Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Category:Mid-engined vehicles

Category:Mid-engined vehicles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Template:Infobox engine

As has already been noted by others, some of the label names for Template:Infobox engine are 'not ideal' at best.
Using 'Emissions' instead of 'Exhaust' for example would be a good idea, given that the two parameters are all about that. The usage of 'Combustion chamber' is very wrong in the context and perhaps should be changed to 'Layout' or something better suited. While changing that maybe the order of the parameters can be re-sorted to: configuration / displacement / valvetrain / bore / stroke / compression / head / block.
One more parameter, or two, for number of valves per cylinder and timing control would be useful as well. A lot of engines exist in variations with 2 or 4 valves per cylinder and there are 3, 5 or more valve engines. Timing control would be nice to have so that it is immideately clear what setup a particular engine uses (belt/chain/gear/...)
Re-sorted to this: configuration / displacement / valvetrain / valvespercylinder / bore / stroke / compression / timingcontrol / head / block. And if someone could think of something better than 'Combustion' for that catch all section the template would be much better. Ideas, criticism, comments?
2A02:2028:836:6D01:A42D:82B4:E15D:E2BC (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you maybe make a proposed version (a mock-up) and show it next to the original? That way I would be better able to offer an opinion. Thanks for your effort!  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A quick and horrible mock up. See here or take a look at the page history if the bots wipe the page. Not side-by-side with the current Infobox engine. Changes are as follows: Chronology moved to the bottom of the infobox | removed link from RPM range (why was that even there?) | added new field for valves per cylinder linking to Multi-valve | changed order of fields in Layout and Combustion | renamed Exhaust to Emissions | renamed Combustion chamber to Layout 2A04:4540:110A:1501:5834:95F3:19FD:BE80 (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes have been done to the template. At the moment only minor things have changed. Moved 'Chronology' to the bottom of the infobox, removed the wikilink from 'RPM Range' and instead linked to the articles for idle and redline. Renamed the 'Exhaust' section to 'Emissions' and linked to emissions regulations and equipment, changed 'Combustion chamber' to 'Layout'. Given the lack of reaction by anyone other than Mr. choppers (because words appeared on his talk page) please take a look. Be happy, be indifferent or get angry and revert. But show some reaction and if possible a constructive one. Cheers. 2A04:4540:1100:5501:F421:FDA6:398E:464B (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd call that much better. One gripe: use of "alloy" for block & heads; I'd suggest "material", instead, since there's a convention to call aluminum "alloy" among some magazine writers. Also, I'm wondering if valvetrain is meant to include number & location of cams, number & location of valves (OHV or flathead), or both; breaking that into two sections might be better. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Alloy wheels bruh! From the context I'd say that the usage of "alloy" is correct in that it refers to "a mix of materials - alloy" and not Aluminium. Engines made from cast-iron for example fit perfectly. At the same time it does get confusing when the engine is made from Aluminium or Magnesium. If a third party could make a suggestion or given opinion that would be great.
If you look at my original proposal I had the idea to include number of valves per cylinder. As it stands now there is to much mashed together in Layout and Combustion. At the same time adding another section would make the infobox even longer and possibly more cluttered. Number of camshafts could be debated, location seems a bit to detailed. Perhaps some things should be moved around. I have seen on some articles that the angle of the engine (for example 60° V8) is added to the configuration entry. That makes sense and I'll add it to the template documentation.
While writing this I find an issue as to how Fuel system and Management are meant to be used. Wouldn't it be much better for readibility and context to do it a little different? For carbureted engines the management part should be ignored and the entry be formatted with the type and manufacturer of the carb. However for cars with fuel injection saying that the fuel system is "mechanical fuel injection" or "sequential fuel injection" or something something and than saying that the management is "Bosch K-jet" or "GM LS GEN-III ECM" makes more sense. Change the order to management, fuel type, fuel system (oil system, cooling system) would than make it perhaps nice to read. Thanks for the reply. 2A04:4540:1100:5501:F421:FDA6:398E:464B (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good but questions I would like to see answered:

1. material of block, heads (main constituent of the alloy? iron / steel / aluminium — I'm no metallurgist)
2. camshaft drive — gears / shaft / chain / belt (any more?)
3. pistons and connecting rods — materials and style
4. number of crankshaft bearings

