Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is just a start, and is not intended as a final rule on things! Please comment, add, and modify according to concensus! --SFoskett 23:53, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hi SFoskett: thanks for starting this page. I agree with your thoughts on this, e.g. on cubic inches—makes total sense to use them where it was conventional. A good example down here was the Holden Torana, which went mid-decade (1970s) to metric, so I've followed that. Stombs 00:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I broke up your comments for specific sections to make them easier to find in the future... --SFoskett 00:23, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] cc vs in³

I guess consistency is my aim, so would cm³ not be better than cc, if we are to use in³? I definitely dislike cu. in. I don't mind cc terribly, so if others prefer it I'll go with the majority decision. Stombs 00:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

At least here in the US, auto writers NEVER use cm³ for engine displacement. It looks really odd to me to hear of a "1991 cm³ engine". How is it elsewhere? --SFoskett 00:23, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
It really depends on the publication down here; it's certainly cc in speech and never 'cubic centimetres'. The New Zealand Automobile Association's magazine goes with cc but ironically I picked up cm³ from the same publication (I think) as a kid. The Europeans consistently go with cm³. I have a bias toward the SI unit personally but I've spent time in Europe. I also feel we shouldn't detract from non-automotive Wikipedia pages too much. Stombs 00:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I have changed a few 'cc' to 'cm³'. SFoskett recently pointed out this discussion to me. I see both 'cc' and 'cm&sup3' in Europe, at least in written text (both English and non-English). The form 'cc' looks colloquial and the form 'cm³' looks more professional to me. This seems particularly relevant when the unit is used in support of something else. For example '3 L (2995 cm³)' or '150 in³ (2458 cm³)'
When discussing English text, people may read '1495 cm³' and say 'fifteen hundred cc'. So I think cm³ is perfectly acceptable in a written medium (such as Wikipedia). The SI form is language independent whereas 'cc' is not. Thus it is easier for the non-native reader and for translation. One of the oddities of English is that the written superscript comes after the unit (cm³), whereas the spoken power comes before it ("cubic centimetres"). That may explain some of the discomfort that some people say they have. My vote is to use the SI form ('cm³') and to have similar guidance for non-SI units (thus 'in³'). Bobblewik  (talk) 20:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have changed a few motorcycle articles from cc to cm³ but somehow I managed to fly under the radar of those who disagree (or there is a different consensus for motorcycles). Anyhow, I also prefer the SI units. For the pages with 'cc', it would be nice to have a better page to link to than cc which is a large dab page. Maybe create cc (unit) just for this purpose? Rl 10:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Cubic centimetre, piped as cc. This is a redirect page to Cubic metre, but I think it is appropriate to link to the page with the title corresponding to the concept rather than orphaning the redirect for technical or administrative reasons. Also, you might consider building an article on this that stands apart from the cubic metre article. I have been piping wikilinks as shown here as part of removing links to the disambiguation page CC. Courtland 01:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] non-breaking spaces

My other "problem", if you could call it that, is  . I used to use it a lot (not here, just in helping others edit stuff for the web) and then played with the fonts on my browser. On some fonts—they aren't uncommon ones, from memory—the non-breaking space is twice as big as the regular one, so the capacities began looking like 1.6  L. If I find the fonts I can post them here, and if others judge them to be uncommon, I'll go along with that. Stombs 00:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I hate that. Single non-breaking spaces improve things since it keeps the units from wrapping. I don't know what to say about this problem. --SFoskett 00:23, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I know that that's the reason, which is why it's so hard to take issue with the usage of the non-breaking space. Eventually on this web publication I think they went for <nobr>1.6 L</nobr> (which doesn't work in Wiki), and I think I saw <small>&nbsp;</small> a few times, which is way too much work! The non-breaking space makes total sense other than this font problem. Stombs 00:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
It's very weird because I have just tried a bunch of common sans serif fonts (Helvetica, Gill Sans MT and Zurich BT) in Mozilla and they all displayed correctly. But I am not making this stuff up! :) Maybe it was an old-browser thing? If I stumble on the glitch I'll holler. Stombs 01:19, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nothing so far, so let's go with the non-breaking spaces—have been putting them in where I can, too. :) Stombs 11:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

