Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please remember to: Be civil Start new topics at the bottom, and give your message a descriptive heading. Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia or frequently asked questions. To add a message, click here.

Archives
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 1 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 2 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 3 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 4 Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Automobiles/Archive 5

Some important propositions regarding the functioning of this Project were made.

[edit] An 'automobile' is a car.

I've been working on improving the Automobile article. In the course of doing that, the question "What is the definition of Automobile?" came up (I'm beginning to really wish it hadn't!). It seems that we all seem to have different ideas about what the word means. I thought it included cars, pickup trucks, and all kinds of small, road vehicles - but not busses or 18 wheelers or back-hoes or golf-carts. My son and my wife were consulted and they both included busses and big trucks in their personal idea of what the word meant - my son included motorbikes - my wife did not. So I did a dictionary search (which you can read about in detail in Talk:Automobile) - the conclusion of which is undoubtedly that the word automobile is defined almost universally as "A car or a small SUV" - but not a pickup truck or a bus or a motorbike or a back-hoe. This leaves us with a problem. The Automobile article needs to talk about lots of other vehicle types beyond small passenger vehicles ("cars"). Well, this issue spreads further - this project is called WikiProject Automobiles - yet we encompass a bunch of things that do not fit into the definition of "automobile". Rather than repeat the debate here, could I just recommend everyone who hasn't yet been there go over to Talk:Automobile and catch up with the discussion. SteveBaker 15:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we need to adopt a wider definition of an "automobile" than just "passenger cars" - some reasoning behind that is in my terribly formulated musings on talk:Automobile. I would say that the project should serve as an "umbrella project" for cars, trucks, vans and buses (as well as vehicles "in between", such as present-day American pickup trucks), but obviously not motorcycles and special and military vehicles - which excludes backhoe loaders, bulldozers (no pun intended) and tanks. As I presume most members of this WikiProject have considerably less interest in trucks and buses, we might start sub-projects related to those vehicles inviting people who are interested in these topics, and let the subject of cars remain within the scope of this project.

Alternatively, we might just rename the project to WikiProject:Cars and start a top-level umbrella project under the name of WikiProject:Automobiles (which would deal with issues all types of vehicles mentioned have in common, like technology stuff). Bravada, talk - 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - I agree - we definitely need to work on more than just cars. However, we can't change the meaning of the word 'Automobile' to suit our needs - it means whatever it means - and every dictionary I could find says pretty much that it means "car". That means that we need to stop using the word "Automobile" when we want to talk about things that are not cars. This in turn means that we should not be "WikiProject_Automobiles" - we should be "WikiProject_Automotive_Technologies" or something. I'm British - and we hardly ever use the word Automobile - so I hadn't appreciated that we had a problem. However, American English and British English dictionaries are in good agreement. SteveBaker 18:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

To problem with car is that many Americans when hearing the word car only think of non-SUV/pick-up trucks. Sometime, on the other hand, car means everything. In the US it has become very common to refer to your car (if it is an SUV or pick-up) as your truck. Many American car manufacturers advertise their line-up by stating things such as "Discounts of every car and truck." Why on earth people take a fancy to calling their automobiles trucks-I don't know. But in the US people often think that their SUV is not a car but a truck. (There is some legal background as light trucks such as SUVs are excluded from certain federal standards-this is an outdated law dating back to the era when people drove "cars") The word auto is commonly used to refer to private passenger vehicles (or Pkw in German). On I-5 when entering LA for example, the freeway divides into one section for "autos" and one for "Trucks." In this case only commcerical trcuks are refered to as trucks. Signature^brendel 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes - and they are right. That's what the dictionaries say. A pickup truck is NOT a car (nor an 'automobile' for that matter). An SUV is kinda borderline - according to the dictionaries, larger SUV's with more than maybe 6 seats are NOT cars/automobiles. But it doesn't matter what people think it means. When we want to know what a word means (especially if we are writing an encyclopedia) - we consult the dictionary - to do otherwise would be 'original research'. We don't consult freeway signs to find the meaning of words. SteveBaker 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what you say is that pickup trucks and SUVs with more than 6 seats should not within the scope of a WikiProject called WikiProject Automobiles. Bravada, talk - 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I know SUVs and pick-ups technically are not cars-they are light trucks. (I'm not saying we should consult freeway signs-that was just an example) The problem with excluding 6-seaters is that even a Honda Pilot or Ford Explorer would need to be excluded. Roguhly hals of all passenger veihicles sold in the US are light trucks-many, many of which have 6 seats or more. We clearly cannot exclude so many "cars" from this project. I think when this project was named, this issue was not really considered. This project should-if we wanted to be absolutely correct-be called "Wikiproject passenger vehicles, excluding those used for the means of mass transit." That is why we have article titles such as Passenger vehicles in the United States, Luxury vehicles-note the term: vehicle. Bottom line: Renaming this project would cause unecessary confusion, excluding 6-seaters is an impossible to make sense of move (exclude the Chevrolet Tahoe?). Its best if we just keep the status quo in this case IMHO. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

One last time: I do not wish to exclude other types of vehicle from our project. To the contrary: I wish to rename our project (and the Automobile article) to more accurately reflect what we are actually talking about. SteveBaker 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for clarifying or more accurately representing scope. Certainly there's some room for discussion though, since no article or project can be all-inclusive. Do we point at a dictionary definition and say that's what we are, and we're not going to change even when sister wikiprojects start or die? Otherwise, do we say we'll cover all 4+ wheel (rubber tire) motor-powered vehicles? Or 3+ wheels? Or 2+ wheels? Just those designed for highway use, or those designed for offroad? Do we include tracked vehicles? (certainly rail vehicles already have a wikiproject, but if there's a gap in between...) --Interiot 04:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Another term that can be used is "motor vehicle", that covers just about every kind of rubber-tire motorized vehicle that's designed for travelling on a highway, including busses and cargo vehicles. A number of categories have been renamed to this lately [1]. As for the scope of this project... it's never been at all clear to me... the majority of pages seems to be passenger vehicles, but people can still work on other articles and ask random questions since most of this stuff seems to be generally related.

Also, for core article purposes, maybe it would be better to work on "motor vehicle" instead of "automobile", since the other members of the "transportation" core articles are aircraft, ship, train, and transport, which seem quite broad? --Interiot 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Automobile is certainly more of a USA-centric term than Motor vehicle. I would definitely vote to change it. SteveBaker 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not just less US-centric, it also broadens the definition to include non-passenger cargo vehicles (which seems like a no-brainer... cargo is economically extremely important, and it's a large part of aircraft/ships/trains), and to possibly include motorcycles, and maybe offroad vehicles? --Interiot 04:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am in favor of expanding the project's defined scope, so motor vehicle sounds fine to me. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Actually, I think our scope already included pickup trucks and such - but we'd always just assumed that 'Automobile' covered that. So do we have consensus that "Motor Vehicle" is the right name for the scope we'd like to encompass? Perhaps we need a 'mission statement' listing precisely what we do and do not want to cover here. If so, how do we orchestrate renaming the necessary pages? I guess I could just 'be bold' and do it - but I don't want to get flamed mercilessly for doing it. (Hey - do you think that if we renamed everything, Wiarthurhu might not be able to find us again when he gets out of Wikijail? :-) SteveBaker 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there are quite a few participants, it might be a good idea to have a 5- or 7-day comment period, just so people aren't shocked by the change, at the very least. For what it's worth, I'm moderately in favor of the name/scope clarification. I'm still not clear on whether motorcycles are included in the project, but I suppose clarifying that cargo trucks are included is at least an improvement.

Re: Wiarthurhu... I'm in favor of keeping this page more clean by archiving offtopic and excessively unprofessional discussions more rapidly than we archive normal discussion. --Interiot 15:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am all in favor of extending the scope of the project, but not of renaming. Too much unnecessary hassle, and it won't serve any real purpose. We just need to reformulate the "mission statement" and perhaps some text here and there (like in the template used to "include" pages in the project), but why rename? There is already some "tradition" and recognition beyond the name. I don't think the name is THAT misleading. I am against chaning the name.

Secondly, do we want to include light trucks, vans, pickups etc. or all kind of motor vehicles (motorcycles etc.)? In case of the latter, perhaps it might make some sense to start an "umbrella" project on "motor vehicles" and leave the WikiProject:Automobiles as is, only stating that it will also deal with light trucks (and not only "automobiles" as defined by American dictionaries), while making room for potential other sub-projects including Motorcycles, Trucks, Buses and whatnot? That would spare some renaming and confusion. If such distinction was made, some members might join the new "top-level" project to work on some more general topics, while I for example would gladly remain here only. Regards, Bravada, talk - 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think renaming would be much hassle-there'd be redirect that leades other users right here. Also, Steve is right, "Our scope already included pickup trucks and such." Of course our project includes pick-ups and SUVs-are you seriously proposing we exclude SUVs and pick-ups, half of all private motor vehicles in the US from this project? We need to include pick-ups and SUVs there are far to common to be excluded. Light trucks have always been and should continue to be part of this project. So, I am in favor of rewording the mission statement to reflect the scope of this project more accurately and would support a name change. BTW: I'm only going to do minor edits for the next two weeks as I am going on vacation-I will check my watchlist from the Hotel though. Mahalo, Signature^brendel 18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Please go back and read what I and Steve wrote again in your spare time :D I was just pointing to how absurd would be to apply dictionary definitions of words to project scopes. Let the project be WikiProject Automobiles and deal with what it dealt before. If anybody has issues with that, let's make it clear in the "mission statement" that this project encompasses more than one would find under the American English dictionary definition of "automobile" (i.e. light trucks, minivans, SUVs and such). WikiProject Automobile sounds very good and I don't think many people from outside of this Project would have problems with it dealing with SUVs or pickup trucks. WikiProject Trains deals with more than just trains themselves, and I don't think it's a problem.

And if people here want to seriously increase the scope of this WikiProject to incorporate other types of motor vehicles, such as motorcycles, heavy trucks, buses, recreational vehicles, bakchoe loaders and whatnot, then I suggest we consider a proposition to leave this WP as it is and start a higher-level descendant project within WikiProject Transport called "WikiProject Motor Vehicles" (or some other way). Is that more or less clear? Bravada, talk - 18:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. Ich wünsche Dir tolle Ferien, Gerd! (oder sagt man nicht "Ferien"?)

On the other hand, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport is practically dead, and if someone asks a random question about bus or motorcycle articles here because they can't find a better place to ask it, we don't necessarily need to tell them to go away... many of the brands and components are the same. --Interiot 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is why a mid-level project like Motor Vehicles would make sense, to fit between the technical-only (to comply with commonly-used WP classification tree) WP Transport and the specific WP Automobiles. One of the tasks within this mid-level project could be setting up other WikiProjects for Motorcycles, Buses and Trucks, so that people would have where to go for their issues regarding those, not to mention to help develop standards and articles within those areas. It would also be important to have somebody to talk to on issues requiring harmonization.

There is also the marked-as-defunct WP Automobile construction, which IMHO could be renamed to "Automotive technologies" to reflect the category (and scope), and either become the mid-level project I was speaking of, or a parallel project to this project within the new mid-level project. Are you still with me? :D Bravada, talk - 02:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So is this wikiproject's scope something like "4-wheel privately-owned passenger motor vehicles"? If so, then (in lieu of an active automotive technologies project), then all auto-parts and many larger brands would move up to the motor-vehicle wikiproject then, since they're not specific to passenger vehicles. --Interiot 02:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

<reset indent> I'll concur with User:Bravada ~ why do you think you need to rename this project? I'm British-born and resident, and I have no trouble with the word 'Automobile'. Sure, it's an American word, but I know exactly what it means and its dictionary definition fits exactly with what this project covers. --DeLarge 07:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of automobile does not cover what the topic covers. Motorcycles are not automobiles. They do not belong under "automobiles" in any sensible naming convention. If no one wants to change "Automobile", then topics for motor vehicles that are not automobiles should exist.Seasalt 23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, motorcycles have never been within the scope of this WikiProject, and I don't think they should be. Currently, the whole "Task Force" scheme is not functional, so adding a "Motorcycle Task Force" is quite counterproductive compared to starting a separate WikiProject. Though I agree that many dictionary definitions of the word don't cover what the de facto (no pun intended) scope of the project is, e.g. light pickup trucks or vans. But certainly motorcycles are not within the intended scope. Bravada, talk - 00:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree motorcycles are not really part of this project and a seperate WP project may very well be called for. I think the problem is that the scope of our project is "that many dictionary definitions of the word don't cover what the de facto... scope of the project is," thus leaving some editors a bit confused. While SUVs and light trucks arn't really automobiles they are covered by this project as the title isn't to be taken to literally. Motorcycles however fall pretty clearly outside this project's scope. As for the task force project, I'd say it is working in that the editors signed up are, perhaps more or less by incident :-) doing the tasks they signed up for. So, again a seperate project for motorcycles was the right idea IMHO. Signature^brendel 03:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely the reason that I am becoming convinced we need to rename this project and all of the Categories, Portals and key articles that we've named with the word 'Automobile'.

We say things like: "Despite the name Automobiles, we obviously want to talk about things that lie outside of that scope (eg pickup trucks)" - but then we say "Motorcycles are clearly outside of our scope". So how are people to know what does or does not fall into this scope? What about golf carts, race cars, quad bikes, monster trucks, 18-wheelers? Since our name doesn't define our scope - what does describe our scope? There isn't a statement of that scope anywhere - so who are you or I to say what is or isn't inside that scope? We could fix this in one of four ways:

• We could change the name of this (and related) articles/projects/categories/portals to something much more specific ("Cars") - and limit the scope to that (so Pickups would be "out of scope") - new projects (etc) would be needed to cover the missing scope (eg Motorbikes, Trucks, etc).

...OR...

• We could change the name of this (and related) articles/projects/etc to reflect our actual scope (eg "Road Vehicles").

...OR...

• We could do both: create entirely new articles/projects/etc using a name that reflects the wider scope and rename this one with a more limited scope. This project would become a daughter of those new one.

...OR...

• We could leave things in the horrible mess they are now and write careful 'scope definitions' everywhere. This amounts to saying "This is too much of a mess and we can't be bothered to fix it. We're sorry, Mr Joe Public". Yuk!

This comes back to bite us time after time. I was looking at Portal:Cars - which has stuff about trucks in it. We have articles like Concept Automobile (which really ought to be called 'Concept car') - which also covers several concept trucks. We have Automobile (which should be called something like 'Automotive technology') of which about half is about internal combustion engines in general. Our category names are a mess ( contains a definition for 'automobile' which includes trucks - but which is found nowhere in any of the 15 dictionaries I searched!)...then we have which includes Panel van and Luton body. We are also violating the UK versus US english style guide by using the word 'Automobile' in the first place. There exists a much more international word "Car" which has the same meaning and which, incidentally, would have avoided this entire mess because more people understand what it actually means.