Why so much worry about size of the infobox? Are we not trying to provide information? If the info is not supplied the question gets suppressed doesn't it.
Eddaido (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud that at some point having an extremely detailed infobox might become an issue. The infobox for cameras does a great job at providing as many details as possibly, at the same time it is often longer and more detailed than the actual article. There should be some balance. At the same time some (engine or engine related) articles have an almost useless infobox because authors would rather have no duplicate information and thus write the information in prose.
There are already fields for block and head material. Only that they say "cylinder head alloy" not "cylinder head material". As to what is better is up for discussion - alloy would be more correct as in that the main constituent (cast-iron etc.) gets mentioned BUT at the same time the usage of "alloy" for "aluminium" could confuse readers.
Camshaft drive I had thought about. I can make a mockup, perhaps "timing control" or like you mentioned "camshaft drive" would be good.
I don't think adding piston/rod material and design would be helpful. Same for the number of crankshaft bearings, that really doesn't need mentioning in the infobox. 2A04:4540:1100:5501:F421:FDA6:398E:464B (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Piston rod design and material would not be helpful, number of crankshaft bearings too, because?

Aside from that, who wants to stumble through a lot of usually amateur prose for a few muddled facts. I do know some editors say they like to do that. Why? How do they go with airline timetables? Would they prefer them in narrative form too?
Why are you anonymous? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The infobox template should focus on the slots to be described, not their ranges. It should say "camshaft drive" but not take any part in specifying that this must be "belt" or "chain". There are always going to be exceptions to this (such as shaft drive, or even a coupling rod drive). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Makes good sense to me. I wanted to show (the editor concerned) why the info would be useful. Eddaido (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There are good arguments on both sides for including or omitting the likes of, frex, belt or chain drive for cams: is the infobox a summary, or a detailed description? I tend to think it should hit the highlights, for the uninitiated, & leave the gearhead details for the text body. That being so, "fuel management" (a term I have a problem with) should limit itself to "single carb" (or "single 4bbl), "dual carb" (or "dual 2bbl"), "FI", "EFI", & leave the make & model to the text; cam drive omitted, but number of cams in; valve location in, because it's key to the engine design (OHVs & flattys are very different animals), ditto number of valves; block & head material in (but arguable); piston materials, number of crank bearings, & composition of conrods, & the like is real gearhead detail, better left to the text (or we're going to start asking for the cam spec & grind #, & the valve diameters...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Myself I've not always but often found text about engines just embroidery dotted with some confusingly positioned facts. I think the facts should be tabulated. There was a long period when multi-cylinder cars with two or three bearings had very short-lived engines when flexing cranks died (e.g. MGB) and the same when con rods broke and threw pistons through the side. That manufacturers may or do not usually make those mistakes now is not ground for exclusion. Or is it only the 2010s we are recording and the 2020s we are preparing for (which will soon enough be over too)? If there is no content for the slot the slot does not appear. Don't we hope WP will become an accumulation, a repository of useful info not like a printed book with a brief lifetime. Eddaido (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There is such a thing as to much information. My understanding of Wikipedia is that the goal is to provide useful information while not trying to provide every little detail. WP is an encyclopedia not a website all about the (subjectively) very interesting design of the VEP3 timing belt that has a 17mm width to reduce friction losses.
My understanding of the engine infobox is that it should provide most information a person might need at a glance. There is no way the infobox alone can adequately capture all revelant information and thus shut not be crammed full of it. So tl;dr: Infobox has the quick facts and highlights and the article has the nitty gritty details
How would model year changes be reflected in the infobox? Or regional differences like additional equipment to comply with laws & regulations? That is best described in prose. The issue is often that the prose is lacking.
If an engine had issues with bearings or any other part of the design that should be mentioned in the article itself.
Saying that the camshaft drive is a belt, a chain, a cog or magic would be relevant to the template docmentation, it was not my intention to force that into the infobox directly. 2A04:4540:110A:3D01:5962:3A4D:5FE8:2563 (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Your thoughts are strongly skewed to current design. Have you noticed your need to exaggerate in order to make your point? I rest my case. Eddaido (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As someone who writes a lot about older cars, I agree that engine bearings need to be available. This was important (not primary, but at least secondary) information for many decades.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Mary Barra

Some edit warring going on here, I just want to make sure the paragraph below does not belong in the Mary Barra article, before I report the user and their anonymous IP:

Barra has said "We'll always continue to do the right thing, if we become aware of an issue were gonna take action", and "No more crappy cars"[16]. Some have questioned the validity of such statements due to issues like the vibrations in the K2XX platform [17] widely reported and discussed [18] as the "Chevy Shake" across social media, GM-Trucks.com, and ThisTruckSucks.com.