One more: for quantities: for capacities, 1,798 or 1798? Stombs 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've been NOT using commas since they're not always used in print, and since they're not part of SI writing style, which specifies spaces instead.--SFoskett 00:23, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll go with the non-comma one. The spaced one will result in odd breaks. Stombs 00:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the spaced-out one is just plain ugly and odd. --SFoskett 02:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Middot

SI writing style (and User:Gene Nygaard) suggest using · between multiplied units. For example, instead of "Nm" for Newton-meters, use N·m. I have never seen this before, but it is on the SI page. So do we do this or not? --SFoskett 02:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I know that Hart's Rules, which is the one that the Oxford University Press uses, specifies middle dots for decimal points, and normal periods for punctuation and, interestingly, time (9.45 a.m.). But I certainly don't recall seeing anything like this in the Rules for measurement, and they're what I go by. I don't recall it in the Chicago University manual, either. But I did just check in my encyclopædia and it's there all right, between N and m. Personally, I hate it but have no solid objection using it other than the style guides I just cited. Count me in as "undecided" for now. Anyone else? Stombs 04:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


Yes, you should use the middot, and not only with newton-meters (note capitalization of spelled out newtons, too), but with lbf·ft or ft·lbf as well. I doubt that you will find any authorative modern style guides which recommend either no separation or a dot on the line. NIST is quite clear in its style guide: "Symbols for units formed from other units by multiplication are indicated by means of either a half-high (that is, centered) dot or a space." [1]
The middot as a decimal point was generally thrown out for almost all use in the U.K. a couple of decades ago. It isn't used that way on the internet, and it isn't used that way in print any more, with no more than a couple of minor exceptions at most. The modern standard there as well as the rest of the English-speaking world is a dot on the line for the decimal marker. Nobody else ever did use a middot as a decimal point. (IIRC, there was some fairly significant publication which held out until quite recently—probably about 2000, but changed to the dot on the line then.)
I have no big problem with using a space nor with listing it here as an acceptable alternative, but it is much more important that a space used here be non-breaking than a space between the number and the unit, which is not required to be nonbreaking in general rules though somebody obviously thinks it should be required here. So while a non-breaking space is acceptable as well, a middot is better here for several reasons:
  • the middot is a clearer sign of multiplication of the units
  • the middot is nonbreaking
  • the middot is smaller than a space, and looks better
Gene Nygaard 20:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not really sure I like the middot. True, it displays the mathematic purpose of the unit better, but I'm much more used to the automotive press standard, which is to have nothing at all between the "N" and the "m". --Pc13 16:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Converter

I wrote up a little JavaScript converter and wiki formatter for handling the unit conversions. check out my wikimungler and let me know what you think! --SFoskett 16:03, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oh wow, this is cool! :) Stombs 06:31, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oh man, this thing rules. Major props! If you've got a moment, can you add lb->kg and kg->lb to the list? I've run across a couple of situations where this would be useful. Wow, though—good work! --Milkmandan 02:31, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Done, along with another few fixes. I use it all the time! --SFoskett 15:28, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Policy vs. case-by-case

There are two discussions above (cc vs. cm³ and middot vs. not) that handle specific instances of conflicts between academically accepted style and automotive publishing standards. While there may be circumstances that warrant a specific discussion, but we currently lack policy rationale behind why we're foregoing Wikipedia standards for something else.

I certainly agree that it's odd to see Wikipedia-style markup in an automotive publication. I'm sure that all of our magazine-accustomed eyes have a bit of trouble walking around unfamiliar punctuation.

Automotive publishers have adopted the formats they use because they're a bit more compact, printer-friendly, and reader-friendly than the alternative. But, they can get away with this because it's ridiculously rare to see anything besides time, speed, length, volume, torque, power (and I few I've missed, I'm sure) expressed in an auto article. Academic publications use standardized versions because accurate comprehension is much more important than printed size and compactness. It's much more common, for example, to see obscure measurements in a scientific article; and, although shorthand notation would make it a bit more digestable, there's a good chance that a reader will be mislead.

So what's the right rationale? If we're going to depart from the Wikipedia style, I think we need to make a very strong case.