This is a complete mess - if it was just this project that was messed up, we could maybe justify doing nothing on the grounds that the general public doesn't come to look at WikiProjects - but the problem extends far beyond this specific WikiProject - it's spreading disinformation all over the place and it takes a major effort on the part of this group to fix it up. SteveBaker 14:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is all proof that popular use of the word "automobile" does not necessairly follow dictionary definitions. Apart from the user who apparently thought "automobile" encompasses motorcycles, the other users do not seem to have problems with understanding the scope of the Project. I agree, though, that it would be better to rename Portal:Cars to Portal:Automobile, even simply for the sake of aligining it with the Project's name. Bravada, talk - 19:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. I also believe that the word "automobile" has a different meaning than the word "car", as it somehow means the whole concept to me, while a "car" is just a specific vehicle. I mean, I would say "THE automobile" (e.g. "the automobile is one of the most important inventions"), but I would never say "THE car", "THE truck" etc. in a similar fashion. Thus, I believe that "automobile" might mean the general concept, and modern combustion-engine trucks etc. are all derivatives of the original ICE automobile invention. Motorcycle, however, was invented earlier and followed a bit different development path.

Well, Steve is right. The term automobile does not correctly reflect the scope of this project, which is perhaps what irretated that user. I say its okay to keep the status quo because this project, as any WP project, is a behind the scenes thing. If, however, more and more users appear who misunderstand our project's scope, a name change would be neccessary. That said, as long as most people get the scope of this project right, despite the inaccurate name, I say its okay to keep the status quo. Signature^brendel 19:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't get to make up our own word meanings here in Wikipedia - no matter what is 'popular'. Our mission is to educate - and if a bunch of people are confused as to the meaning of a word, it is most definitely our task to set them straight rather than to make matters worse as we currently are. The fact that any number of people here or elsewhere disbelieve that Automobile and Car mean the exact same thing is irrelevent - and falls under the rule disallowing original research (WP:NOR). I'm sorry - you just can't go around saying "I also believe that the word "automobile" has a different meaning than the word "car"" and expect us to act as if your misunderstanding were important. If you truly believe that an automobile is not necessarily a car (as I once did), then crack open a dictionary and look it up - or look at any one of the fifteen dictionary definitions I already looked up for you and quoted here! But unless someone can find a more solid set of definitions than Websters, Chambers and the OED (unlikely in the extreme since these dictionaries are the bedrock of the English language!) - you must accept this definition no matter your prior misconceptions. It might be OK to say "we're just a behind the scenes project and we can call ourselves by an inaccurate name" - but what is horrifying me is that the rot is spreading. Automobile, a bunch of Category: space collections and Portal:Cars are all wrong to include trucks. It's not just a matter of policy - it's a matter of encyclopeadic fact and thus cannot go uncorrected. Those are most definitely not 'behind the scenes' - they are right in the faces of our readers. They are talking about something other than the title they present and are confusing yet more people with an incorrect scope compared to definition. How many thousands of children now think that 'Automobile' includes trucks when it does not because they read it in Wikipedia? The proposal to change Portal:Cars to Portal:Automobiles doesn't help in the slightest because an Automobile is a Car - all that change would do is to make things yet worse in terms of US-English bias. (British English speakers rarely, if ever, use the word 'Automobile'). If anything, we should be renaming anything with the word 'Automobile' in it to 'Car' because (a) British English speakers will understand you better and (b) American English speakers will be less confused because of the common misunderstanding of the meaning of the word. SteveBaker 21:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we have established that we are using the word automobile in an incorrect fashion. Steve's definitions leave no room for doubt. Bravada is perhaps also right as many people seem to think that an automobile is something different than a car. This is however, WP and we can't base something on what people may or may not think a word means. But, as I said, its a behind the scenes error. So are we really making "matters worse;" is our use of the word "automobile" in a part of WP invisible to most readers really confusing people? If so, we'd need to change our title. But, if not than we can keep the status quo. I guess what I'm saying is: that as long as we don't cause any harm using the term automobile in an incorrect manner here on a project, where few readers will see it, its ok. Signature^brendel 22:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The title of the WikiProject is not "educating" anyone. We could as well call this project "WikiProject Fun Fun Animals" and nobody would be hurt or anything.
2. Languages are alive. Even if I do not usually agree with the relaxation of grammar or spelling rules, I do accept that words sometimes have different meanings to people than the ones in dictionaries. And this is quite "encyclopedic" too, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Bravada, talk - 22:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

1. I Agree, the project is as I've said, behind the scenes.
2. With the use of terminology we have to follow dictionaries. If the OED says this what word means, than that's what a word means. Of course there may be difference between the connotation and the denotation of a word. But commonly an encyclopedia will make the denotation a priority. The problem with incorporating the connotation of any given term is that the connotation is not as well recorded as the denotation. Of course, some are, there is the dictionary of American Slang by Webster. Yet, we need to base our language use in the public sphere on commonly agreed upon definitions; those found in dictionaries. Otherwise its OR; I think we can agree on that ;-) So, as I've said: "As long as we don't cause any harm using the term automobile in an incorrect manner here on a project, where few readers will see it, its ok." Signature^brendel 22:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW: Anybody here up for the task of creating an article for Fun Fun Animals?

Yes, sure if we were only talking literally about WikiProject Automobiles - the important part which is probably the work done in setting standards on this very Talk page and it could indeed be called Fun Fun Animals for all it matters. But look around - outside of this page - look at all of the other Wikipedia pages that say 'Automobile' when they mean 'some sort of road vehicle'. If we only had this one WikiProject page to sort out - I'd also say "Nah - screw it - it's not worth the hassle."...But it's NOT just this page - it's this and almost every other page with the word 'Automobile' in it's title. Try this for me: Type "Automobile" into the 'search' box and click 'Search'. Look at the top ten articles that come up. Is the word used appropriately in any of them? Didn't think so. Now - to me, this says that we need to clean up. But where should we start? In my opinion, we need to figure out a general way to fix this mess - and it starts here - because we are the Automobile project. So far, all I see is denial of the problem. SteveBaker 00:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that is a problem! The terminology in our articles should be correct. As for renaming this project I still say: "Nah - screw it - it's not worth the hassle." But as for articles, a change would be necessary. After all, we're here to break and not reinforce misperceptions. Perhaps a note on the project page informing our peers of how to use the term automobile would be called for. I think we need to get the facts on an automobile being the same as a car out to all our members-I remain doubtful that renaming this project would serve that purpose. Perhaps we should make this point clear in the Automobile article by clearly stating what a car is not.Signature^brendel 00:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a problem, actually. There are many encyclopedic articles whose name and/or contents do not conform to dictionary definitions, but are rather following the popular use - any many items and phenomenons are named in a way that is only remotely related to the original meaning of the word. It's 2:22 AM here, so excuse me for not being able to come up with a good example in English, but I will try to once I get some sleep. Cheers, Bravada, talk - 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I still do think it is a problem. We should be correct here and just following what we think is right sounds to me like support common misconceptions. I think we should follow the dictionary definitions. I do know what you're talking about (so you don't need to go through the trouble of finding an example-I get it), but I still think we ought to educate the public on what an automobile really is. So, perhaps an informal resolution to change the wording usage of terminology when we see would be a good compromise? Well, good night. BTW: Editing @ 2:22; I think you may be a Wikipediaholic?! Signature^brendel 01:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on scope?

Maybe it would be possible to vote on the scope statement for the Wikiproject? Possible choices might include:

(CARS) All 3+ wheel privately-owned motor vehicles designed primarily for passenger use (capable of transporting smaller goods, but not designed to routinely transport goods).

(PASSENGER) All 3+ wheel privately-owned motor vehicles disigned for routine passenger use, but may be proficient at transporting goods as well. (eg. SUV's, light trucks)

(THREEPLUS) All 3+ wheel motor vehicles (eg. includes public-transport buses, semi trucks and the like)

(TWOPLUS) All rubber-tire motor vehicles (eg. includes motorcycles)

(note that "TWOPLUS" is not necessarily the same as a "WikiProject motor vehicles", since that might include tracked vehicles as well. I think tracked vehicles are clearly beyond the scope of this project) ("three wheel" isn't intended to include three-wheeled motorcycles that are directly derivative of motorcycles... rather to include motorcycle/car hybrids that don't fall neatly into one camp) (if one wants to get technical, all of the above include only vehicles designed for highway or offroad use... eg. golf carts aren't included) --Interiot 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There are really two separate issues here. Firstly, what should the scope of this project be. Secondly what should it be called. Some people are going to be confused by your proposed vote because they will conflate the issue of changing the scope with that of changing the name. I would prefer to vote like this:

1. Keep Name, Change Scope : Keep the name of this project as Automobile and agree to limit our scope to the dictionary definition of that word (ie 'Cars and SUVs'). As a consequence, we'd need to start a parent project (Motor Vehicles or Automotive Technology or something) somewhere between Transport and Automobile in the heirarchy. This new project would deal with all road vehicles - with the presumption that daughter projects for trucks, etc will somehow spring up as a result.
2. Keep Name, Keep Scope : Keep the name Automobile but define the scope to be beyond the dictionary definition so that we can deal with pickup trucks and other things that some people (incorrectly) think of as Automobiles. In other words do nothing. (I think this option is unacceptable...but I don't get to decide!).
3. Change Name, Keep Scope : Rename this project to something like Motor Vehicles or Automotive Technology and widen the scope to match the new name so we can include trucks, busses, etc. This would also require renaming the Automobile article - and widening it's scope somewhat.
4. Change Name, Change Scope : Stick two pencils up your nose, put your underpants on your head and go "Wibble".

If the choice is (1) then we should work within the new project to subdivide the work into manageable chunks. The existing Automobile chunk would be already in place - but we'd need new 'chunks' like maybe 'Commercial Vehicles' or 'Trucks' or something. We would need to agree on a name for the new project. The majority of the content in the Automobile article would have to be moved into a parent article - reducing Automobile's scope to just cars and SUV's.

If the choice is (2)...then nothing happens - we carry on with the same messy situation we have now and the major cleanup of the Automobile article that I've been trying hard to achieve hits a sticky mess which is hard to recover from.

If the choice is (3) then we can have a separate discussion about whether we want to include golf carts, construction equipment, motorbikes, etc - and another separate discussion about what new name would best fit that set of vehicle categories. There would have to be redirects from Automobile and WikiProject Automobiles to the new places - so people will still be able to find us with the same set of links and searches that they do now.

(4) is what happens if we don't stop babbling about this and DO SOMETHING!

Is that an acceptable set of choices? (Vote Option 1, Option 2 or Option 3. If you vote Option 4, it'll be YOUR turn to do the reverts on AMC Matador when Wiarthurhu gets back).

SteveBaker 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let's not get overly emotional about that. Secondly, let's not confuse the name and the scope of the project with the name and the scope of some article. Projects aren't derivatives of articles and aren't tied to specific articles (i.e. there is no article that defines a scope of a WikiProject). The naming of the project is a purely conventional thing - you can have a WikiProject WagaDugu dealing with whatever you want. There is the WikiProject Laundromat which doesn't do other users' laundry but something rather different :D

That said, I certainly support keeping the name. I don't think there is a reason for all the kerfuffle associated with changing, besides I am a traditionalist and I like everything that endures through a long time and therefore acquires name recognition :D As concerns the scope, I believe we all had slightly different perceptions of what the project's scope was. I would be for the project's scope to encompass all three- and four-wheel cars, SUVs, pick-up trucks and perhaps small delivery vehicles, which is, if I understand correctly, what Steve proposed as "(PASSENGER)".

More specifically, I believe this WikiProject focuses (or would focus) on articles on individual vehicles, vehicle brands and manufacturers, as well as individual engines, transmissions and platforms used in such vehicles. Then there is the problem with automotive technology, car body styles, components etc. articles - I believe this could either to a top-level project or remain here with regard to those which pertain to the vehicles within the scope of the project. As it might prove ambigious, I would say it might be a good idea for them to either to go up one level or be moved to a parallel project on automotive technology within the top-level project (though I think that body styles could stay here). And, of course, sibling projects for heavy trucks and motorcycles should (or perhaps just could) be formed in the future, when there will be people interested in participation.

It is important to remember, that as always, some articles would lie "in between" and they would somehow be cross-project cooperations, like e.g. the articles on some brands, that are applied both to passenger vehicles and heavy trucks, or motorcycles (BMW). But the bottom line is - keep the name, define scope as in "(PASSENGER)" above and start additional projects. Bravada, talk - 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OKay, little time so forgive me if I didn't read every word in your posts-I scanned 'em. But here is my stand:

Two options:

• Change name & Keep scope => Okay with me
• Keep the status quo => Okay with me as well

I'll back the majority ;-) to get things done, Regards, Signature^brendel 17:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability standards

I think that after the whole Wiarthurhu debacle and various discussions, I think it's clear that we need to set up some notability standards regarding inclusions in articles. Here's what I have in mind:

• Any instances of a certain automobile in pop culture (namechecks in songs, movies, TV shows) are considered unnotable unless the car is the subject of a song or if it plays a large role in a movie/TV show.
• Toy cars are not notable, as most cars usually have toys made of them. This also means you may not post images to toy cars, as actual images of the subject can be easily found online.

That's all I can think of at the moment, if anyone has suggestions, don't hesitate! --ApolloBoy 01:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a bit specific to be written-down policy, but I agree on both points. --Interiot 02:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both points - I think it would be good to have it as a formal policy. As concerns "playing a large role in a movie", I would reiterate my proposition that the car's appearance in the movie should either be rated "five star" at imcdb.org, or be likely to be rated so if the movie/show is not featured. If you are not familiar with www.imcdb.org, please visit the website - I believe it could give a very good guidance on the issue, and the examples there can be easily used as benchmarks when judging the "notability" of film/TV appearance.

In general, I believe we should have ONE page where we would have ALL standards pertaining to individual car articles, starting from naming, through layout and infoboxes, including also standards on pictures and conventions on units. We could discuss proposed policies or revisions on the talk page, so that nothing would get lost. The main page would serve as a guide to creating and editing car articles. We just need a volunteer who would dump all that is now in the sections of the main page and all that has been discussed here but never formally written down into one page. Without having standards established, we cannot start all the reviewing/TF work (and I think there are people interested in it, given the lists above).