To me it violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Not to mention "some have questioned" and forums like ThisTruckSucks are not reliable sources. This text also appears in Chevrolet Silverado and GMT K2XX, which are at least a little more appropriate but still reek of bitter customer complaining, especially since they're the only edits the user has made. --Vossanova ^o< 18:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I would agree. This is not encyclopedic. It's a corporate vs personal issue and clearly an example of someone with an ax to grind. Putting it on Barra's page would be an BLP issue because it's an accusation of bad faith. Putting it in the car and corporate page would probably be UNDUE. Springee (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It is possible, and probably necessary, to include some of this without using YouTube or other primary sources, or self-published forums. Rewrite it and cite Fortune, CNN Money, Barra's biography, Automotive News, etc.

There's no violation of BLP or NPOV here. It's simple case of weasel words "some have said", and using crappy sources instead of reliable ones. This kind of attitude of a CEO trying to turn a company around is not out of the ordinary or surprising. Lee Iacocca said far more provocative things. The edit summary "This is not the right place for customer complaints, or linking to them" is false. This bio should of course cover this category of information, it's central to Barra's work and goals. But it should only come from reliable sources, not forums or social media. When a CEO has said they are trying to turn a company around, we should not be coy about what they are trying to turn it around from.

In short, instead of reverting, try rewriting and re-sourcing. That is what WP:BRD is saying you should do. You don't like what one editor did, so revise what they did with different words, better sources, a better tone, etc. They will likely revise what you did, and so on. You will likely end up agreeing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Putting those two "facts" together to draw a conclusion is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Unless a reliable source is countering her claims with that evidence, it is not allowed for us to do it. And Youtube isn't at all the right kind of source, as it isn't a secondary source here. I don't care about the content on a personal level, but as an admin, I would consider it disruptive if they continue to add synth. We don't draw conclusions, we document facts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• IP editor returned. I've requested page protection. Might be needed for the related pages of Chevrolet Silverado and GMT_K2XX. Springee (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I just went and protected the pages myself. The BLP alone was worth protecting. I'm pretty sure I haven't done any significant editing to either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

IMO, Dennis is right on the approach, but wrong on this content. The cited sources, on their names alone, would leave me doubting their neutrality & reliability, & for that, they'd fail for inclusion on a BLP page. If Fortune oder C&D said it, & it was sourced, OTOH... Except it's not. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Torque steering

Torque steering seems to be missing intentional use of torque for steering. It only covers the problem of unintentional unbalanced torque. IIRC it is normal for many caterpillar drive vehicles to use torque for steering control by applying differential torque to each track. And then there's stunt driving. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Torque steering is always due to imperfections in the design and manufacture of the suspension and steering components. The different angles and lengths of the drive half-shafts is applied through rubber bushings and a flexible tyre wall that flex at times that we don't want. Whereas Caterpillar tractors and skid-steer loaders use differential steering which doesn't rely on the flexing of suspension and steering components. Unfortunately, differential steering doesn't seem to have a decent article or section that I can find.  Stepho  talk  00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Started Differential steering article today, for better or worse. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks very good.  Stepho  talk  22:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

What is a production car?

We are having a discussion about what defines a production car at Talk:Production car speed record#Suggested updated production car and test specification definition/list rules (also read the sections just above for context). This is so that we know which cars are eligible for production car speed records and which are not. Comments welcome at that talk page.  Stepho  talk  03:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

"History is Bunk!"

But that, as they (WikiProject Automobiles members) say, is history now. Jaguar is bought by an Indian group - but they're still made in England. Bentley is bought by a German group (and Rolls-Royce too) and some of their recent cars are made in England. Volvo has a Chinese owner but, I think, still makes them in Sweden. MG has a Chinese owner but no longer manufactures in England and today an editor has removed the tie to Birmingham.

Can we recognise that Geely and VW and co all just bought brand names and images and accordingly in Wikipedia can we create new articles for the businesses since these new owners took over? So the preceding businesses are history now but in a very short time tomorrow in Wikipedia will be history too.

I plan to Boldly split the articles on these particular businesses and maybe others. Is that OK? Eddaido (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I would leave them as-is. The brands often get resold with little different to the manufacturing workers, salesmen and customers. Jaguar was bought by Ford, then resold. But Jaguar was mostly unchanged (apart from using the Ford parts bin for a while). Similar for a lot of the other brands.  Stepho  talk  23:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