At the risk of getting pounced upon, I'd like to recommend moving towards the existing Wikipedia standards. I can't find an obvious answer to the question, cater to people already familiar with automotive publications, or cater to people who aren't? Which group is more important? I don't really know—because there's no obvious case, I say we fall back on the Wikipedia style. --Milkmandan 22:58, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

It sounds crazy, but I'm really opposed to dumping the standard "cc" and adding middots just because it looks "weird" to me. I don't really care about the latter, actually - I quickly became adjusted to "ft.lbf" instead of "lb/ft" or the other ridiculious things you see in the rags. I guess it's 'cause they never standardized on the torque unit! But expressing engine size in "cm³" will take a real adjustment for me! --SFoskett 00:35, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] kW/hp conversion (or hp vs. PS)

I feel the need to point this out. For European/Japanese/Australian/South American markets, the value usually recognized as hp is actually the German PS. For most models, it gets translated to hp in press-releases and news articles without actually converting to bhp/hp net SAE. (I've seen a few corrections in Car and Autocar, though.)

The correct way to convert hp into kW for Euro-models is 1 hp = 0.735 kW or 1.36 hp = 1 kW. It's advisable to keep this even for British cars. For American models, the current conversion values should be retained. --Pc13 11:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should just use PS instead of hp (converted or otherwise) for JDM cars, as that is the unit they use in their brochures, as well as being the unit specified under JIS standard. Btw, if u look at German magazines or German-language brochures, power is stated as PS instead of non-converted hp. EEC directives state that power should be measured in kW, so it's up to individual manufacturers to choose between hp or ps Senna60_94

Shouldn't we only use kW? All US, European, Asian and Australian car manufacturers design there vehicles to metric specifications. During testing, GM measure the work the engine can do in kW and the force in Nm. The only company that still designs to imperial specifications is Harley Davidson, well probably the main reason to this is because their lead designer died in the 1930's so the development and design has gone no where..
Since this is English Wikipedia, I feel that we should always include the most widely recognized units in English-speaking countries - hp (SAE) and kW. I would like to propose that we never use PS in articles and that we always convert these numbers to hp and kW.
One special case would allow PS to be included - if the PS measurement is significant in and of itself. I can think of two examples: First, the 1001 ps engine in the Bugatti Veyron is worth noting since this number is "special". Second, the 280 ps "gentlemen's agreement" in Japanese output. Apart from that, I would not include PS. --SFoskett 14:46, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Well, in order to keep bhp/hp (SAE), we'd have to, 1), reconvert the hp value for every European, Japanese and Australian car in the database (your wikimungler doesn't work if you try to reconvert values that were originally in PS, and you usually write the wrong kW values for European market cars - I have to correct them), which render the numbers unfamiliar to most people who remember those cars; 2), take into account very few brands apply that conversion to the UK market, where PS are usually retained for commercial use (exceptions are Peugeot, Ford and Vauxhall); 3), point out that Audi, Volkswagen, Saab, Subaru, Ferrari and Porsche don't convert their power values from PS to hp when on their American market versions; 4, remember kW are still not the official measurement in the USA, and have only been official in Europe since 1992. So, you see, your proposal isn't very practical. --Pc13 15:59, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
So what's your proposal? How about this one: Always use "PS" when referring to metric horsepower and hp when referring to US horsepower? See, for example, Mercedes-Benz R-Class. And if there is a problem with my converter, please do let me know! I certainly never heard mention of any problems, and would be more than happy to fix them! One thing we simply cannot do is continue to use hp to mean either metric or USA with no indication of what were are talking about. So please propose a solution. --SFoskett 16:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
My proposal was to use PS for Euro/Japan models and hp for US models, yes. The problem with your converter is that you have been using it on Euro-only models, where the hp given in the article is actually PS, and the numbers didn't match up, there would be an excess of kW. That's why I keep adding hp (DIN) and hp (JIS) to a lot of articles, to point out it's actually the PS value that's being used, and I correct the kW value whenever I find it as well. Your solution for the Mercedes-Benz R-Class actually seems the most rational, but I think it would be unnecessary to add hp (SAE) for models that aren't available in North America. You'd like to know I pointed out a couple of inconsitencies we need to be on the lookout for in Talk:Horsepower. --Pc13 17:13, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

I've updated my number mungler to take this discussion into account. I've also repaired a problem with rounding (or lack thereof). Now, if you put a unit in as PS, you get both hp and kW back. Eg: 1001 PS (987 hp/736 kW). Note the links, too. You can optional linkify the units to explain them (for example, as the first use in an article) or not (eg, for every other use). --SFoskett 20:57, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