One reason why I believe not all has been put down is that there is no formal procedure of accepting standards and many users aren't sure when propositions become policies. My suggestion is to, for now, just dump everything into this one page, but later discuss every proposition in a formal way seeking consensus - i.e. somebody puts forward a motion, and people say whether they support or oppose, perhaps giving propositions on how it could be amended. If there is no unanimous support, the motion should be reformulated using the suggestions from the discussion and here we go again. When unanimous consensus is reach, it becomes the law :D How about that? Bravada, talk - 02:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that it would be most helpful to collect all extant standards and policies on some other page than this one - and to put all discussion of those standards on that page.
• The 'No toys' policy is a good one - but I would allow for two exceptions: Firstly, if the real car was modelled after a toy originally (there is, for example, a group of customisers out there who make real cars that mimic some of the more crazy hot wheels toys. So, if one were writing an article about this: http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/08/find-of-the-day-1959-bmw-isetta-drag-racer/, then it would not be unreasonable to add this photo to the article http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/08/whattadraghotwheels.jpg because the toy preceeded and inspired the construction of the actual car. Secondly, if it proves to be utterly impossible after a L-O-N-G search to find any kind of photo of the real car be it 'fair use' or otherwise - then if the 'toy' is a really good scale model (eg a plastic kit that's been nicely assembled and painted - and definitely not a typical horribly inaccurate kids toy) - then we might want to consider taking an exception to the rule. It's better to have some idea of what the car looked like than no idea at all - providing that the model doesn't mislead people by having grossly inaccurate features like oversized wheels or something.
• Formality should to be avoided where possible. However, the Wiarthurhu fiasco proves that we do need some standards so that beleagured editors can point to something to justify their actions when something totally unreasonable happens. We would not (for example) want to impose the "No toys" rule mindlessly in the case of the Isetta drag racer case I mentioned earlier - and we might well find there are extenuating circumstances that make other rules we come up with problematic.
• I like the idea that for a movie about a car to be notable, it has to be 'in the starring role' (which is pretty much the imcdb five star rating means). So we should (and do) mention "The Italian Job" in the Mini page because it's all about a gang using the special properties of the Mini in order to pull of a gold robbery. We most certainly could mention "The Love Bug" (yuk!) in the "VW Bug" page. However, there are a lot more Fiat 500's shown in The Italian Job than there are Mini's - but I wouldn't describe their role in that movie as 'notable' - they are just set dressing and play no part in advancing the plot.
• We need to do something about 'predecessor' and 'successor' entries in the info-box. Also this whole business of which name to use in the title of articles about cars that had multiple names. The amount of argument and debate this whole mess engenders means that we need a firm policy in this matter so we can point to it and say "That's how it is - unless there is a strong consensus to do otherwise."

SteveBaker 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goed nieuws!

Hello everybody, I just wanted to share some very good news with you! Sometime ago, Steve Baker (I think it was Steve, wasn't it?) prompted us to start replacing the inappropriately "fair used" promo (as well as some free, but inexplicably bad :D) photos of cars in articles with some nice free ones :D It proved to be a quite difficult task with regard to older cars, images of which are harder to makes or obtain. Following Steve's advice and example, some members started emailing historic cars' owners and enthusiasts to get permissions to use their photos - with mixed results!

Recently, I have found a great site belonging to Garage de l'Est BV, a Dutch company dealing in historic (mainly French) cars, which contains a massive archive of good photos of cars in great condition! Thanks to User:BabyNuke, who was extremely quick to act on the issue, we now have the official permission from Mr. Hans Stedehouder to use those pics in Wikipedia! See the details regarding the permission here, and a sample image with a summary describing the details of the permission @ Image:1973 Simca 1000 GL.JPG - please copy this summary (perhaps save for the information on the car :D ) for every image you upload from the Garage de l'Est!

So, if you're looking for historic Peugeot, Citroën, Renault, or even Panhard photos, as well as Fiat, Volvo, Saab and numerous other cars - look there! Once again, huge thanks to User:BabyNuke! Bravada, talk - 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome news! I'd award you an automotive barnstar for this important effort - except that:

A) There isn't one.

B) It has to be called "The three or four wheeled but not tracked vehicle that runs on roads (or occaisionally not) with room for lots of people but not too many but isn't a motorbike-barnstar" - and there wasn't room for that on your user page.

C) Wiarthurhu would replace it with a photo of a toy barnstar anyway.

Sorry about that - maybe next time!  :-)

SteveBaker 21:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you are just being tart, but by no means do I deserve a barnstar or anything - BabyNuke does. I am not a fan of the rigid barnstar rules anyway, so I awarded him with a Simca 1000 - perhaps not a luxury car, but very compact and a classic :D Do have a try on a barnstar inspired by the Autobianchi photos - we can then call it "The Primula Barnstar" :D Bravada, talk - 21:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone find a similar site for pics of American cars? The American car articles rely too much on fair use images and I'd love to see them all use free images. Normally I'd do this myself, but most of the time I email people about their pics, they either don't respond or categorize my emails as spam. --ApolloBoy 19:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have to inform you this is not valid anymore, as I was informed that, surprisingly, uploading somebody's image with a written consent is AGAINST WP policy - unless they agree to license them under GFDL, CC or some other fancy license, or just release them into public domain. Of course it is quite unreasonable to ask a business, organisation or professional photographer to release photos from copyright, but I have had a moderate success with asking people from a GM-related forum to release photos of their own cars (or of other cars they made) to public domain, some of which you can find around. So basically it's down to doing some spam action on enthusiasts' forums or finding out indvidual owners for more rare models :D Bravada, talk - 20:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Written consent is okay, it just has to be consent to a GFDL-compatible license. While throwing a bunch of legal text in someone's face isn't necessarily all that great when you're talking to someone for the first time, random individuals who like their car at least are sometimes more than happy to give photos to Wikipedia under an appropriate license (eg. as evidenced by number of auto articles that have waaay too many images on them). I agree that businesses and professional photographers aren't likely to want to release their photos under a GFDL-compatible license, but individuals may (and a more human-readable license like the creative commons ones may help [2]). I haven't mailed too many people, but I did have good success with Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9... the car owner sent me even more photos than were originally available on the web.

I don't know... have people had more success with just spending a saturday or sunday roaming through a city looking for automobiles that need pictures? It's more work, but could have a bigger payoff. For what it's worth, I'm in Tokyo for a few more weekends, if anybody knows of any japanese-specific cars we need. --Interiot 03:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be easier to list JDM cars we don't need.... As concerns what we could use, let me start with a few:

• Mitsubishi Debonair
• Mitsubishi Proudia/Mitsubishi Dignity
• Nissan President (we've got one image of the current-gen only, but it's not superb)
• Nissan Cima
• Toyota Century
• ...and the list goes on...

What I would suggest is just whenever you would find time to do so, just take a photo of everything that is not your standard Corolla or Vitz - even if we have a photo of that car, being a pro you will probably make a much better one! Bravada, talk - 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Images Are Dying On Wikipedia's Car Pages

Bavaria, the fair-image poster has posted many fair images a long time ago, but had been stomped by Bull-Doser, IFCAR, etc. IFCAR has posted many free images to replace the Bavaria-type images from Consumerguide. Another fair image poster was ApolloBoy. Bavaria's image business is beginning to erode now. But on the Nissan Maxima page, the 2007 Maxima hasn't arrived in Canada, but I posted a fair image of the Maxima (from Consumerguide), which is only temporary. The '07 Maxima is now sold in the United States, because it is BUILT there. I've also been in the fair-image business, mostly for '07 models that haven't arrived in showrooms yet (excluding the Nissan Versa, on which I posted). The Versa hasn't been introduced for the American market, but the Versa image was actually taken by me at a Nissan dealership. However, most of my images continue to be free, and will now be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. -- Bull-Doser 04:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And what was the point of posting this? Karrmann 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

File under "using the WikiProject talk page as blog" Bravada, talk - 18:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Good News

We got another GA! the Ford Taurus was listed as a Good Article! Karrmann 03:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep or not?

Two articles I ran across recently that I wanted more input on before possibly XfDing them.

• Category:Cult Cars... too subjective or not? We have Category:Luxury vehicles, but this seems a bit more subjective. --Interiot 08:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Forgot about that one completely, I was to nominate if for deletion long ago. It is as POV as can be, and I can't see how "luxury vehicles" is more - there are fairly good definitions given in the "luxury vehicles" article, and if one sticks to them when categorizing, we're OK. But I don't see a good objective definition of "cult car" and therefore this category is going to be perpetually POV. Just look at it now - one of the cars tagged as "cult car" is (lo and behold) Plymouth Breeze. OK, I can even imagine a rationale for Plymouth Breeze being a cult car (there are surely some Breeze fans out there), but if the Breeze is a cult car, than what car is not? When I edit car articles, I mostly rely on sources such as fan and enthusiast sites, so I can assure you that even the most obscure and unlikely vehicle has a loyal fanbase. Given the many "Camry worship" pages I have come accross, I believe the Toyota Camry would be a perfect cult car, wouldn't it? Bravada, talk - 11:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Isn't Luxury vehicle a formal category that car reviewers and such use? I think it might even have a formal definition. In Car classification, it is shown as a formal term and given a definition of sorts. So I strongly believe that this is as much a valid category as (say) Mid-size or Compact and most definitiely needs to stay (although it's possibly that it has the wrong cars in it or something - I don't know about that).
  • Category:Cult Cars on the other hand...very, very difficult. Definite risk of POV there - and how the heck Plymouth Breeze could possibly be described as a Cult Car when it's only real claim to fame is that it was on some magazine's top 10 list once - that's just not reasonable. A cult car would have to have a huge fan club and lots of people doing crazy things with them. (Like the 1,200 MINI Coopers that will be driving all across the USA by a bunch of fanatical owners next week!). I guess it's a borderline thing. As I commented in an earlier AfD, making lists or categories of things where a superlative is involved is very tricky - and since this would have to be something akin to "The most popular cars" or "The most loved cars" - we would continually run into "Is this car cultish enough to make it onto the category page". But if it was "Cars with more than 10,000 active members in their owners clubs" - then maybe you could do it.
  • Hmmm, according to the edit history, User:Karrmann added the cult car tag to Plymouth Breeze. Since Karrmann frequents this project page, we should ask why that happened. SteveBaker 12:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, Karrmann created the category to begin with, so I figured they would weigh in either way. To some extent "cult car" passes the google test a bit... {"cult car" corvette}, {"cult car" vw bug"} etc. get 500+ ghits each. It still seems a bit too subjective to me though. It seems like it's probably possible to find passing informal references to "cult car" in trade press for several cars that many of us wouldn't consider cult cars because it doesn't seem to be used formally. I don't really have a problem with the cult car article since the term is used a fair bit, but to enumerate the full list of cars seems too much. --Interiot 14:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The Google test is just a guide and at best it only tells you that a term actually exists and that people use it. That doesn't mean we need an article (much less a category) about it. Yes - sure there are cult cars - my all-time-favorite classic Mini for example - but that doesn't mean we can make an encyclopeadic list of them. The meaning is extremely fuzzy and subject to personal opinion - so either you have a lot of POV debates - or you have an arbitary definition of the term that we might try to think up - but that would be problematic vis: WP:NOR. SteveBaker 16:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Interestingly, there's a Cult Car article, however it's tagged as orphaned--even Category:Cult Cars doesn't list it. I was going to create links back to Cult Car in the car articles listed on that page, as well as the ones on the category page. But after looking at some edit histories, I've noticed that cars like the Dodge Omni had been added and later removed from Cult Car, however the Omni article is still in the category list... This whole "Cult Car" thing seems inconsistent. Should we decide on creating links back to Cult Car and keeping the category, or should we just delete the whole thing? --TheSlyFox 06:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, the category should clearly go, I'll CFD that now. If the article is kept, it shouldn't remotely try to enumerate all possible cars (since it's so subjective). If the article shouldn't be kept, then we just redirect it to cult following. Agreed? --Interiot 06:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Absolutely! Bravada, talk - 10:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trunking

• Trunking (auto)... it's got reliable sources... it was even discussed by a legislature [3]... It still feels like the sort of thing that nobody may remember in a couple years if it's mainly just local news hype with little real-world occurance. --Interiot 08:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It definitely exists - it passes the Google test (a search on 'trunking teen car' produces 28,000 hits). It's obviously a neologism - but since it's been referred to in legislation, I don't think that's enough to warrant killing the article. The problem I have with it is that right now it's a Wiktionary thing - that's where we define words. Wikipedia is where we flesh out the definition with a ton more information - and we just don't have any information beyond the definition of the word here. So if this were an AfD, I'd vote Transwiki to Wiktionary. SteveBaker 12:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Many of the google hits didn't seem to be directly relevant to the article or the legislation (eg. passenger riding in the trunk to "work around" the restrictions in provisional driver's licenses). Also, it seems like there's a nearly unlimited number of mischievous acts that teenagers could do and a legislature could get outraged about in an election year. What's next, discussions about the evils of hooding, sunroofing, and bumper-skatebording? (granted, we have whistle tips and ghost ride, so I don't think it's an obvious delete... but it'll still tug at the back of my mind for a week or two) --Interiot 14:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Dude! Dooood! You need to be - like - hip to the street scene dude! Yunno - 'Bumper-skateboarding' is old-school Skitching and 'hooding' - that's 1337 Car surfing man. And (of course) we have an articles about both of them. SteveBaker 16:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Heh, I must be getting old. Okay, where's sunroofing then? When I was younger, we had a babysitter once who would sit on the roof of the car and steer with his feet dangling through the sunroof. (also obviously not entirely safe in the least) --Interiot 04:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah - I've ...erm... "seen other people doing that" - but you can't possibly accuse me of ever doing it because I have a convertible - so there is no sunroof and therefore nothing more to be said...OK? I confess I have not seen any articles about it. Maybe we need a WikiProject_Lethal_Driving_Techniques - we could probably get lots of good references from the Darwin Awards guys! :-) But the youth of today don't understand the meaning of 'extreme sports' on fast, dangerous machines. I work in Flight Simulation - and at about 4am (many, many years ago) after a long night of high-pressure work, a buddy of mine invented the insanely dangerous sport of 'SimSurfing' - standing on the top of one of these: Image:FSI-Millenium-60inch-electric-motion.jpg while in use!! Those machines can produce about a half-g of accelleration in all three translational and all three rotational axes simultaneously. SteveBaker 13:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
            • As BoingBoing points out [4], we should add tray surfing to the semi-lethal wikiproject [5]. So there is an advantage to FWD cars after all... --Interiot 08:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Ha, I was actually kidding, but it's since turned from a redlink to a bluelink. ... If it's not deleted though, we may need a new category. Is "Category:Things teenagers do to their parent's car" NPOV enough? (edit: how is Category:Hazardous motor vehicle activities?) --Interiot 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
                • Going to find some trays now! It's...erm..."research"...yeah - that's it. Hang on - let me just practice the line: "Yes officer, I'm doing research for an encyclopedia." - OK that's good. SteveBaker 12:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
                  • Actually, the mob has done extensive research on the subject of trunking. Of course, here the subjects were not able to file adequate reports regarding their experiences. The category name sounds good and I suppose we need it. Signature^brendel 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mazda articles

I've just been trying to edit these; and the articles are too technical even for me! Can we try and clean them up and/or split the articles?? Mazda Familia is particularly bad! --TheM62Manchester 17:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's so technical about them. I would start with working on actually putting some CONTENT in there, and we'll see how big the articles end up - perhaps then they might be split. The problem is that they do not cite any sources, so I'd work on finding some first and then trying to compose a nice write-up based on them. Bravada, talk - 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toy car images

I went and found a bunch of articles littered with images of toys (such as NASCAR, AMC Matador, Dodge A100 among others) and a whole article dedicated to a single toy model of a car! (see Johnny Lightning AMCRebel which I changed to a redirect to Johnny Lightning. I think we should outlaw toy cr images, as they are littering articles everywhere. Karrmann 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd support prohibiting toy car pictures from real-car articles. Articles specifically about toy cars should obviously have pictures of that toy car. And there might be a very unusual case where a toy car is so notable that it's mentioned in the text of an article about a real car, and then a toy car picture might be appropriate there. But I don't think a picture of a toy car is ever a valid stand-in until a picture of a real car can be found, and they're not appropriate for an article where there's no reliably sourced text that mentions toy cars. --Interiot 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the images from their respective articles, only for them to be put back. I removed them again. Karrmann 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are the images that I have been seeing popping up all over Wikipedia, in places where they don't belong: Image:CoxAdam12Matador.JPG, Image:PineMatador.jpg, Image:AuroraAFXMatador.jpg, Image:JLRebelMachine.jpg, Image:General Lee scale model.JPG.