And the other businesses? You may have missed my sharpest point, — MG, but there are others. Eddaido (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I definitely think something needs doing. I have puzzled over how to handle this for years. I tried to distinguish between companies and marques. For example, the Rover Company created the Rover (marque) which was subsequently used by British Leyland, Rover Group and MG Rover and is now owned (but not used) by Jaguar Land Rover. The company histories are one thing and the marques are another. Mini is an awkward one too, it has never been a company, only a marque - produced by BMC, BL and Rover Group and now by BMW. Jaguars are no longer produced by Jaguar Cars - it went defunct at the end of 2012 when its business was transferred to Jaguar Land Rover. The same for Land Rover (including Land Rover Range Rover). MG Cars is defunct and MGs were also produced by BL, Rover Group and MG Rover before MG Motor bought the marque (but not the old company). -- DeFacto (talk). 23:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

My current favourite is a long established English automotive business that admitted an Asian minority shareholder. The minority shareholder insisted on the fitting of a particular Asia sourced component on all production. After twelve months or so all those components failed, recalls were instituted for every vehicle. Manufacturer suffered financial collapse. Minority shareholder picks up the pieces trying not to smile. To protect any innocents no names from me. Eddaido (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The principles implied by WP:COMMONNAME are that articles are organized around widely recognized names and the things and events that are understood by normal people as falling under that name. That’s one reason why we omit LLC or GMBH or whatever in article titles, and why Chrysler is the top-level article about everything that is covered under the topic we call Chrysler. Not necessarily the legal entity that has existed for the last few years, but all the stuff that “Chrysler” refers to from a broad, historic, non-recent-centric perspective. The near 100 years of Chrysler events and people and things under that topic, including companies and products that existed before the Chrysler Co. legal entity even existed. Sub-topics like Maxwell automobile or Fiat Chrysler Automobiles happen to have their own articles that fall under the broader topic of Chrysler. This is why we separated the topic Kawasaki motorcycles from the Kawasaki corporate divisions making motorcycles that have had various names and arrangements over the decades. The topic never changes no matter how often the company reorganizes. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sticking to these principles (in the manner as set out immediately above) would lead to hopeless confusion. A barouche is a particular type of horse-drawn carriage, a kind of grosser Mercedes of its day. Within Wikimedia Commons a number of (geographically remote) people call (ed) their (very rough) wagons with seats fixed on them barouches. Who is Wikipedia to believe about "common names" in this case?

I fail to see how a US citizen looking for MG cars would be looking for a Chinese product using old Rover pressings. We need those LLC or GMBH or whatever to settle the confusions and anyway, isn't Chrysler Italian? Or is my history at fault.