PS, the mungler don't work in Firefox, as far as I can tell. Works fine for me in IE. —Morven 21:53, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Funny, I only use it in Firefox and wrote it for that platform... --SFoskett 02:32, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe something's odd about my Firefox install at home, then; it seems to work fine here at work today. —Morven 19:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
SFoskett and I discussed this on my talk page back in January. It didn't work on Firefox for me then and it doesn't work on Firefox for me now. Initially I thought the problem was that a button labelled Convert or something had failed to download.
If I switch to IE, it works. Perhaps it is something to do with the settings in Firefox. Bobblewik  (talk) 22:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Order of components of torque units

There is a long-standing, but not universally followed, convention of expressing torque in English units with the force unit first, followed by the distance unit, as in lbf·ft. This is preferred by many to distinguish torque units from the units of work or energy, a different quantity whose units are dimensionally equivalent, where the conventional order is almost universally length times force (e.g., ft·lbf). [2] [3]

Here is one of the earliest expressions of this idea which I have found, from A.M. Worthington, Dynamics of Rotation: An Elementary Introduction of Rigid Dynamics, 1920:

  • "British Absolute Unit of Torque. . . . This we shall call a poundal-foot, thereby distinguishing it from the foot-poundal, which is the British absolute unit of work.
  • "Gravitation or Engineer’s British Unit of Torque . . . This may be called the ‘pound-foot.’"

This was also the most common order in the obsolete metric units such as "meter-kilograms" and "centimeter-kilograms".

However, many do use the opposite convention, using the same units as are used for work or energy, foot-pounds force (ft·lbf). Here's a discussion related to the use of torque wrenches, rather than a measurement of engine torque: "Torque wrenches are designed to permit an operator to determine applied torque on bolts, nuts and other fasteners. They measure torque in ounce-inches, pound- inches and pound-feet, as well as metric measure. However, many manufacturers express torque in foot-pounds (rather than pound-feet) since this nomenclature is more familiar to the average tool user." [4]


Both conventions are in widespread actual use. If one is to be preferred, it should be lbf·ft. But I see no reason for us to prefer one or the other in this case.

The conventional order for the SI units is force first, newton-meter (N·m). This is almost universally followed. In SI, the units of work and energy are distinguished not by changing the order, but rather by giving the unit a special name: joule. Torque by convention has not been expressed in joules even after this name was adopted for the SI unit of energy, though it has the same dimensions, a different way to maintain the distinction. Torque also was not expressed in ergs in cgs units.

The increasing use of SI units may be one factor in decreasing insistence on distinguishing units of torque from units of energy. Some people doing the conversions cannot handle the apparently more-difficult-than-it-would-seem task of at the same time rearranging the order of the units. Gene Nygaard 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Two reasons to use ft·lbf instead of lbf·ft: 1) because it's usually "foot pounds" or "ft-lbs" in print, not "pound feet"; 2) because lbf·ft has two "f"s in a row.  :-) One more - I've been using "ft·lbf" in every article I've edited for the last six months... --SFoskett 02:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
And there are many of them which you have changed from a proper pound-feet (lbf·ft), haven't you? So you know quite well that that order is indeed used, including by several different contributors to Wikipedia. I know this because in a couple of cases I changed inconsistent preexisting usage to consistent lbf·ft, which you came along and changed to ft·lbf.
Good thing you put a smiley on that second reason. Gene Nygaard 02:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've just had a look through a few workshop manuals and on both my torque wrenches and they all agree - it's lbf·ft. That also agrees with what I was taught, so where does this strange idea that it is ft·lbf come from? Malcolma 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Production dates

I propose that with listings of automobile "production dates" the month of start of production should be provided where known to avoid ambiguity as to wether the year is an actual calendar year or a Model year. As of now there seems to be some confusion as to whether calendar years or model years are used in many articles, especially in the case of European and Japanese cars.

Also, I think in the context of internationally-sold cars, the end dates of production/sale should be avoided in tables and titles, due to different model changeover dates in different regions, e.g. it often occurs that a new model of a Japanese car is not released in Europe until around a year its release in Japan, and during this time the previous generation is still sold in Europe. The Toyota Corolla article almost does what I'm proposing - it says the production starting dates (and not ending) in the titles, and then the starting dates in the titles of the subsequent generations. I think this should also be done for tables like on the Mazda Familia and Honda Civic pages - it will also make tables look less cluttered among other things.