While they are nice clear images, they do not belong illustrating articles such as Dodge Charger, NASCAR, among others. Karrmann 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

<sigh> And thus the horror begins again. Is there any way we can avoid another couple of weeks of this crap - we already know how it's going to end. SteveBaker 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was right. It looks like someone has slapped an indefinite block on both Wiarthurhu and his Matador300 sockpuppet - I'm not sure what triggered it - but it's definitely justified. Hopefully it's all over and we can get back to writing an encyclopedia. SteveBaker 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Concerning Wiarthurhu. (I inlined the gallery above, hopefully that's okay) Yes, hopefully things will be returning to normal. --Interiot 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unit formats

I am still finding (and correcting) lots of inconsistencies in formats for units of measurement. Feel free to use my 'units' tab tool that checks and edits a whole article at once. You can accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'.

To get it to work, simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE). Then put an article into edit mode and just click on the 'units' tab.

I would welcome any help in going through the articles. Regards bobblewik 06:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about photographing cars in the street and/or car shows

Is there any general guideline on whether car plates should be removed from pictures of thir-party vehicles? I do so for modern cars but generally leave the car plate visible on classic ones, as this helps people to check info from the DVLA database, by using the car reg and the car brand name (i.e. size of engine, year of production, etc). Your thoughts? E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I respect the wishes of the owner of the car. If they request that the plate be blurred out - I do so without complaint. But since the plate is on display for all to see in a public place anyway - I don't see that we need a rule to force us to do that. People also get burned up about keeping their VIN number secret - but then etch it into all of the window glass for security reasons! I honestly don't see a good reason to blur either of them out by default and I'm sure that quite a few contributors don't know how to do it anyway. It's not like a social security number or a credit card number that could be used in some fraudulant manner. SteveBaker 12:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve has a point, allthough I myself would like the license plates of my car to blurred on a published picture. In my opinion you should always blur the license plate unless you have the consent of the vehicle's owner to post it online. Even if there is no legal reason for such action, blurring the license plates is just playing it safe and being considerate of the owner's feelings/phobias ;-) Regards, Signature^brendel 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there's almost no encyclopedic benefit to the plates being unblurred, and blurring is a common courtesy, I personally default to blurring unless the car owner says otherwise. --Interiot 01:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You could probably come up with a case for keeping them. For example, British license plates incorporate a code that lets you figure out the model year of the car from one of the letters in the plate. An unnecessary destruction of information is never a good thing. SteveBaker 02:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, then license plates in the UK could stay unblurred otherwise I agree with Interiot, blurring is just common courtesy. Regards, Signature^brendel 03:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone takes his/her car to a show, and I do, then they must expect it to be photographed and quite possibly have the picture published so I see no reason to blur the plates. If the owner objects to this practice they should remove or cover the plates. Taking a photo on the road is diferent and there could be a case but I cannot think what it is. Malcolma 08:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reassurance. My personal code of practice will be as follows: For classic UK cars, plate to stay unblurred; for modern UK cars photographed in the street, blurred; for modern UK cars photographed at car shows, I will endeavour to get permission from owner (i.e. if standing next to car), otherwise blurred; for Spanish cars, numbers are of the car plate to be blurred out (letters to stay, to allow figuring out year of first registration). Cheers, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would, for privacy purposes, blur them, unless there is a compelling and defensible reason not to. UK plates can give a clue to age, but only a minimum age, so it isn't reliable. In the UK plates can be transferred between vehicles, but date-coded plates cannot be put on a vehicle which is older than the plate, although they can be put on vehicles newer than the plate. To show a plate on a car also makes the illegal and ever increasing problem of plate cloning more likely for that plate. -- de Facto (talk). 13:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but what about Swedish plates where you can look it up and find out number of owners, engine capacity, type of car, colour, if it passed MOT and a lot more. // Liftarn

[edit] Incorrect use of 'kph', 'kmph', 'km/hr' instead of 'km/h'

I have corrected hundreds of examples of 'kph', 'kmph', 'km/hr'. The correct form is 'km/h'. However, it was reverted in one article recently. Can somebody take a look at DeSoto Fireflite please? bobblewik 06:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me... it's an american car, so the mph should be the primary unit, I think? (and the "rv" comment applied more to the edit before yours) --Interiot 07:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I see that the revert applied to the one before mine. Thanks. bobblewik 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes in an American car the primary measurements should be English with Metric in parentheses-the other way around for non-American cars (Why can't more Americans become friends with the metric system-It's so easy-really!) Regards, Signature^brendel 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standards

Sometime ago, I have proposed that we try to establish one comprehensive list of all the standards pertaining to individual car articles adopted by the WikiProject. As there were some voice of support, I have attempted to start a page like that @ User:Bravada/Standards. I have copied whatever I could find within WikiProject subpages and suggested some other standards it might be good to adopt.

What do you think about it? Feel free to suggest any changes/improvements on the talk page, as well as put forward propositions for new standards/policies (or perhaps for changes in exisiting ones). I believe the best way to establish a new standard is to achieve a consensus (i.e. a situation where there is no member against it). Let's see whether it works. Bravada, talk - 11:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Units suggestion

We should avoid referring to units as L for litres, as it could be confused with the trim level L; why not put it as litres, e.g.

• Honda Civic five-door, had a 1.6-litre 105hp engine in Norway.

What do people think?? --TheM62Manchester 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't really think that L might be mistaken for a terim level-the meaning is in the context. 4.6 L V8 Town Car Signature L Series-I don't quite see how the "L" could be mistaken for the L-trim level (The extended wheelbase version of the TC). Regards, Signature^brendel 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe as 'ltr'?? --TheM62Manchester 19:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is more or less what the standard says (to avoid using "L" in the body when not followed by "engine"), but I believe a good place to discuss it would be User talk:Bravada/Standards :D (I believe we might move the page to Projectspace later on provided it gains wider acceptance). Bravada, talk - 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's true. Perhaps use L in the infobox next to the "V8" or other engine description and in the text just say litre. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Use small l not large L. Small l is the proper symbol for litre. --Dahlis 16:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The large L is perfectly acceptable. Plus, I've never seen any automotive authority use the lower case l, so why do we have to it differently? --ApolloBoy 17:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The two current symbols for litre are shown at the official SI website

Reasons are given in the resolution made in 1979. bobblewik 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested articles

I have noticed we don't have a "requested articles" section in the WikiProject (or am I just missing something?), so I will post it here. I have been working on the Simca Vedette article and I wanted to link to continental kit and bumper guards, as I believe those two are quite important, yet not obvious to a casual reader, automobile features. To my surprise, I got red links in return. Am I missing something, or are the articles themselves missing? If the latter is the case, perhaps somebody would consider creating them? Bravada, talk - 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Other wikiprojects also have a "new articles" list and "currently on deletion" list of articles that scroll by. I can start these three sections if there's enough interest in maintaining them... many of the smaller and medium-sized wikiprojects don't have all three of these. (examples: computer/video games, ...)

(regarding "requested articles" specifically, how do we keep the list to a managable size? We certainly have tons of redlinks on our articles, and there may be technical ways of listing them all, but that's probably not what we're going for...) --Interiot 01:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess it would be good to have them, but if they were to be manually updated, I am afraid they would constantly be outdated. Wouldn't it be possible to employ the WatchlistBot (or any other bot for that matter) to update one of them or both? Concerning requested articles, I think we might give it a try and see what comes, but it would be more important if somebody actually tried to create something under the abovementioned headings, AFAIAC ;) Bravada, talk - 01:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how deletion could be updated any way but manually [6]. For new articles, that might able to be automated [7], though also members would be somewhat likely to add their own articles, just to give them more exposure; and new articles by non-members could be manually picked up by people who do stub-sorting (me, and I saw someone else helping out). Anyway, "requested articles" would be the slowest scrolling of them all, so that sounds like an obvious one at least. --Interiot 02:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For the new-pages, there's a semi-automated way to come up with the list that... sort of works. So I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/NewArticles. Feel free to add/remove by hand as things get created/deleted. --Interiot 07:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Another great feature! Thanks! Bravada, talk - 10:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy to. Though if WatchlistBot only updates once every 7 days, that page will only get a major update once every 7 days. So, hopefully there's some way to improve that... --Interiot 11:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the subject of requested articles come up: I would like to propose an article about cars of world leaders. For instance, the US president's Cadillac limosine got mentioned, as well as the popemobile, but not many of other world leaders' cars are mentioned. Interesting cars might include the Queen's (UK) fleet of rolls royce and the Bentley limosine, the French government's fleet of custom DS and SM, and ZIL/ZIS of the Soviets, and the new ride (by Toyota) for the Japanese Emperor. Also notable are the "red flag cars" from China (originally developed for governmment officials and VIPs). Some of these articles already exist, but It would be nice to incorporate them into an article just like the one regarding "Air Force Ones" and Presidential airplanes of the other countries. Maybe we can also mention other cars that has were tailor made for world leaders (e.g. the Mercedes 770 Grosser for Hitler, the Japanese Emperor and Kaiser Wilhelm II, among others)

Please see this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_transports_of_Heads_of_State) as a model of what i am talking about --Bud 05:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin American models

Should we include more info on these in General Motors/Ford/Volkswagen articles, as the vehicles are substantially different to US/Canada/Europe versions, e.g. Ford Verona (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

At the moment I'm working on Volkswagen Apollo. --TheM62Manchester 13:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense, have added, various Simca and the Ford Landau - all Brazilian--Vee8 02:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Units discussion

I don't know if it's a rehash or not, but there's a discussion about metric/US units at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Units of length. (just a heads up in the off-chance that it could change automobile articles... I can't follow it because I'm going to be offline for a day or two). --Interiot 03:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have made a redirect so that the discussion continues where it belongs i.e. in the Manual of style talk page. bobblewik 19:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Leyland articles

If any need editing, I'll be free to help you. I was a former WoW sock using two WoW accounts ages ago but decided it wasn't fun any more copying WoW's actions, so gave up after just two goes at it - proof that Willy-on-Wheels-type vandalism isn't fun.

I decided WikiProject Automobiles is more fun, so if any admin reads this, don't block me, OK??

BTW, my name is Will and I'm from Toxteth. Always been into cars! --WillyofToxteth 10:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Mustang listed as a Featured article review

Due to a concern raised in the respective talk page, Ford Mustang has been listed as a Wikipedia:Featured article review. Main concerns are the validity of the original nomination due to a lack of info and the current model section is too "detailed" for it's own good. It's also noted at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ford Mustang.--293.xx.xxx.xx 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engine and transmission listings in the infobox

Discussion moved to User_talk:Bravada/Standards#Infobox

[edit] Task Forces - Alternative "Stopgap" Proposal

Hi everybody, thanks for signing up for the Task Forces! I guess we still need a bit more time with launching it, as we first need to have the standards (come discuss them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Standards) some review guidelines established, as well as the template up and running (would be nice if somebody could give me a hand @ User:Bravada/template), and due to rather limited interest in those until now, we haven't made much progress.

As quite many people signed up for various European Car task forces, I propose that until we get all the abovementioned matter settled, we might embark on a European Car of the Week initiative :D The idea is basically that cars that have been chosen the European Car of the Year over the last few decades are in general pretty important, not only due to their status as COTY, but also often became quite influential and/or popular in their own right. So, they would anyway be quite high on the "importance" list. Why don't we work on those articles then?

The list comprises a rather varied selection of models, so I guess all interests are covered, and most models are interesting anyway. Let's choose one car for a given week and do our best to make its article as close as it gets to GA or even FA status. I guess we will encounter all kinds of different issues, solving which might help develop good standards for all car articles.

If you are interested, see User:Bravada/COTW! Thanks, Bravada, talk - 13:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the task-forces is that you make the (bizarre to me) assumption that people are always interested in cars made by a particular country. For me (and I suspect, for others) - our interests may cut across your task force categories. I'm interested in small sporty autocross-capable cars - I don't give a damn who made them or where they were made - so I'm not going to sign up to any of your task forces even though I plan to continue to contribute a lot of time to improving Automotive articles on Wikipedia.

But if you rearranged your task forces into 'Luxury cars/Sports Cars/Supercars/Compacts/PickupTrucks', etc you'd run into the exact same problem. Some people may care only about vintage cars - or only about muscle cars - or only about cars they happen to own - or only about cars with unusual engine designs - or only about cars with the letter 'Q' in their names...I don't know - and neither do you. The point is that however you slice the ideosphere, some people will find it impossible to get interested in any of your categories and won't be excited to sign up. There are really so few people working on the automotive project that it's almost that you already have your taskforce - it's all of us and our interest is specifically in automobiles. Trying to split an active community of about a dozen writers into two dozen categories is truly pointless. So, the entire concept of taskforces leaves me cold. It follows that you'll run into the same problem with "European car of the week" - when you maybe should be looking for the "Sporty hatchback of the week" or the "Vintage car of the week"...same exact problem. SteveBaker 16:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I do already know what you think of such ideas, and believe me - I did not put this here to annoy you or to make you state that over and over again. Allow me to explain that nobody is talking about splitting the community here - first, because these TFs are not an alternative, but an extension/enhancement of the WikiProject, and secondly, because we aren't having much of a community here. At least I am not getting such a feeling.

There are active editors here, for sure, but there ain't much of a community here. An example for that is our puny GA/FA list and the many discussions that die out without a conclusion. The only lively moment here was when people went over the top about Wiarthurhu, which was neither creative nor really beneficial to anybody. With all due respect to everybody, we are a group, but not a community. Coming together to collaborate on an article, however, can be very beneficial - the last FA we have had in this project, and one article that got promoted to GA (quite prematurely, btw) have resulted from cooperations between editors, yet those were quite inpromptu. The proliferation of "Collaborations of the Week" and such over WP proves that this can be an effective way to accelerate the pace of improving articles in a given area.