Doesn't the Search function solve the problems proposed by Denis Bratland? Eddaido (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's right there in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). We use (company) if necessary, or Inc. oder LLC if we must. The confusion you talk about could be aruged around any any instance of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, from Water (disambiguation) to Pluto (disambiguation). It's a good system. We don't need to go chasing our tails every time a company gets bought or merged or renamed. The guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECENTISM let us clarify what is what and keep our articles stable, almost always. Sometimes, as in John Smith, we punt. It still works, and we don't need to panic when a company gets bought and the legal entity changes its nationality or name. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that's too simple a model for many British examples. Looking at Jaguar again... Jaguar came into existence as a marque of SS Cars Ltd, who also used the SS marque. Should we have one article for SS-badged cars and another for Jaguar-badged or one to cover both? If the latter, what would we cal it? But then SS Cars was renamed to Jaguar Cars so what do we do then? Later Jaguar Cars bought the Daimler Company and used both the Jaguar and Daimler marques on the same cars - what article would they be described in? Jaguar Cars was then bought by Leyland Trucks. Later Leyland Trucks morphed into British Leyland and they merged Jaguar, Rover and Triumph into the Jaguar Rover Triumph division. Later again Jaguar Cars was privatised. Then bought by Ford, then bought by Tata Motors. Recently it was merged with Land Rover to form Jaguar Land Rover. Sure the Jaguar marque has been in continuous use since about 1935, but its history is intertwined and overlaps heavily with that of umpteen other British marques. Perhaps what we should have is one article covering the Jaguar marque from 1935 to date, with sections for the various eras hatted to the appropriate main articles, and then separate articles covering the histories of the various companies encountered during the journey of the marque. The company articles could invoke the various marque articles as appropriate. But where would we document the development of the dual-marqued vehicles such as the Daimler/Jaguar cars? Many other British marques have similarly contorted histories. Think also BL/Rover/MG, Austin, Morris, Riley, Wolseley, Princess, Vanden Plas and Rootes/Chrysler/Peugeot, Hillman, Humber, Singer, Talbot. The article granularity needs very serious consideration. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally think this is a no problem that comes from associating companies and brands to a nationalist agenda in a globalised world. That's one of the reasons I strongly oppose using flags for companies. Volvo Cars is still a Swedish company, JLR is still British not because both keep a pure national identity but because they are registered in Sweden and the UK. Companies can have subsidiaries, and the subsidiaries can be registered in different countries that the parents, simple as that. Most automotive companies have foreign shareholders with significant stakes (as Nissan, PSA or VAG) and we don't consider their nationality has been somehow altered. As for brands, they're still associated with its country of origin except when they expressed otherwise. In consumer electronics, it's already common practice to sell products with a famous name tied to a certain country while the product itself is assembled by a company of different origin (mostly China). Urbanoc (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Dennis on this one. I think it's a problem that just doesn't need solving. Also, consider two recent examples with GM and Chrysler. Someone wanted to rename General Motors to Liquidation Motors Corp. Well that is the final name of the legal company but the organization, people etc continued as GM Company. That would mean that someone who wanted to look up Sloan's company would have to find Liquidation Motors. Chrysler has a similar story with DaimlerChrysler and later. The parent corp has changed but the people and organization have been continuous. I'm not as sure how to handle something like Bugatti where we have three distinct operations. Springee (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it's usually not a hard problem. I know that some names are truly ambiguous and you can't have a primary topic. But those cases are rare. I just want to note in the comments above, various editors have used names like Jaguar, Volvo, Bugatti, GM and so on. You were just able to say Volvo or Jaguar and you didn't have to add a bunch of qualifiers: you knew that the rest of us knew what you were referring to with that word. Bingo! That is a primary topic. That is what the title of the article should be. Rather than overthink it, we should follow our instincts and realize that if you can write a sentence like "Jaguar is bought by an Indian group - but they're still made in England" without all of us saying "Jaguar? Which Jaguar?" then Jaguar is a perfectly good article title. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Well put, Dennis. Agreed.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly Dennis, I mostly agree. But today we do not have that, for many British marques at least (look for Daimler, Jaguar, Land Rover, MG, Rover, ...). If you look for such a "Jaguar" article, for instance, you won't find one. The best you will get is Jaguar Cars, named after one of the defunct companies that used to build the cars. It majors on the history of that one company, with sketchy and clumsy references to other purchasers of that company clumsily shoehorned in - so not a concise history of the marque itself. It would be better if named more appropriately ("Jaguar (marque)" or similar) and if it gave a complete overview of the history of just the marque through its different eras, and not sidetracking into the specific company's history, acquisitions, takeovers, etc. It should link to more specific articles for the specific company details and histories. And that is, I think (he'll correct if I misunderstood him), what Eddaido was imagining too. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be Jaguar cars, lowercase c, about the topic of all Jaguar cars. Or use Jaguar automobile if you prefer. Swallow Sidecar, Jaguar Cars, Jaguar Land Rover and so on are sub-topics of Jaguar cars, just as Bantam or Kaiser-Willys are sub-topic or related articles to the topic of Jeep. As I've said, this isn't unique to cars. Most products that have been around for decades have had many owners and rebrandings. If I wanted to know all about Jaguar, Id' want to start with Jaguar cars (lowercase) because I'd want an overview of all of it. The primary topic is where you start. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: a similar discussion is also taking place at: Talk:Mini (BMW)#Name of this article: Mini, Mini (BMW), Mini (marque). -- DeFacto (talk). 20:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Calling Kookie Burns

File:Ford Model-T T-Bucket hot rod.jpg

User:Locationshooter has now uploaded this picture twice to T-bucket. I've rv'd twice, because the actual car is barely visible, & because there's an embedded copyright notice on the photo. The info page for the image claims this is an original, but this user has, apparently, already had an allegedly "original" work removed, & on that basis, I doubt it. So...if anybody cares to weigh in with stronger action than I can take, feel free. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC) (BTW, if it's a copyvio, take it down from here, too!)

I think this is a completely useless image for encyclopedia. Cheers - CZmarlin (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's one of those illusion images. If you stare at it for about 5 minutes you'll eventually see a car in the background. Might be appropriate for an article on denim shorts or possible an article on sexy backsides but its useless for a car article. It also says copyright 2010 West-World Photograph, so no-go from the get-go.  Stepho  talk  10:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

♠It reminds me a little of the scene in "Night Moves" where Melanie's taking her top off. There is a truck in the BG, but unless you've seen the film a fair number of times, chances are, you never noticed...never mind what it says on the truck's door.

