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I can think of two cases where location of the photo might matter. One, a custom job not in its native country, so (frex) a Nissan Bluebird in California. (I don't consider that a really crucial fact to mention, but it might merit it; I don't disagree strongly with User:Stepho-wrs.) Two, where the location is important of itself, like the Paris-Dakar Rally or Monte Carlo Rally. Otherwise... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Toyota Soarer (Japan) - although the picture was taken in Canada, it's a JDM vehicle

This was never supposed to be the location where the photo was taken, but the market where the car was originally sold. I.e., this Soarer photographed in Canada is a JDM car. I absolutely agree that there is no benefit to knowing that a certain photo was taken in Chile, but it would be worthwhile to know that a Chevrolet Aska was originally sold in Chile since it may have had specific specifications.

Could we please start this discussion over, but stating that the country the car was intended for is what should be stated? And I agree that we do not need to write "Japan" for every photo of a JDM car, or "US" for every Chevrolet, but only where it would be of interest. The location of the photo would rarely be of interest beyond what someone could find out by simply clicking the image.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and I find it especially pointless to put Japan in the caption for a JDM car that was/is only sold in Japan. Toasted Meter (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)