As concerns TFS, it is obvious that people's interests are not aligned along some fixed categories. My assumption was to set up the task forces to better organize and speed up work on the masses of articles we now have here. And, as you can see, there are quite a few people interested in working on them that way. Nobody is expecting each and every member to join, but detracting the initiative certainly won't benefit anybody here either.

The bottom line is - if you don't want to participate, it's OK and I don't think anybody will object. But do we really have to discuss that here? I would actually gladly move this all to either your or my talk page, if you don't mind. Cheers, Bravada, talk - 18:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked why there was less interest than you hoped - I explained why (IMHO). I find Wikipedia to be a hard place to build community - it's too diverse - too big. The 'big common talk page' thing sucks too - topics get dropped just because they've scrolled up too far, not because everyone lost interest. Regular email 'threads' and forum 'topics' manage that much better than the 'honking great pages of unstructured text with indentation' model that Wikipedia uses.

However - let's try to be constructive. Rather than guess that our interests like along national boundaries, a better way to approach this is perhaps to ask people to tell us what their automotive interests are. When we have a list of what everyone likes to work on, we could perhaps start to find clusters of interests where half a dozen people have some common slice through the automotive subject matter and form taskforces around their actual interests rather than our guesses as to what their interests might happen to be. So you'd end up with a more ad'hoc collection (eg "Vintage cars", "French cars", "Muscle Cars") rather than a neatly non-overlapping coverage of the subject matter - but at least you'd be reinforcing communities of interest rather than something artificial. SteveBaker 18:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, I didn't ask why there was less interest in the TFs than I hoped, as there is actually much more. I was just disappointed that people signed in there, but nobody went on to help work on the template, conventions, reviewing standards etc. I guess this is not because of what you said but something else. I won't speculate, I just hope people will join in the discussion on standards, as we need them regardless of the TFs, I believe.

As concerns inpromptu task forces, they are fun, some people have actually added their propositions to the list and others signed up there. What I proposed is another inpromptu thing, I hope some of the guys here will be interested in collaborating on that. But I guess you're right, it would be good to have a list of what everybody likes in this form or another (I would also suggest listing the languages one speaks and such, as this might be very helpful for somebody stuck with e.g. a car on which most is written in Portuguese or Swedish). On the other hand, such list would not result in any collaborations automatically - this is why I suggested some themes and now this initiative to find out if anybody feels like joining. I myself found my interests changing in time, and I would also prefer to join a collaboration which is perhaps not so obviously within my scope of interest, but there are people willing to work on.

I take it you are not interested in developing an article on any of the COTY cars. What would you be interested in then? Bravada, talk - 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links, again

WP:EL now explicitely says "forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself". There was some discussion on this page before that WP:EL might have meant "don't use forums as a source, but it's okay to link forums in the External links section", but WP:EL has since been clarified to be apparently the opposite of that. And articles are being cleaned up to that effect. [8] [9]

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links to allow some leeway for subjects that have many fan sites... to say that it may be preferable to link to a small handful of the best fan sites (eg. from 0 to 5 fan sites, depending on the topic). Anyway, I pretty much support this, and I may be doing a bit of sporadic cleanup along these lines. --Interiot 11:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unit formatting 'task force'

I note the above discussion about task forces. I have a suggestion that we have a unit formatting task force. There is still plenty of inconsistency between how units are shown in articles. I have done many but there are still many to do. And more inconsistencies are created as articles are written and edited.

I know that several people are interested in consistency of unit formats. Would more people like to use my 'unitformatter' tool as a 'task force' or individually? If so, just let me know on this talk page, and I will help you get it going. Regards bobblewik 18:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charger Patrol car picture

I'll defer adding this to the charger police car article to somebody else --matador300 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This too, 1st gen 1997 Mazda MPV All Sport --matador300 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deal

Dear Sir/Madam. I am Mohamed Nisthar from Sri Lanka. I am a Motor vehicle dealer dealing in a small scale here in Sri Lanka. I would like to contact the sales sections of motor vehicle manufacturing companies in South Korea to discuss about some kind of deal. I would like to findout whether I could get the e-mail address of such companies in Korea. Please send me the details to kiwiquicker@yahoo.com Thank You.

That's almost good enough to go on Wikipedia:Unusual requests. --Interiot 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is, especially considering the purported nature of the business of Mr. Nisthar and his email :D I believe this is a pendant to the discussion about the scope of the of the Project... Bravada, talk - 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is good enought for the unusual requests site. I went ahead and posted it there.Signature^brendel 04:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

Due to WatchlistBot being run a little sporadically, the NewArticles list isn't always updated as often as it needs to be. But when it is run, it's good to go through some of them to do cleanup as necessary. It was just updated, and that's definitely the case this time; there are a fair number that need some TLC or otherwise. --Interiot 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Something seems to have gone wrong with the latest run of WatchlistBot. Have a look at the list of articles between 9 and A to see what I mean. It is still missing a lot as well, but seems to be getting better. Does it run automatically or has someone got to "press a button"? Malcolma 09:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ingrid manually runs it periodically. Ahh, I see the issue at 9, I'll ping Ingrid about it.

For what it's worth, if it's missing articles, it's because the article's parent category's talk page isn't tagged with {{AutomobileWatch}}. People really need to be aware that they need to tag new categories by hand. Also, for what it's worth, a page can only have a limited number of wikitext links on it, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Articles is getting near its limit, so I've left out the motorsport articles for now, we can get another list going for those if we like (I'm still not sure whether those fall under this wikiproject or not). --Interiot 13:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good reason to subcategorize the pages into "Task Force listings" (and have separate watchlists for those, so that WatchlistBot wouldn't run out of capacity), as proposed before - I'll get down to that in more detail in due course. Cheers, Bravada, talk - 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't support task forces either, I think Steve mentioned several of my concerns as well. (I have an autocross bent as well, and am interested in anything that'll corner well enough)

Watchlists can actually be quite flexible though... if you had a list of, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/All Toyotas, Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/All Honda, Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/All BMW... anybody could make a single personalized watchlist by transcluding the specific topics they're interested in... eg. User:Interiot/auto watchlist could consist of:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/All BMW}} {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Autocrossable Toyotas}} ...

So then my watchlist would only include more specific things that I'm interested in. Maybe that sounds complicated, but it's really pretty simple if you see a demo of it. But that would take a lot of organizing of spin-offs of {{AutomobileWatch}}, and would take some software tweaks... --Interiot 14:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit war

Isuzu Impulse is suffering from some tedious external link changes. I've requested semi-protection from the admins, but I'm certain this will be rejected (it's not going to be considered bad enough) and I'm really just hoping for a stern word from an admin. Anyway, mentioning it here in the hope that you guys may also help to keep an eye on this. It's also a mediocre article badly in need of a photo of the 1980s car, and some further copyediting... – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Both are blocked for violating WP:3RR... it primarily was a content dispute, and almost all of AE86er's contributions have been to the edit war. --Interiot 14:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you believe it, the article is now back in the edit war with another newly created account two newly created accounts, and some new IP addresses :( – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets just protect the page. Karrmann 16:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of copyright

I know we have disucced the use of picture copyrights here before. Nonetheless I was wondering what exactely justifies the use of a copy righted image. The Lexus LS article for example featrues multiple copy-righted pictures, as the one to the right, in addition to free images. While the copy-righted imager are nice and do enhance the article is their use justified? If so, I would like to put some copyrighted interior pics on other articles. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I inlined the image to the right (used [[:Image instead of [[Image) because fair-use images are only supposed to be used in article space.

Copyrighted images shouldn't be used simply to decorate an article. That's a bit fuzzy, but I think there's a group of admins and others who more or less understand it to be as Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 describes...

The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. Specifically, content must be essential information that can't be conveyed with text, and itself subject of significant discussion. Any other use is considered decorative.

That is, if the article talks at some length about the interior details of a car, and it's definitely encyclopedic/educational to have a picture depicting what the text discusses, and you can't find a free version, then it's reasonable to include a fair-use image.

Maybe not everyone agrees with the specifics of that yet, and a lot of articles get away with a looser interpretation of fair-use, but sooner or later each article will be vetted based on those criteria (eg. does WP:FAC hold articles to these standards?) --Interiot 11:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not a promo picture? Then it would be easier. // Liftarn

As far as I know, promotional images that are used under fair-use provisions can't be used more liberally than any other fair-use image. --Interiot 14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay that clears things up. I removed two uneeded images from the LS article, the other ones seem to be appropriate. Thank you for your quick reply. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lexus

I was recently reading the Lexus article, and I was impressed with how it has turned out, and I think it could be good for a Good Article canidate. What do you think? Karrmann 00:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chrysler Sebring

Some (Personal attack removed) is trying to merge the Chrysler Sebring models into one article again. Shere your opinions about it on Talk:Chrysler Sebring (coupe) and Talk:Chrysler Sebring (convertible) Karrmann 12:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Either way is a mess and bad looking, plus the current situation is confusing with the sedan in the main page but not the coupes. I propose merging all info on the JA/JX cars into the platform article, and the same with the FJ cars, while leaving short nameplate histories with appropriate links under the nameplate heading. There is also quite a lot work to be done concerning all those cars. Bravada, talk - 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an opinion - while it may be better to keep them apart, a casual reader could inuitively assume that there's a central page containing information. so how about you cut out the personal attacks every time someone does something you don't like? --DeLarge 07:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New award

It's not a barnstar, but it's still a nice award. Please see User:LiverpoolCommander/WPAutomobiles Award for more details, and feel free to comment there! --LiverpoolCommander 08:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Also see User:LiverpoolCommander/WPAutomobiles Japan Award too! --LiverpoolCommander 08:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is - those are BORING, UGLY cars! (At least to my eyes!)...picking a particular car to use as an award is always going to fall into that trap - no matter which car you pick (Well, unless it was a MINI Cooper of course!). So something a little less obvious (like a Barnstar made into a car key or something) is likely to be more appreciated by the recipient. SteveBaker 22:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the picture; they were just generic pictures! --LiverpoolCommander 08:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So let's have another try at a Barnstar vote

It's abundantly clear that:

1. We agree that we want/need an Automotive award.
2. After more than a month, nobody else is going to come up with a suitable picture.

So I think we should come to a simple vote between the available choices. Remember - we can always choose a different image in the future if something better comes along:

Vote: 1	Vote: 2	Vote: 3	Vote: 4
None of the above	Oooh look! A bunny with a pancake on his head!

Small variations on 1/2/3/4 are possible (eg the more distant and closer versions of choice 3) - but for anything significantly different, explain why you want something different and vote for "None of the above". If you do have some other picture you'd like, please don't add it to the gallery above because it messes up votes that have already been cast - instead, mention it and vote "None of the above". SteveBaker 14:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Vote 3 - it's understated. SteveBaker 14:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Vote 3 - though I was tempted by Ooloong the Automotive Pancake Rabbit :D Bravada, talk - 14:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Vote 3 - I think "1" is more in-keeping with other barnstars, but "3" is more "automotive" somehow, so I plump for that. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Bunny with pancake on his head Vote 3 - Number one stands out better as a barnstar but number three has that rustic look from the orginial barnstar, besdies its original in itselfs. Regards, Signature^brendel 16:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Vote 2 - it doesn't "technically" distinguish between vehicle types. - jc37 17:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Vote 3 - Classic. --Dahlis 14:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: By the way, does anybody work in an alloy-wheel casting factory? I want a real set of those in picture one, please. ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No more votes? Looks like a 5:1 verdict. I'll put the decifion over on the Barnstar page. SteveBaker 02:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Kudos, Steve. Signature^brendel 04:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANNOUNCING: The Automotive Barnstar!!

OK - so it's all done - looking cool (and highly distinctive!) at the very bottom of the Wikipedia:Barnstars page.

To award it, you just have to stick this: {{subst:The Automotive Barnstar|message ~~~~}} on the bottom of their personal Talk: page replacing the 'message' with whatever you wish to thank them for. Let's make it actually WORTH something - so let's not award it for trivial stuff.

Well, that was the easy part. Now all we've got to do is write some stuff that's worthy of it! SteveBaker 20:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It definitely has the distinction of being different than everything else on the page : )

Congratulations all around for everyone involved : ) - jc37 00:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me who can't see it? the emperor's new barnstar? Gzuckier 17:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It has now been moved to Wikipedia:Wikiproject awards/Wikiproject and is called a, well, "Automotive Star", due to some users having had issues with it. Bravada, talk - 09:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. If WikiProject can have any impact on WikiProject Awards, I would propose changing the name.

I get really upset about this. The procedure for accepting a new barnstar was a mess - but I did what it said. When I posted there about the proposal, I was told that the project (ie here) was responsible for picking the design - so I did all of that, everyone agreed and I put it into the system. Then one of the admins (User:Evrik) pulled it out of the main barnstar list but left it in some subsidary list - leaving me a message on some obscure page that I'm never likely to visit to tell me he'd done it...I only found out by accident. When I asked why, (and in his edit comment) he referred me to "the talk page" without saying which one. I searched through all of the likely places where this might have been discussed - but could find no sign of any discussion...and I though it was pretty rude of him to not even bother to tell me that there was a debate in progress. When I asked for clarification - or for him to tell me precisely WHERE this draconian decision had been made - I got no reply - even to a direct question on his user-talk page. Now it looks like the entire barnstar proposal page has all been moved around - several other are complaining about this - but it's a total mess. User:Evrik appears to have simply done this by himself without discussion. I give up! SteveBaker 12:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes things seem too bureaucratic. I didn't even know there was a process for voting on barnstars. I've happily received rocks as barnstars, I've given cells in mitosis as a barnstar... It doesn't matter what you call them or who votes on them, if the person giving them is heartfelt, and the person receiving them is happy, that's all that matters. And I don't think anyone is objecting to having it as the official barnstar of our project. --Interiot 18:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I can live with bureaucracy - so long as it's all spelled out clearly. If there is a clear set of rules and I break them - then I expect to get reverted. But when the rules are not spelled out at all well and the whole system is just a mess - it seems particularly unfair to kill something that had such a good consensus behind it. I just can't be bothered to fight it. As you say - we can go ahead and award whatever the heck we want - and screw the system! SteveBaker 05:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So whats happening on the Automotive Barnstar front? Have you given up or is there something that needs to be done to get the star accepted? --Dahlis 11:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Head images