♠Needless to say, I'm in complete agreement with the above-expressed sentiments. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Year in motoring articles

Hi all! In the backlog of articles with no sources are a number of articles of the form "#### in motoring":

• 1981 in motoring
• 1982 in motoring
• 1983 in motoring
• 1984 in motoring
• 1985 in motoring
• 1986 in motoring
• 1987 in motoring
• 1988 in motoring
• 1989 in motoring
• 1990 in motoring

Just from quickly spot-checking a few of them, I think they all have several paragraphs of text but no sources. That said, they all appear to have info that could be sourced fairly easily. So my question (since I have no knowledge of anything automotive) is do the people here thinkt hese are useful articles to source and maintain? Or should we consider merging the info in them elsewhere, or nominating them for deletion as unencyclopedic? Any thoughts are much appreciated! Thanks and happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ajpolino, You are not alone on noting that these articles are lacking in many respects. They have a sketchy and narrow perspective - without any context - of a random selection of new car introductions. This type of information already seems to exist in the Timeline of motor vehicle brands. Moreover, I think the titles are misleading because "motoring" typically refers to "traveling in a car, especially when considered as a recreation" (See Dictionary) and not to a list of automakers and their cars. Nevertheless, there was a discussion about deleting these articles and several contributors claimed that they could easily expanded and improved. Apparently none have bothered to do so for almost one year. Cheers! - CZmarlin (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I assume you mean here. I hadn't seen that before since the name is hard to search. If you want to merge those articles somewhere or engage in some kind of cleanup, ping me and I'm happy to help. Cheers. Ajpolino (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Bunk, Cruft and The Earls Court Motor Shows

When the British automotive industry sent vehicles all over the world much as the Japanese do now they, as The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, held an annual jamboree / show at Earls Court which captured front page news headlines and was opened by Royalty. It was important to the nation. That seemed to end with the 1960s and then there were the industry's terminal disasters of the 1970s

The show was the occasion of the industry’s report of the last 12 months as they experienced it and the chair’s opening speech was all about that and I have added notes of these comments to the article.

Another member of this project has quite incorrectly described these notes as ‘cruft’ and deleted 9,500 bytes of them. To my mind this is quite wrong.

Would members like to look at the article both before and after Trekphiler’s amendments and make their own comments on the talk page about this disagreement.

Please, Eddaido (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Automobiles

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 13:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of modern crash tests for older cars

A number of (probably related) IP editors have been removing/altering crash test results from articles about old Russian cars, such as Lada Riva, Lada Samara, UAZ Simbir on the grounds that they are 'unnecessary for an old model (which is older than the test itself)'. I'd like to have some extra feedback on whether there is some sort of consensus on the matter. Thanks!--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This is hard question, because those old models surely have bad results, they are not for sale in most countries anymore. Not sure if its necessary to have data which is valid only for some countries -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As an IP editor who removed the data, I'd like to point out that modern-day car safety assessment programmes were introduced and became necessary for car manufacturers only in the 1990s (Euro NCAP was formed in November 1996), hence it is self-evident that older cars designed decades before these tests cannot meet modern safety standards. They might have been crash tested in a different manner and considered as safe before, in their best years, but since then car safety standards, technologies, regulations, and tests have changed drastically. In my opinion, it is absurd and unnecessary to edit articles about vintage cars, adding everywhere that, say, "in 2012 a 1960s VW Beetle failed to pass a test introduced in 2001", as such an old car is obviously outdated in terms of safety, much older than the test itself, and there is no way it can have a better result and compete with newer cars. Also, the edits I removed made no mention that the test is a modern one, introduced only in 2001, while the cars are not. I tried to improve that, but the opposing user reverted my edits as WP:SYN. Lastly, I've got to say that all the aforementioned crash tests were introduced and conducted by only one private magazine, according to its own programme. 90.155.195.3 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were a shopping guide then we would only want to include relevant contemporary shoppers advice and not distract car buyers with anachronistic tests. But it’s not. An encyclopedia is about giving broad insight and allowing readers to see context. A modern crash test on an old car is an excellent way to give today’s readers a way to relate to the past. We convert foreign currencies and correct money values for inflation for the same reasons. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that many of those cars are old in design only. The Lada Riva was the best selling car model in Russia as recently as 2008 (the ARCAP test is from 2001). Tens of thousands of Lada 4x4 are still sold today across a number of countries.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if you check the source you have cited, you'll see that it says virtually nothing about the Riva. And of course it wasn't the best-selling car model in Russia in 2008. 90.155.195.3 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If you check the source and bother to select the right year, you'll find that it was.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't work properly in my browser for some reason, but I've seen your screenshot. 90.155.195.3 (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking at this, I'm not seeing how it violates SYN; I see no conclusions being drawn. As for irrelevance, the cars are still on the road & still in production, so the fact they can't pass modern crash tests is germane (if not exactly fair). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:00 & 22:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