Please say if you agree with this or not or have any comments, etc. --Zilog Jones 22:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the articles should mention start of production and not first model year. The end dates of production do not need to mesh perfectly with the following generation's. Even in the same market, a model from the previous generation may be sold alongside the new generation - as an example, the E46 Coupé and Cabriolet BMW 3-Series are still sold alongside the more recent E90 Saloon and Touring, so they could finish a year after the introduction of the new model. Usually, a car only remains available for sale over two years after its demise because it's still sold in developing markets, for example, the Renault 5 was replaced by the Clio in 1991, but it was still assembled in Iran until 2004. Those are exceptional circumstances that can be covered in the main text, and not in the production boxes. Pc13 23:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with this. I makes good sense.
I have edited the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic pages as an example of what I propose should be done where possible. I don't mind the use of model years in the main text (preferably noted as a model year), but I think they should be avoided with production dates. --Zilog Jones 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. In the UK, a "1998 car" refers to its date of first registration. When selling an old car, one gives this date and the year letter (or numbers) of the registration plate. If this is not enough to determine the type of car, such as for "a 1991 J-reg Mercedes S-class", the seller would typically write "new shape" or "old shape", or use a type number (e.g. W126 or W140) to indicate which model it is. Advancing the year for marketing new cars is not unheard of, but those dates are hardly ever used again as a way of identifying the car. -- Hotlorp 01:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to "Names of variants and other models"

I am opposed to the stated guideline of embedding links in names as suggested in the first guideline in this section. Why? A few reasons, but primarily because it looks bad and secondarily because it makes the manufacturer or division thereof stand out better. For example, I think this:

The Chevrolet Camaro was introduced in North America by the Chevrolet Motor Division of General Motors [...]

looks much better than this:

The Chevrolet Camaro was introduced in North America by General Motors [...]

Consequently, I am going to change the stated guideline to read as follows:

We may not embed links in these names, such as Ford Mondeo. We will instead link to the appropriate manufacturer or division in the opening sentence of the article: The Ford Mondeo is an automobile manufactured by the Ford Motor Company.

I see absolutely no good reason to allow, let alone encourage, linking within the name of the article subject. I'm being bold in making this change. If anyone is opposed, I'm more than open to discussion on the subject.

In addition, I believe we need a guideline to discourage editors from emphasizing trim levels, option packages, and other vehicles mentioned in the body of the article beyond the first sentence or two (if that). I find it very distracting, unnecessary, and pointless to be reading an article and come across an italicized or bolded trim level, variant, or whatever:

The Wangdoodle had various trim levels available, including the GT, WD and TZ. Another car from Manufacturer XYZ, the Flotsam Bugaboo, also had a TZ variant.

I have come across that type of thing in many articles, where the editor has used bold, italics, or both to unnecessarily emphasize something. Bolding should be relegated to the first instance of the article subject and that's about it. IMHO, of course. So, speaking of bold, I'm boldly making a guideline addition with regard to this as well. Disagreement? ⇒ BRossow T/C 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Standards

I agree with most of the guidelines above, but we should specify to which pictures in the article apply, for example Image quality tip number 1 should only apply to the infobox picture, since sometimes pictures from other perpectives are needed to decribe a redesign or point out important pictures. On the Lincoln Town Car article I have taken many pictures from different prespectives in order to show the differences I described in the text. Also, in regards to guideline number 5 (Images of complete cars in good original condition should be used whenever possible) we can delete the whenever possible part. In some cases no picture is better than one that shows a rusted car wreck. Otherwise they are great guidelines! Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


I think that these guidelines nail everything right on the head, with some very minor tweaking as issues arise. They are clear, easy to understand and accomplish the task of outlining the basics of what makes a good picture, and what the project hopes to achieve by finding a baseline for quality. Two thumbs up! Stude62 20:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The guideline: "Pictures of private cars should be avoided", rules out taking a photograph of any car in existence beside your own; since I've not yet known anyone that has committed a car to the public domain, all cars are private property. Perhaps this could be clarified a little. Collard 06:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I (and I assume "we") mean that we should generally avoid taking photos of cars owned and operated by people who haven't given permission. Yes, it's legal to take a photo of anything from public property, but we don't want people coming after our contributors with accusations (or weapons!) because they snapped a photo of the Dodge Dart in their driveway. --SFoskett 14:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wheelbase

The example of 980 mm for wheelbase seems rather tiny for a car. −Woodstone 15:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Automobiles_Conventions_5bde.html"