I put new head images in the Ford Escort (North American) and Mercury Sable, and IFCAR reverted them. I am wondering, are they ok as head images, or was IFCAR right to revert them? I just want this firgured out so an edit war won't break out between us. Karrmann 10:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid the guideline says explicitly "front 3/4s", so those photos you made are nice for your private collection, but nor for WP :( Bravada, talk - 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the 3/4 view is more informative and better as a lead image, guideline or not. The existing Mercury Sable was pretty good. The existing Ford Escort was not so good, but was still more informative than a front-on shot. --Interiot 15:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I put the new Mercury Sable image up because Bull-Doser's one is not very clear and full of noise, and I thought mine would be better. Also, they have 3/4 view of both the Sable sedan and wagon, wo I don't see how it's really hurting. As For the escort, We outta just remove that image of the white one, it is not of very good quality. Karrmann 18:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite it being a good picture the head image you chose for the article does not show a 3/4 view. I does not give a reader a really good idea of what a Sable looks like aside from its grille. As this is your car, why don't you just take another picture of its showing it with the 3/4 so get we get a side-view of your beauty ;-) It is a high quality pic though. Nonetheless the 3/4 is important. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset) I reverted both to the originals, which are clearly better than the head-on stuff. WP:SNOW. --DeLarge 19:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a new picture of my Sable, is this one better? Karrmann 19:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, no. There's more background distractions, the shadows and reflections are more obvious, and it's still more head-on than the original. Since we have a perfectly good photo already, what's your obsession with replacing it. And why delete the Escort image? It's not perfect, but it's not bad either. --DeLarge 19:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a very good image. It is full of noise. Karrmann 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid your photo of the Sable (the new one) is certainly not of higher quality than IFCAR's. Since this is a car belonging to your household, apparently, why don't you wait for the time of day when the car would not be in the shadow but would be well-lit (do try to avoid overexposure and reflection - evenings close to the sunset time usually give good results provided your camera can handle it and the car is on the proper side of the building :D ). Bravada, talk - 20:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The perhaps best way to take picture is to take lots of them. Just take as many pics as you want and later you can look for the best one on you computer. Don't worry about minor faults, after-all there're editors like me who take pics by other users and photoshop them up a bit. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to note some relevent irony: Karrmann was recently complaining that I was replacing free images IFCAR 21:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Because your images were of worse quality than the previous images. Karrmann 22:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us, To see oursels as ithers see us" --DeLarge 23:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We definitely need 3/4 view shots - it's more important to provide information than to be beautiful. Minimising background distractions and cropping fairly closely are also good things to do. If you use JPEG, crank the quality up on your camera and don't reduce it anywhere else - but if the quality is already set fairly low, don't increase it because it only makes matters worse. Try to have the sun behind you when you take the photo - never *ever* on the far side of the car. When you get it into the computer, play with the gamma settings - you can almost always improve a photo by setting the gamma nicely. It should be obvious - but if possible, wash the car before you take the photos! Attacking the photo to remove distractions in the background is hotly debated - but I do it all the time. There is a shot of a red car on the Mini Moke page that had a truck and a bunch of police caution tape and cones in the background - all of it was wiped out with judicious painting. The resulting photo is much nicer! But we probably shouldn't be messing with the actual car itself...that's a bit naughtier! SteveBaker 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I second all that. I also enjoy doing cleanup in Photoshop. It sounds like there's a number of us, so if anybody wants a photo to be cleaned up, post the largest resolution you can, and drop a word here, somebody should be able to help out. (this is highly encouraged... sometimes a slightly-off picture can be improved a surprising amount if the right tweaks are done) --Interiot 00:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Bravada/Photos or, better yet, here - I have only uploaded those that I have GIMPed myself, or those that I believe there is any chance of salvaging, but I can upload a lot more that I found too hard to do anything with myself. Do also check out www.delest.nl - I am uploading photos from there whenever I have time, but their resources are vast (and free!), so there is still a lot of material to upload and work on! They deal with classic cars, so you can find photos of cars it is quite hard to photograph round the corner there. Bravada, talk - 00:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, photoshop can really help w/ the background IMHO. Here's kind of an "extreme" background noise reduction I conducted recently-all I used was the Blur tool for 2min: [10]. As for your pics Bravada, most of them are actually quite nice. One thing I do like to emphasise in this discussion though, again is the 3/4 rule-its really important for the reader to get the idea of what the car acutally looks like. Signature^brendel 03:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also note that it's good to use a relatively high quality setting when saving JPEG's... original file size isn't really really important, since thumbnails are usually what's displayed to the user. Bravada... definitely, you've taken a lot of good pictures. Do you have the original or a higher resolutoin version of Image:Ford Vedette Coupé 1950.jpg? If someone has some (a lot of) time, some of the background bits can be cloned out, but there's some noticable JPEG artifacts in that version of the picture that I don't want to make worse by modifying and resaving it. --Interiot 14:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue of JPEG quality is a subtle one. The JPEG file format uses lossy compression. In order to make the file smaller, it actually messes up the image. That's different from (for example) PNG image compression where the image always looks perfect no matter what compression level you choose (the cost of higher compression levels is slower image compression times). But for JPEG, every time you load the image, do something to it, and save it again, you cause the compression algorithm to throw away more information from the file. This can be a subtle problem. For example, if you load up an image that was saved at 50% quality - then save it at 60% quality, it'll look WORSE - not better! Once a JPEG image has been saved at even 100% quality, there will be data losses. The best way to deal with JPEG is to use it as little as possible. If your camera can save '.raw' or something - then use that - do all of your image processing in PNG and when you FINALLY write it out, consider using JPEG because it's a lot more compact than PNG. What's bad is to keep doing little tweaks to a JPEG image, loading and saving and loading and saving over and over again. That can really mess up an image...don't do that! SteveBaker 15:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Ford Vedette is the original image, IIRC, I haven't done anything to it. For Garage De'l Est images, you can always see the original image by clicking the link in the description page. I am afraid they are not of highest quality themselves, but since their intended use in WP is for infobox pictures, I guess they can do, and something can still be done for them to display well in the 250px format. I admit, though, to fiddling with jpegs (saving a jpeg as jpeg etc.) concerning my own pics :( I still have the originals for most of them Bravada, talk - 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images requesting a home?

Well, we have requested images. Every once in a while I run across a cool image, but don't know what model it is. Anybody up for "images requesting a home"? For example, this blue Bentley would be great to stick somewhere, but I've no idea what model it is, maybe it's possible someone more knowledgable could identify it? --Interiot 00:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a job for Commons:Category:Unidentified automobiles. But if you know it's a Bentley you could put it in Commons:Category:Bentley vehicles. // Liftarn

Aha. Thanks for the tip. --Interiot 14:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would like to join

Hi there,

I've joined Wikipedia these days as a contributor and, despite having to find my ways around all these new to me issues, have already created a couple of new pages. And there's quite a lot of stuff still to come.

I've been working for 23 years as a motoring and motorsport journalist, so there's quite a lot of material available and I believe I can make a nice contribution to Wikipedia.

I'd be interested to join likeminded people here and therefore would like to join the project and see if I can help getting some of the pending stuff done.

Best regards --Vee8 08:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Don't be surprised to see a tag that identifies me as already being part of the project. Another user borrowed his template and I'm fiddling around to fix it acordingly for me. If you allow me in, I might just leave it as it is... :D

What you need to join is just add your name to the "members" section of the main WikiProject page! Cheers! Bravada, talk - 14:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 0.5

FYI & for those who care: It looks like the Wikipedia 0.5 folks have worked their way down to the Transport category and are now actively assessing articles for inclusion into the CD/Book based version of Wikipedia. They are aiming to collect only around 5,000 of the best/most-relevent articles so it's quite an honor to be included. They already made a 'nominations' list and are working down it checking each article for suitability. It looks like they only nominated older Featured Articles in the automotive category: De Lorean DMC-12, Ford Mustang, Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9, Mini & Talbot Tagora - it looks like all of the FA's from about 6 months ago were included - but none of the more recent ones. Since Ford Mustang and Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 have since lost their FA status, I'm betting they won't make it - leaving just three car articles with a shot at Wikipedia 0.5. So far, (according to Wikipedia:Version 0.5 FA Review) the only ones they've formally accepted for 'Transport' is Bicycle and the Mini article (which is how I found out about it) - I presume De Lorean DMC-12 and Talbot Tagora will make it since the grounds for rejection of FA's is if they are not general enough (and if Mini is sufficiently general, I don't see why any other reasonably well-known car should not be) - or if they are no longer considered to be of FA quality (unlikely). They add a template onto the article's talk page when it passes their examination and they tag a specific version of the page to be 'frozen'. The only other problem issue is that they have to remove all 'Fair Use' images because the company that'll be producing the final Wikipedia 0.5 insist on that (another good reason to avoid 'Fair Use'!). SteveBaker 13:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size of navigational boxes

Wikipedia:Navigational boxes is a policy proposal that might impact some of the larger automobile templates. I don't know whether it will have much support, but it's something to be aware of. --0x845FED 15:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tire and Tyre

I'm proposing a move so that tyre redirects to tire (US spelling). This parity (with the article still in US spelling) might be a good compromise for this UK invention. Please see Talk:Tyre. Widefox 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motorcycle Task Force?

There isn't one mentioned here? Is that Automotive, or no? Is there one, and if so where?Seasalt 13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There was some discussion a while back... I think people suggested that motorcycles would go in Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport, not under this project? Though quite a few motorcycle-related categories lie under Category:Automobiles... Category:Auto part stubs is under it, but most motorcycle parts are found there (probably even if the part isn't used on cars). Category:Motor vehicle companies is also under automobiles, though it has a more appropriate name. So there's certainly at least a little overlap. --Interiot 13:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to readress the issue of WikiProjects and those Task Forces once again and make some conclusive decisions - perhaps sometime in the future, where there would be more active members in Project... Bravada, talk - 18:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This problem of our project title is a big one. We really need to change 'Automobile' (which by definition means cars and maybe SUV's) to something like 'Automotive' - which would include trucks and motorcycles and anything else like that. But until we do, it's not right to put Motorcycles into this project. SteveBaker 02:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am comfortable with this project being an Automobile WikiProject, i.e. cars, SUVs and minivans in my understanding, and I don't think we should be dealing with motorcycles, buses, heavy trucks and other motorized road vehicles. I believe motorcycles deserve and need a separate WikiProject within Transportation. Bravada, talk - 11:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there ever is a Wiki motorcycle interest group, I'd probably join it. Ironic that limbo classification. Seasalt 12:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And you are not alone - there is no place for pickup trucks or panel vans either. What needs to happen is for a new Wikiproject to be added under Transportation that includes all road vehicles. This project would be under that - as would motorcycles, trucks, busses, etc. SteveBaker 14:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I though pick-up trucks and panel vans are within the scope of this project. After all, articles like Dodge Ram or Mercedes-Benz Sprinter are developed by the members of this WikiProject, use "our" Infobox and fit in nicely. I just think motorcycles are different enough for it to be more reasonable to start a separate WikiProject on them. Bravada, talk - 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. Creating a WikiProject is relatively easy. I encourage you, Seasalt, to submit a proposal to Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects or just start one yourself and notify users who you think might be interested (e.g. edit motorcycle articles regularly).

Pick-ups are included in this project as are SUVs. In the US pick-ups are used just like cars for personal transportation thus we can't really justify their omission in the scope of this project; as Bravada said: "articles like Dodge Ram or Mercedes-Benz Sprinter are developed by the members of this WikiProject, use "our" Infobox and fit in nicely." Motorcycles on the other hand, may be a good idea for another WP project. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Pickups and panel vans are sometimes mentioned as a part of this project - but they shouldn't be because they fall outside of the definition of the word "Automobile". For those who didn't follow the thread on Talk:Automobile where I searched every dictionary I could find, here are my findings:

• The Pocket Oxford dictionary : Automobile: Motor Car - then Motor car: A car propelled by a motor for use on roads. Car is defined as Car: A chariot or wheeled vehicle.
• Chambers Etymological Dictionary: Automobile: Motor car - then Motor car: Car driven by motor - to convey or travel. then Car: A vehicle moved on wheels as an automobile. Nice - circular definition!
• The American heritage dictionary: Automobile: A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport. Also called motorcar.
• Princeton's WordNet: Automobile: 4-wheeled motor vehicle; usually propelled by an internal combustion engine; "he needs a car to get to work" [syn: car, auto, machine, motorcar]
• MerriamWebster online: Automobile: a usually four-wheeled automotive vehicle designed for passenger transportation
• MerriamWebster Word Central - Student dictionary: Automobile: a usually four-wheeled vehicle with its own power system (as an internal combustion engine) designed for passenger transportation on streets and roadways
• YourDictionary.com: Automobile: A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport. Also called motorcar.
• Cambridge disctionary of American English says that automobile and car are synonyms and then says: Car: a road vehicle with an engine, usually four wheels, and seating for between one and five people
• Encarta: Automobile: A passenger-carrying road vehicle: a road vehicle, usually with four wheels and powered by an internal-combustion engine, designed to carry a small number of passengers
• InfoVISUAL.info: Automobile: road vehicle that is motor-driven and is used for transporting people.
• Wiktionary: Automobile: From auto-, self, and mobile, as the vehicle is powered by an engine rather than pulled by horses. 1. (US): An enclosed passenger vehicle powered by an engine.
• Wiktionary: Car: 1. A vehicle that moves independently, steered by a driver mostly for personal transportation. See also motorcar or automobile.
• Wordsmyth: Automobile: a four-wheeled vehicle with a built-in, self-propelled motor requiring a driver and used on roads to carry people; passenger car.
• Infoplease dictionary: Automobile: a passenger vehicle designed for operation on ordinary roads and typically having four wheels and a gasoline or diesel internal-combustion engine.
• The Online Etymological dictionary: Automobile: Meaning "self-propelled motor vehicle" is from 1895.
• Ultralingua: Automobile: 1. A motorized vehicle, esp. a small passenger vehicle; car. 2. Any vehicle which provides its own form of locomotion, such as an electric motor or combusion engine.
• The Online Plain Text English Dictionary: Automobile: An automobile vehicle or mechanism; esp., a self-propelled vehicle suitable for use on a street or roadway. Automobiles are usually propelled by internal combustion engines (using volatile inflammable liquids, as gasoline or petrol, alcohol, naphtha, etc.), steam engines, or electric motors. The power of the driving motor varies from about 4 to 50 H. P. for ordinary vehicles, ranging from the run-about to the touring car, up to as high as 200 H. P. for specially built racing cars. Automobiles are also commonly, and generally in British usage, called motor cars.
• Rhymezone: Automobile: 4-wheeled motor vehicle; usually propelled by an internal combustion engine
• Allwords.com: Automobile: Motor car
• The Colombia Encyclopedia: Automobile: self-propelled vehicle used for travel on land. The term is commonly applied to a four-wheeled vehicle designed to carry two to six passengers and a limited amount of cargo, as contrasted with a truck, which is designed primarily for the transportation of goods and is constructed with larger and heavier parts, or a bus (or omnibus or coach), which is a large public conveyance designed to carry a large number of passengers and sometimes additionally small amounts of cargo.
• Encarta - North American edition: Automobile, self-propelled vehicle used primarily on public roads but adaptable to other surfaces. ... Automobiles are classified by size, style, number of doors, and intended use. The typical automobile, also called a car, auto, motorcar, and passenger car, has four wheels and can carry up to six people, including a driver.

So - what should we conclude? I think by far the majority of those definitions agree that an automobile is a car - then define that as something that 'typically' has four wheels (so three wheeled cars aren't excluded but motorbikes pretty much are) - is self-propelled - and carries one to five (or two to six or ...) people (more or less excluding SUV's) - and also is primarily for passenger/personal transport - so excluding pickup trucks and panel vans.