If a reliable source did a modern crash test on the Patent-Motorwagen I'd love to see it in the article Benz Patent-Motorwagen. We aren't selling cars here. It's irrelevant whether or not it's on the market or in production because we aren't influenced by whether readers are making buying decisions or are deciding if they should ride in this car or that car. We're not giving advice or guiding people's decision. We're only trying to help people understand things, and that means all things from the beginning of time. It's terrible how many articles are framed with the needs of the contemporary consumer in mind. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Verb tenses for out-of-production models

Does the project have a recommended way of describing out-of-production models in the lead sentence, specifically with respect to verb tenses? I have generally been using the format "[Model Foo] is a [car type] that was produced by [manufacturer] between [date 1] and [date 2]", as this recognises that the model is no longer produced, but examples are still in existence. However, I have encountered at least one other approach recently, and wondered if this has been discussed before? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I have seen, or participated in, at least two or three previous discussions about this. And, quite a long time back I raised a similar question via the teahouse ('is' vs 'was') and something 'like' the method noted above was felt to be the best way. Eagleash (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Three door and five door

User:Dogs.barking.duster.rolling has been changing the body style attribute in the infoboxes of vehicles with hatches connected to the interior of cars from two or four door to three door and five door, counting the hatch as a door. I am not particularly in favor of this, in my mind a door is a opening intended for the entry and egress of passengers, if we count all openings that a passenger might be able to fit through as doors irregardless of car type as with the 350Z [1] it would seem that one should call the Corvette McLaren 570GT three doors as well, there also seems to be possibility for confusion when it comes to vehicles like the Hyundai Veloster with three proper doors and a hatch, should it be described as a four door? In my opinion this should be reserved for conventional hatchbacks if it's to be used at all, but I would like some other views on this. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe it depends a lot on the area. In the US, hatches generally aren't seen as doors but in Europe (and possible Asia?) they are. In my opinion a hatch is simply a door in the back of the car. I don't think it's a door/hatch if only the window opens (the way it is most Corvettes I believe), then it's just a window. It's an interesting topic and I think we need more opinions on this. There doesn't seem to be a general approach to this in Wikipedia as some hatch-equipped coupes are classified as three-doors and some as two-doors, probably depending on who wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogs.barking.duster.rolling (talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

We had this discussion a few years back and the consensus was that the rear door of hatchbacks, liftbacks, wagons and similar counts as a door. Too sleepy to dig it up from the archives right now. The current consensus is written up at {{Infobox_automobile}} as 'Note: station wagons, hatchbacks, etc, are given an extra door to signify their larger rear openings compared to coupés and sedans, etc.' Of course, consensus can change but the changes to the articles should wait until after the discussion.  Stepho  talk  15:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 18#How many doors does a wagon have? it? Under that rule the 350Z seams to not fit as a wagon or hatchback and should be described as a 2 door, is that right? Toasted Meter (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that's the correct archive. The 350Z is a liftback (in spite of Nissan calling it a coupe) and I would count liftback doors the same as hatchback doors, in this case, 3-door. The same would apply for my own Toyota AE86, even though I have only entered through the rear hatch a couple of times when shifting heavy items.  Stepho  talk  09:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Carsalesbase.com and detailed list of Volvo Cars sales

Hi! There's a discussion at Talk:Volvo Cars#Sales figures about carsalesbase.com as a source and about the section Volvo Cars#Annual sales by country. Input from editors with experience of editing car-related articles would be appreciated. Sjö (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

General Motors

Need some help over at General Motors. Have and editor that has tagged the article with a neutral point of view tag....but I am not sure what the concern is. All they have metioned is they would like to see death rates and I think they are saying the article reads like an add. I will research the death rates....but not sure about the add thing as the article looks like other big 5 car pages.--Moxy (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The ignition switch recall and death toll are both mentioned at the bottom with a link to a more detailed page. I think that's perfectly fine for the matter. Sounds like the editor has an axe to grind with GM (and they're not the first). --Vossanova ^o< 20:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Share certificates

coachbuilder Gordon England

A collector of some kind is adding images of old share certificates to articles about members of the industry. Has been doing so for some time. In this particular case see Gordon England (coachbuilder) and France's Austin Seven. There are very many more.