I think cars, SUV's, pickups and vans should fall within the scope of a single project (because there would be much to be gained by sharing the portal and standards for stuff like infoboxes). However, until/unless we either rename this project or create a more encompassing project to do this work, I am forced to oppose the inclusion of those other vehicle types here because to do so is incorrect and most definitely unencyclopeadic. Gross misuse of the word 'Automobile' to include trucks and vans is a very, very bad thing for a web site that purports to be accurate in all such matters! The article Automobile is also an exceedingly poor title choice because almost all of it would have to be duplicated in articles about trucks and vans. SteveBaker 15:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your assessment of this project's scope. The Ford Explorer and Ford F-Series are articles that lie within the scope of this project. Wikipedia is a unviersal encyclopedia and this project is for pretty much wathever Mr. Smith in Danville drives to work. Be it a Hummer H1, a Kia Rio or a Dodge Ram. Perhaps the definition including six people is outdated. Eight passenger vehicles such as the Lexus GS are definitely part of this project and serve the same purpose as my six-seater sedan. I see we do agree that SUVs and pick-ups (who together make-up half the vehicles sold in the US with most of them never seeing a dirt road) should be included; it's just IMHO they already are. Perhpas we need to agree to disagree over the current scope of this project which IMHO includes the Lincoln Navigator. I think a name change would just be confusing and isn't really needed as few useres make the title of this project subject to close scrutiny. I think we are already including what you and I think we should be inluding ;-) Signature^brendel 15:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You are of course free to disagree about project scope - I actually agree with your position that this project should include trucks - but not if the project continues to be called 'Automobile'. You can't argue with the definition of the word. I thought it meant trucks and cars too - but I've searched fifteen dictionaries - many of them highly prestigious - they are almost unanimous in defining 'Automobile' as 'A Car' - so I was wrong and I'm correcting that (British English speakers don't often use the word Automobile anyway - so I can live with that!). But unless you can find at least sixteen prestigious dictionaries that say otherwise, you must accept that a truck simply isn't an automobile - period. You don't get to decide that the meaning of the word is outdated - you don't get to imagine that your personal interpretation of the word is somehow correct when it contradicts fifteen different dictionaries - thats called "Original Research" and it's not allowed here. So, in order to be correct and encyclopeadic we either have to use a different word or phrase to name this project (I like "Automotive Technology" since it allows us to talk about engines and stuff too) - or we have to carefully exclude things that are not within the meaning of our title. I'd most definitely prefer to change the title of the project - but until/unless we do, we should live up to the consequences of being an encyclopedia and not an informal club of car enthusiasts. SteveBaker 16:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) I do "accept that a truck simply isn't an automobile - period". I am a strong opponent of OR being published here, so I am certainly not going to pull a Foley and impersonalize what I intend to figth; I am not going to disagree with the OED. I am just saying that since a Wikiproject is kind of a behind the scenes thing, we don't need to get cought up in technicalities that matter in our articles. For example, look at the care taken in regard to being "correct and encyclopeadic" in Passenger vehicles in the United States -note the name for one. But that's an article title which is visible to all wiki readers immediately- that's where being "correct and encyclopeadic" matters the most. A wiki project can afford some minor neglect of semantics in its title. I do agree that this Projects title is technically incorrect, but do I think it matters here behind the scenes? Not so much ;-) (I should mention that based on the definition of a car, I would support a name change to Automotive technologies and such if it were proposed.) Signature^brendel 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - I can understand that. (I'm actually much more concerned about Automobile than Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles). SteveBaker 18:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject Motorcycles and User talk:Seasalt/Project Motorcycles . I incline towards motorcycles having their own classification: Transport.Motorcycling.Motorcycles? But motorcycle editing is the core idea. The motorcycle classification could be a diversion. Seasalt 01:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes - but having an encompassing project (such as we have here for cars & SUV's) provides a place for general issues (such as infobox standards) to be discussed. You can also use it to call for help in cases of fact-finding, proof reading, photos, it gives you a place to announce Featured Article attempts...it's very helpful. SteveBaker 15:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Semi-trucks need a home, and there's lots of those out on the road. Snowmobiles and ATVs need a home too, but they're less related. But the auto-parts bits apply to all of them, and the manufacturers are often the same. --Interiot 16:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I greatly miss the existance of a project that covers earth-movers and construction machines such as back-hoes and bull-dozers. The coverage of these topics is spotty, there is no good categorization and certainly no standards for infoboxes and such. SteveBaker 16:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we have to go through that again? Let's keep this Project as it is now, it is doing OK. If anybody would like a project about snowmobiles or construction machinery, why not just start one? Bravada, talk - 21:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just so you recognize...

...me on history pages. I changed my user name to gain more privacy and will now be known as BrendelSignature (my signature in reverse!). Same user, same edits ;-) Regards, Signature^brendel 05:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent help needed!

User:Ed g2s, some of you might remember, is pursuing the removal of photos from the Eurovan (PSA/Fiat) article. They might be removed within a week from now (or from yesterday, actually), so it would be good to replace them with free ones - the problem is that we would have to get them from somewhere. There is a link to an owner's club at the bottom of the article, and they even host a gallery, so it might be possible to get some photos from there.

Basically it would be advisable to get in touch with them ASAP and explain all the wherebaouts (that we need photos whose authors agree to license them under CC/GFDL or release into public domain) and perhaps be a little convincing at that :D The problem is I barely have the time to keep up with the changes on my watchlist these days, so I would be most grateful if somebody could take on this mission. I would also appreciate if more users could take the article on their watchlist and help defend it from "do gooders".

Thanks very much in advance! Bravada, talk - 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the relatively new {{Replaceable fair use}} means that ALL automobile fair-use promotional images have a very high chance of being deleted sooner or later (since almost all of could have free versions made of them... the only exceptions would be automobiles that no longer have any copies that exist, or perhaps if the only copies are likely to be hidden away in private storage for a long time). So, really, this is an urgent call to make sure all articles have at least once decent free replacement ASAP. --Interiot 18:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, not that I didn't know about it, and we have been replacing fair use images for some time, it's only that this article has been "assaulted" recently, and it is quite OK as of now, so it would be quite sad to see it damaged. Would be great if you could help, I am having trouble finding time to sleep, actually... :( Bravada, talk - 19:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So, actually User:Ed g2s managed to have me absolutely fed up with any attempts to make WP better for a LONG time, so I leave it up to you anyway. I would be most grateful if you could look after the more obscure articles I might be the only person to have on the watchlist (Isuzu, Daihatsu, Autobianchi, Lancia and historic Fiat cars). I wish you all that your experience with WP would be much better than mine. Have a good time here! Bravada, talk - 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The change seems to have gone into effect just yesterday, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Replaceable fair use. It does mark a noticable philosophical shift, though it mainly means that we have to put more work into finding and creating free images of the subjects we like most, which will in the end help the content to be useful to more people for more things. Anyway, hopefully you don't stay away too long, Bravada, Wikipedia won't be the same without you. --Interiot 23:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the new policy apparently means that we should somehow make free photos of Jill Lajdziak or Towa Carson, I believe it will be forever. And given the way things are heading, it will probably be the better for WP, as this certainly is not a project that would benefit from my participation in any way, rather on the contrary. I hope you would be having as much fun though. G'bye! Bravada, talk - 00:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have a reasonable objection to why producing such images would not be possible then voice it on the image talk pages. I doubt the only thing you had to offer Wikipedia is uploading copyrighted images. ed g2s • talk 10:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly a philosophical shift. Free content was one of our founding principles. Fair Use was introduced later as a compromise. Jimbo noticed that this was being heavily abused with the use of promo images to illustrate things we can take our own photos of. Such images have for a long time been listed as copyvios as subsequently deleted. What is new is the process of making such deletions easier when the images are obviously repeatable. There has been no policy or philosophy change, nor need there be to this WikiProject - gathering free images of automobiles has, I imagine, always been one of your objectives. ed g2s • talk 10:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I later figured out that policy had long existed for this. However, in practice, FUC#1 wasn't enforced before, and a very large number of articles (not just automobiles... actors/actresses, other products, etc.) were tagged with {{promotional}} and stuck around despite being replaceable. So our handling of promotional replaceable images has changed quite a bit. (per ed g2s and SteveBaker, I support the changes, though it wouldn't surprise me if a few more people have a negative reaction to the change and consider leaving over it) --Interiot 15:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I believe that we sometimes have a knee-jerk reaction to 'fair use' images (they are, after all, fairly used in a significant number of cases) - I don't think we should be using scans of manufacturers brochures as a source of photographs of cars. Not just for copyright reasons - but also for commercial/advertising reasons. Those photos are taken by the manufacturer to sell the car - as such, they are biased. The car can be posed so as to show off the features they want to attract you with - and to hide the things they don't want you to see - the lighting can be very carefully arranged to accentuate or disguise some design compromise of form versus function. It is vastly better to use our own photos. HOWEVER - there are times when we are talking about the brochure itself - or perhaps some aspect of the manner in which the car was advertised - that is very likely to be fair use and for that reason it would be wrong to remove fair use images without careful examination of the way they are used. For example, in my MINI (BMW) article, we have a scan of the front page of a "Weekly World News" story. It's fair use because we explain that this was "news coverage" that was bought and paid for by BMW as a part of their very unusual marketing of that particular car. What concerns me most about the 'holy war' against fair use is the removal of company trade marks and badges. Those are important to navigation through the oceans of car articles out there - and a reasonable example of fair use. I was very unhappy when they were removed from our navigation templates because of an ill-conceived blanket rule against fair use images in templates. Blanket rules, mindlessly applied, are a bad thing and the "break all rules" adage applies here. However, when some 'do-gooder' comes along and applies the rules mindlessly, that ain't so good. SteveBaker 13:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bat-boy isn't "replaceable" per FUC#1, so I don't think it's any less safe than before.

For the logos in navigation boxes... generally, a company's logo aren't critical to use in more than ~3-5 articles. I do think we were overdoing it before. --Interiot 15:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. If you are discussing the brochure itself then you can make a fair use claim. If you are simply using it to illustrate the car then you can't. That hasn't changed. As for using fair use for navigation that has always been considered decorative (FUC #8). Fair use should never be used in templates - this is not an "ill-conceived blanket rule" and one that I advise you not to break. ed g2s • talk 11:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with photos?

I'm slowly working on uploading photos I took last January at the Washington Auto Show to commons:User:AudeVivere#Cars. I started out in the Ford exhibit, taking pictures and good notes to help me keep track of what vehicles are what model, year, etc. But, soon gave up on the notes, due to lack of time and too many cars. In the end, I was able to visit most of the exhibit areas, except for General Motors and Chrysler due to time constraints. Also, aside from knowing a bit about hybrid cars, I'm not a car expert. Between that and missing notes for most of my pictures, it's taking me a bit of time to figure out what kind of car is in each picture. Maybe I can just upload a bunch of photos and people here can help me with labeling and categorizing them? Also, I'll add that my pictures are generally fairly good or okay quality (but not great), given the lighting conditions. I'll be back this January to get more, probably better pictures. --Aude (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned a few sections above, but you can always dump things in commons:Category:Unidentified automobiles, and somebody should comb through there eventually. --Interiot 19:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this category. I have uploaded ~70 photos, placing them in commons:Category:AudeVivere-cars, which I made a subcategory of "Unidentified automobiles". Thusfar, these include Acura, Aston Martin, BMW, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Infiniti, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lincoln, Mazda, Nissan, Volvo, and some others. Have many more yet to upload, including Volkswagon, Porsche, Audi, some classic cars, Bentley, Ferrari, Lexus, Toyota, and perhaps others. These don't match up to the professional promotional photos, but could be helpful. --Aude (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Bravada

Recently departed Bravada emailed me because he wanted to mention that the website http://www.delest.nl/ contains many photographs of classic cars whose owner allows for their use for any purpose. He said it would be a shame to waste that, but he was the only person who uploaded photos from there, so he wanted to remind the wikiproject that it's a useful resource.

The most important is to keep track of http://www.delest.nl/indexnew.html?main=/html/voorraadlijst.html, as new offers appear there, but also can be delisted. If even a small group of people uploaded one photo each (or one set, as they ususally come in front/rear/interior sets), every second day, it wouldn't be too much of a toil, I guess, and could largely benefit Wikipedias. I mean uploading to the Commons of course, there is a category I created there (commons:Category:Photographs from the Garage de l'Est). Do not forget about the archive either, it's vast!

--Interiot 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened, was Bravada driven away by teh whole Wiarthurhu fiaasco? Karrmann 19:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it was mainly I guess the fair use image affair. He felt that is efforts were counter-productive in relation to some of WP's policies; thus making WP too stressful and negative of an experience. Signature^brendel 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automobiles Wikiproject is too vague

Your project is really great, but I think that "Automobiles" is too vague. Its an enormous subject, and should be split into smaller sections. Here's my proposal: First, "Automobiles is Split up by Continent. Then by Country/or Region. Then By Brand, and eventually by decade (or at least divide past models with present ones). So, the Automobiles Wikiproject would become an umbrella for other projects that become more and more specialised. It would be much easier to control, though we still need the "Automobiles" project so that we can have the same standards and guidelines for all the articles.

This is actually a terrible idea. The trouble is that there are only about a dozen active contributors here (look back up this page and count them!). If you split the project up into 12 chunks there will be about one person per chunk! Also (as previously explained) there are about a dozen ways to slice the pie. Why slice by the continent where the car was made? Why not by the type of car (sports cars, SUV's, luxury cars, etc)? Why not by the era in which the car was made (Current, classic, antique, brass-era, etc)? No matter which way you slice it, a significant section of the 'membership' will feel that this is the wrong way to slice it. I have no interest in writing about European cars - I have no interest in writing about cars from the 1950's. I want to write about small sporty production cars. That would mean that I'd have to sign on to every one of your microscopically sliced projects in order to cover my interests. If this project was too large and unwieldy, I'd agree with you - but it's not...quite the opposite in fact. Furthermore, our present discussions are leading more towards INCREASING the scope of the project (eg to include pickup trucks) than to decreasing it. (Oh - and please sign your comments with four tilde's: ~~~~) SteveBaker 14:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The top comment truly does contain a bad idea. Such WP projects would be superfolous and understaffed. Of course, if enough users love editing Lexus articles, we could have a Lexus sub-project- but only if there are enough users. Otherwise such proposed change would only lead to further complicating things and seemingly splitting up the work effort of a very functional WP project into various less functional WP projects. At least that's what I get from reading it. Regards, Signature^brendel 16:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:SteveBaker and Brendel; auto manufacturing is now far too globalised to categorise it primarily by continent or country. How would you pigeonhole the Toyota Aygo, for example? A Japanese company badging a car built in the Czech Republic (alongside the mechanically identical but "French" Citroën C1 and Peugeot 107) for the European market? Or how about Lonsdale - a Japanese company sets up a marque building cars in Australia exclusively for the European market to circumvent local import restrictions? Given the amount of activity in this project, or at Portal:Cars, I don't see a need for further subdivision. --DeLarge 17:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:JoePane aka User:Joepane lying about authorship of photos

I would like to draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bmwx506.jpg. User:JoePane has tagged this photo as his "own work," when it is clearly a BMW promotional photo. Could an administrator please take care of this? Jagvar 02:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out this guy's talk page - he clearly does this kind of thing all the time. SteveBaker 05:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

On the subject, could someone check the images on the Toyota Solara page? They're in the Commons as being used with the permission of scionlife.com, but I'm almost positive that at least one is a Toyota image and two of the others look suspicious as well. I left a note at the Solara talk page, but I didn't get a reply there. IFCAR 13:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I say we block him. It says in the Image upload page that if you are to lie about authorship of images, you will be blocked. Karrmann 13:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Linked without comment: User:Joepane IFCAR 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He is uploading DOZENS of copyrighted photos and tagging them as his own work:

• Image:Dale hawkes.jpg
• Image:Skoda octavia vrs.jpg
• Image:Lotus Esprit.jpg
• Image:Tvr 440.jpg
• Image:Bmw-m5.jpg
• Image:Subaru-impreza.jpg
• Image:Continental gt.jpg
• Image:Honda-accord.jpg
• Image:Ford mondeo.jpg
• Image:Fiat stilo.jpg
• Image:Honda crv.jpg
• Image:Renault laguna 1997.jpg
• Image:Skodafabiavrsrenaultclio.jpg
• Image:Fiat wideweb 470x350,0.jpg
• Image:Bmwx506.jpg

This one is even even in the Commons:

• Image:Bentley_turbo_r.jpg

Please, we have to react immediately. He goes by two names: User:JoePane and User:Joepane. We have to block him and get all of these images deleted immediately. Jagvar 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Has someone consulted an admin person about this? SteveBaker 04:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parent Company

With the automobile infobox, there is a space for "parent company". When writing an article about a car, I am thinking you should have the parent company as the company that owned the sub-company when the car was made. An example:

The Maserati 8C was made in 1933. Maserati is currently owned by Fiat (via Alfa Romeo) but in 1933 it wasn't. So I'm guessing I shouldn't have Fiat as the parent company.

So is there a guideline on this? Just checking to be sure. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 02:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

These things are awfully problematic and whenever we try to come up with a standard way to do these things, there are always almost as many exceptions as there are cases where the rule make sense. Picking the parent company "when the car was made" doesn't help when the production run of the car exceeds the lifetime of the company or its parent. To pick (again!) my favorite example (the Mini) - it was made from 1959 to 2000 - during which time both Austin and Morris went through seven different parent companies (Nuffield, BMC, BMH, BL, Austin-Rover, BAE and BMW) - which one should we list? Should we argue that once Austin was taken over by Nuffield, it became a mere 'marque' - in which case the manufacturing company was Nuffield/BMC/BMH/BL/BAE/BMW - none of which had parent companies.

The best advice is to use your best judgement as editor of the article. The info box isn't a substitute for text in the main article - it's a quick way for someone to find information in a hurry with zero explanation or background. So pick the most notable - the longest lived, the most important...or if it's too complicated to explain in a couple of words, write "See main article" and link that to the section heading with a more complete explanation. In short - don't sweat it. SteveBaker 05:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banner?

Does Project Automobiles have a talk page banner to identify Project Automobile content, and let new editors know you exist? While I am currently occupied with Project Motorcycles, I have done some Daimler pages, and was just wondering.Seasalt 11:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do, just use the template: {{AutoProject}} SteveBaker 22:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Euro car pics

Good Day to you all,

if you need any photographs of Euro cars (everyday cars, that is, no exoticars), just drop me a line on my talk page.

Be aware, though, that I´m situated in Alpine Germany with lots of snow about to fall anytime soon...show rooms, of course, are always a possibility.

Would be glad to help if there are any specific needs.

--328cia 03:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volkswagen Golf

Please see the talk page for discussion. I am working on making this a featured article, if you have any comments, then feel free to let me know. At the moment it's got a {{worldwide}} template on it due to concerns about the article, but if you've any other comments about this, feel free to help me. Thanks, --SunStar Net 11:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Famous Owners" section

Please offer your opinion.

I have noticed that several automotive articles have a "famous owners" section, including Rolls-Royce Phantom, which has a particularly long list, mostly comprised of rap artists. Also included are the names of music videos in which the car has appeared. I do not think this information belongs in an encyclopedia, as it really has very little to do with the car. Also, the "famous owners" information is largely unsourced and uncited. I would like to hear your opinions on this.

If a majority of you agree that this sort of information is not appropriate in an article, I would appreciate it if a representative of this project could remove these "famous owners" sections or change them accordingly. Jagvar 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, I see what you mean. That's a huge list and it makes the article seem trivial. I don't think that notable examples of famous owners are necessarily bad, and there are times when celebrities have actually influenced the designers of cars; like car-fan Peter Sellers being used almost like a marketing tool with everything from Bristols to Minis or Ted Heath with his customised Rover (with an enlarged ash tray for his pipe!). But this list adds nothing so interesting. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am generally opposed to famous owners lists. They are almost never complete, do not add any real value to the article and are quite frankly not that important to begin with. Unless the owner does something noteworthy with the vehicle (e.g. William Buffet selling his TC for $70k and giving the amount to charity) we should abstain from trying to list all the famous owners. BTW: I have never even heard of the majority of "famous" Phantom owners ;-) Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 18:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's part of the general 'trivial' creep throughout Wikipedia. It seems that people love to tack 'trivia' onto the end of every single article - it's almost getting to the point with some people that they regard having a 'Trivia' section as being as important and "standard" as "See also"...Urgh! My defense has been to create secondary articles into which that junk goes. My main article stays pure and as it should be - but instead of having long arguments and edit wars with people who want that stuff, I merely point them off to the daughter article where (...what I consider to be...) junk lives.

You have to be careful though. For the Mini article, the fact that famous people owned them was actually very significant to the history of the car. If the Beatles and the Queen of England hadn't bought these $1000 cars - nobody would have taken them seriously and the world would be a different place. So it was entirely relevent to the article to mention a few key owners. But there was also an enormous list of movies that the car had been featured in - one of which ("The Italian Job") was highly significant to the article - the other fifty or so were not. I couldn't stem the tide of "Trivia: There was a Mini in Air Bud: Seventh Inning Fetch" (!) type entries - so I created List of films featuring Mini cars and let people dump the junk in there. Borderline-irrelevent list articles are much more widely tolerated by the WP community - so I do this with a clean conscience!

The Mini article retained only strictly relevent content - the trivia fanatics don't bug me when I toss out their movie references because I can tell them "Hey there is a special article just for that stuff!" - and they go away happy that they can contribute. So, just create List of notable Rolls Royce owners - stick a one line reference to it in the "See also" section and get on with life! Future generations of Wikipedians can then argue about whether List of notable Rolls Royce owners is an AfD or not - but your car article stays squeaky clean!

I've also been doing this (for example) with serious articles about video game physics software - which kept getting cluttered up with fancruft from people who wanted their favorite video game to be mentioned. So I created List of physics-based computer and video games and I'm happy to report that the problem has 'gone away'.

SteveBaker 19:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(Come to think of it - we could just create ONE list: List of cars that notable people own - and get rid of the blight from all of our car articles in one fell swoop!) SteveBaker 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Car related photo requests

Hi guys. I have tweaked the old {{photoreq}} template to accept a parameter to asign stuff to more spesific subcategories. So far I have created Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of cars (took the liberty of adding {{AutoProject}} to it, hope you don't mind) to add an article to it just put {{reqphoto|cars}} to an article's talk page. The template also take an optional "of" parameter you can use to describe the request in more detail in the tag itself. Hope you can find some use for it. --Sherool (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and you can subcat as needed if you type for example {{reqphoto|Japanese cars}} it will add the page to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Japanese cars (which have to then be created and added to the parent category as apropriate. --Sherool (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Automobiles by country and Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers by country

We are running two groups of Categories, "Category:Automobiles by country" and "Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers by country". At present they both contain a mix of models and makes.

My assumption is that "Category:Automobiles by country" is for individual models from that country and "Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers by country" is for car makers. If this is correct I will add a note to the categories and do some sorting.

(Without re-opening the debate about automobile v car v motor vehicle and what constitutes country of origin, I hope). Malcolma 13:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No need to reopen the debate AFAIK... automobile manufacturers often make a wide variety of vehicles (eg. Honda makes automobiles, motorcycles, tilting three-wheel motorcycles, quads, ...), so it makes sense to put the manufacturers themselves under a more general heading. And if they have a subcategory specifically for automobiles, then that can be located in both places (somewhere under motor vehicle manufacturers by country, and somewhere under automobiles by country). --Interiot 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chevrolet Monza article

I am considering splitting this off into a disambiguation page: I am seeking a consensus for this. Would any participants agree this is the right thing to do?? --SunStar Net^talk 19:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it might make more sense to keep Chevrolet Monza as the H-body page, and just add the Brazilian and Mexican Monza info to the Opel Ascona and General Motors Corsa articles, respectively.

As an aside, it would be nice to have separate pages for the Starfire, Skyhawk, and Sunbird, provided there is enough unique detail to those cars. --Sable232 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Assessment Scale

I have recently been quite busy expanding and improving the WikiProject United States which I founded a couple of months ago. Thanks to another user my project now has the 1.0 Editoral team's assessment scale as seen here, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Assessment. I think implementing the same quality scale for this project wouldn't be a bad idea. What do you think? Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Seems like a pretty common and obviously good idea to me. --Interiot 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree too. --SunStar Net^talk 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. --Sable232 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great! Unless someone beats me to it, I should be able to start up the assessment department this week. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] flops

I recreated the Automotive flops article at List of commercial failures in the automotive industry. I have gone through it with a fine toothed comp, and added some references, and severely NPOVed it. Karrmann 00:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned about what is considered a "commercial failure". Some of the vehicles on that list don't seem like they should be there. --Sable232 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And, after reading it again, I should say that I'm not entirely sure what "teh" is.

That's exactely the problem. What is a failure? Ther term is highly, highly subjective. Was the Ford GT a failure? Was the Volkswagen Phaeton a failure? In the US market, yes. But didn't help boost VW's "prestige rating" (thus increasing its ability to move merchandise) even here in the US? The problem is there are many different concepts of what constitutes a failure. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's like User:Wiarthurhu never left...

1. "I have gone through it with a fine toothed comp". That's fine tooth comb, and judging by your spelling both here and in the article, your comb is missing a lot of teeth.
2. 45 vehicles and seven brands. References? Six. None of which were visible, since the "reference" section at the end wasn't displaying due to a misplaced '/', another indication of how thoroughly you proofed the page.

My biggest gripe, however, is with the quality of the references.

• CarDatabase.net for the Amphicar. Aside from the fact that you link to page one when you lifted a quote from page two, the words seem to be from some anonymous owner. Not a reliable source about anything except his own vehicle.
• Your second reference, also for the Amphicar, isn't any such thing. Just writing "ebay listing" is totally inadequate as a citation.
• Carsurvey.org for the Cadillac Allante, where you once again quoted an anonymous owner. And mis-spelled "colossal"...
• I thought your fourth link, for the Cadillac Catera, was fine until I tried to follow it. The URL needs fixed, and when I finally got to the source (BW.com) I realised that I was reading an op-ed piece which didn't even say what you claimed it did.
• Your fifth link is for the Chevrolet Corvair. A decent link except... the Corvair sold 1,835,170 units in ten years, and this article is called a list of commercial failures in the automotive industry. A commercial failure is one that lost money, and I've a sneaky feeling GM was in the black with this one.
• Your last link, for the VW Phaeton, is as bad as the "ebay listing" non-link. Without any particular reference to a time, place, broadcast, date of publishing, journalist or any other information, it's not a citation at all.

And of course the ultimate failure of the article remains, as it was in the original deleted article; the title is "List of commercial failures in the automotive industry", yet you've failed to demonstrate a failure to make a profit, which is the only criteria by which commercial success and failure are judged. The Ferrari 430 has been a roaring success with about 17,000 sold, so you cannot simply go by numbers. Show me the money, and some reliable sources. At least one reference for every car, thanks; if I can do it, so can anyone else. --DeLarge 02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD. These "List of vaguely defined things" articles need to be zapped. What is the definition of a commercial failure? Can it be a car that never made a profit? Maybe cars that only made a small profit? What about profitable cars that wrecked the companies image? What about those loss-making super-cars that are only there to get people into the showrooms so they can by 'wannabe' cars that ARE profitable? Until you have a rock solid definition, you'll have nothing but controversy.

Take my favorite car - the most popular car in British history - without doubt the canonical starting point for every small front wheel drive car ever made - in continuous production for 5.3 million vehicles over 40 years - came in first for best car of the century, best european car of all time, came second only to the Model-T-Ford for best car of all time anywhere? It sold at a loss for the first 10 years it was manufactured and hardly eked out a profit after that. Can we really, truly call the Mini a failure? Hell no! Can we call it a commercial failur? Why would the company keep making them for 40 years if it was a commercial failure? Well - it kept factories open and valuable staff employed during the lean years so the company was ready to bounce back when demand for profitable cars returned - it provided an 'entry level' model that got people into the habit of driving in a place in a country where you can live perfectly well without a car - that lead to more sales of higher end cars - it shut out foreign car companies and prevented them from sneaking in cars at the bottom end of the market and eroding their core business from the bottom up. It was a strategic move - not a tactical one. The volume production of that car pushed up the volume and cut the cost of parts for more profitable cars. Do you have the courage to list the Mini? I doubt it. If you don't - then how can you say that any other non-profitable car was a commercial failure? If you do, people will revert your every attempt to put the car into the list.

So maybe you can revert to solid references to back up your claims? Hell no! Car companies don't publish the data for the profitability of individual models - you can't find that information anywhere - you can find the overall sales of the whole company from shareholder reports and such - but not on a model-by-model basis. You can claim that (say) the Amphicar was a failure because that's probably the only car that company ever made and it caused the company to fail...fine - that's one. But there aren't many cars you can get such good information on - so the list will be patchy, unverifiable.

You can't possibly come up with a good definition of what should be on the list - and even if you could, you can't find reliable backing for your facts - so this will forever end up being a contentious pain in the neck. Nope - this article is still a very bad idea - it needs to be deleted. SteveBaker 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't like AFDs as it always means that somthing, someone put a lot of effort into is going to be deleted. Karman is a fine editor but unfortunately I think we have little choice besides the AfD. Perhaps the format of the current article could be changed to "list of cars that did not make profit"- of course, it would be hard to find any good references for such as article- car company's don't really like to disclose the extend to which a model was un-profitable. But other than changing the format of the article completely, I don't see an alternative to listing it as AfD. I'm really sorry, but it's up for deletion now. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)