Is this a good thing or cruft? If cruft deprecate or delete on sight? Eddaido (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Gordon England (coachbuilder) is an odd one. The article leads with a badge, then a stock certificate, then a picture of a building. Then down at the bottom possibly as an afterthought, the company's actual products. The images are fine, but I'd reverse those priorities. I don't think the stock certificates are cruft, but they should have a low priority. When you have layout problems or too little text to support all the images then you'd want to remove low-priority images. For example, in Minerva (automobile), adding the image exacerbates a MOS:SANDWICHING problem (though sandwiching was already there). Maybe if an article has a gallery at the bottom, the stock thing could go there, but in general we'd want to see images that tell us something distinct about a company. If the stock certificate supports actual article content, then it has more value. We don't need to go out of our way to delete all of these additions, but any that are causing issues should be removed or moved down. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

So that's just a deprecate? They will always have the legal name of the company concerned on them but after that . . . , for example, what more do we learn from them of Minerva, or of Gordon England's business? Zero. Eddaido (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce

Rolls-Royce is divided into a complicated set of articles based on its various corporate entities, which lacks a coherent overall history of the company. The Automotive portion is split between Rolls-Royce Limited (1904-1973), Rolls-Royce Motors (1973-1998), Rolls-Royce Motors (1998-Present) and List of Rolls-Royce motor cars (1904-present). Would it make sense to consolidate Rolls-Royce's history as an automotive brand under one article, similar to the way Lotus and Chrysler are organized? Is this something that members of this project would be interested in tackling or weighing in on? –dlthewave ☎ 22:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Bandini deletions

User:TenPoundHammer has redirected all Bandini automodel pages (example Bandini 1100 (1946) )to main page of Bandini Automobili. What you think? should we restore those pages, there is huge amount of work now "deleted", he hasnt even consulted this group in any way before making such big changes -->Typ932 ^T·C 09:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The various entries in question have been attracting readers. Even if they had not, being uninteresting to one individual contributor who's having a bad day is not a sufficient reason for deleting entries in this way. That is the route to a withered scope that directly defies the eye-watering ambitions of wikipedia's founders. The issue in this particular case is not the introduction of "redirects" but the fact that it has been done in order to cloak a series of deletions. The failure to discuss or explain is a bizarre discourtesy. The entries need to be reinstated. But once reinstated they also badly need (like 95% of the entries on wikipedia) to be improved. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, Bandini is probably not ther best known make but that is no reason why the models should not have their own pages. There is a lot of useful content that has been hidden and they should be reinstated. I have put an objection in to the Speedy Delete of the Category page for Bandini vehicles. Malcolma (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of the material came from the Italian Wikipedia entries. Problem both there and here must be the lack of any sources for the content. Anybody care to add some? Mighty Antar (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Bulk revert, discuss, and ANI. Tired of this guy, and this is a regular problem from him. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_13#Category:Bandini_Automobili is egregious. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_13 Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Redirection of 15+ articles on related topics in a short space of time, without prior discussion, is not how we are supposed to do things. Agreed, it's not the best-known manufacturer, and some of the articles may need work on sourcing, style etc. and some may genuinely not be 'notable' enough, but a blanket removal does not seem like an overall improvement. Eagleash (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Also this "11:54, 13 January 2018 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Bandini vehicles (G6: empty)" at Category:Bandini vehicles is just more entirely predictable bloody awful bad admining, from someone who shouldn't have a mop. Here's a clue, because it might be stating the obvious, but evidently they're not aware of it: empty categories don't just magically appear. Much of the time it's because they've just been emptied deliberately and wrongly, and that (maybe another surprise here?) is that isn't a good reason for speedy deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G6_on_"empty"_categories? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Eagleash. The material looks like it is probably notable. There doesn't seem to be any indication that editors involved with the articles were notified nor was the material retained when the articles were redirected. The articles should be restored then dealt with on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I redirected them all because they were all full of overly technical garbage and clearly hadn't been edited at all in over 10 years. I felt that if they were notable on their own, then WP:TNT was the only option. No article should be sitting cold and unedited that long. If you want to unfuck the articles, go for it. My main concern was eliminating rampant misuse of {{Cleanup}}, an effectively meaningless maintenance tag from the olden days. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This is bad behavior. Is it badly sourced? Yes. Is it badly written? Yes. Does it deserve keeping? Yes. SCCA wins confer notability, even if you happen not to be a fan of amateur sports car racing (& I'm not). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The articles were so badly written, though, that I didn't see anything that was worth keeping. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The articles were poorly translated from Italian and at least some of the material originates from the Bandini Register. I wasn't aware the olden days had ended or that unedited articles had a use by date! perhaps replacing {{Cleanup}} with {{Cleanup rewrite}}} or {{technical}} would have been a more constructive option. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a whisker away from ANI as it is. Don't push it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)