Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Standards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good Job Bravada, I pretty much agree with everything except the Notability standards. I do not think that famous owners should be mention-What is the value in mentioning that William Buffet drives a Town Car? A bit too tabloit like for my taste. Also I think parent company should stay seperate from manufacturer, the former is just to make compromise in some cases possible. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for paying attention to that at all :D Well, I believe that we have to discuss whether famous owners should or should not be mentioned and if yes, than on what conditions, because such sections appear in articles. So, we need a consensus on what to do with that, just like on movie appearances or model cars' photos (actually, IIRC, the tentative consensus is that they should not be used, but that's a "standard" too). So, those are only headings I hope we will fill with some rules with agree on in due course, by means of consensus.
I hope there will be some more action here as I am really tired now, but I hope this whole thing won't just die as I believe we need it. Bravada, talk - 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. The main page is for displaying ESTABLISHED and AGREED UPON standards, propositions should be discussed here.
Sorry, I didn't quite know where to put my suggestion-I kind of counted on it being moved ;-) Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Body styles

Proposition by User:Gerdbrendel:

  • For American cars: 4-door sedan (4 passenger doors), 2-door coupe (2 passenger doors), 2 or 4-door hatchback (2 or 4 passengerd doors and one tailgate which is not counted as a door), 2 or 4-door SUV (2 or 4 passenger doors and one tailgate), 2 or 4-door Crossover SUV (unibody SUV with 2 or 4 passenger doors and one tailgate)
  • For European cars: (coming soon)
I don't really get that, but perhaps I can guess where you're pointing at. I believe we have several problems to establish solutions for:
  1. what is and what is not a given bodystyle (e.g. what is a coupé and what is not)
  2. what names to use (e.g. sedan vs. saloon)
  3. how to give numbers of doors - 2/4 vs 3/5-door hatchbacks and estates
My propositions would be:
  1. no idea at the moment
  2. for North American cars, use "sedan" and "wagon", for European - "saloon" and "estate"
  3. according to standards prevalent in the "country of origin", so for American cars it's invariably an even number of doors, for British - odd numbers for hatchbacks (and liftbacks and coupés with tailgates), for continental European - odd numbers for hatchbacks and estates.
Is it more or less in line with what you say? Bravada, talk - 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay adressing your concerns (yes, you're preposistion is of kind of inline with my suggestion):

  1. The number of doors in parenthesese give an explaination of the body style
  2. Sedan for American cars
  3. For American cars we donnot use 3 or 5 door description-you will note that I states passenger doors to be exactely that doors through which passengers can enter and exit.
  4. My suggestion above is only for American cars and sets a pretty clear standards.

I hope that clarifies things. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we actually understoof each other :D I pointed out towards GENERAL issues I believe we have to establish standards for, while you proposed some more specific solutions. Though I believe that in principle we just agree with each other on the standard for American cars. Now, I forgot to add that there are also cars that are neither (North) American nor European - and we have to decide on what to do with them! Bravada, talk - 20:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I just thought you didn't get my American car-specific suggestion-yes "we just agree with each other on the standard for American cars." You're right there is abig problem with the many globally sold cars such as the S-Class or 7-Series. Thankfully many of them are sedans not hatchbacks, and I think the word sedan is really more common outside the UK. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, in case of "global" cars I guess the "country of origin" rule applies - it might be a little awkward in case of body styles that are indigenous to markets other than the original "home market" (e.g. Chevrolet Corsa Wagon, which is a Brazilian "invention", thought the "country of origin" for the article in total is Germany, and I don't know whether Brazilians would say a wagon has an odd or even number of doors), but I believe for clarity we should just stick with the general "country of origin" for all body styles. Bravada, talk - 20:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Signaturebrendel 20:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

[edit] Engine

I've noticed that the engine and transmission lines in the infobox aren't really consistent among various articles. However, most of the ones I've seen list the engine displacement first, then the engine name in italics (preceded by the manufacturer name if it's an outsourced engine), a note if it's turbocharged or supercharged, what fuel it uses (it should be left blank for gasoline/petrol engines), and the engine type last (i.e. I4, V6, V8). The transmission line should list the number of gears (except if it's a CVT), the manufacturer name if it's outsourced, the transmission name in italics, and what type of transmission it is. What does everyone think? --ApolloBoy 04:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would agree with engine displacement first, then engine family name (if there is one), followed by engine type (i.e. 1.4L ECOTEC TwinPort I-4). That way it would be at least consistent. -Daniel Blanchette 04:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I also denote whether the engine is ohc or ohv if I have the place (I have a problem with sidevalve engines, as there is no handy abbreviation), and of course also note if this is a diesel. Anyway, this is just another discussion it would be worth to be having at User talk:Bravada/Standards (if you think it's a good idea, let's move the page to the main project space) and put the results there so that we will have a place to go for reference. Cheers, Bravada, talk - 10:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
There is an article on side valves but it is called Flathead engine. Side valve links to it. Do we need a redirect called sv to link to it to allow an easy abbreviation to appear in the infobox? Malcolma 11:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
First and foremost, is this and internationally adopted abbreviation? You will find ohc and ohv in all kinds of publications, but how about "sv"?
EDIT: I have just found "SV" in my 1970 German Auto Katalog (the Bible in this respect, if you'd ask me) alongside "OHC" and "OHV", so I guess we're onto something. On the other hand, SV, sv etc. are already taken, as there are many other subjects using this abbreviation, so I guess we just need to go by [[Flathead engine|sv]] - a bit of typing, but I guess we will survive. Bravada, talk - 11:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For the engine code, I suspect this has something to do with my reversion of ApolloBoy's edits to the Mitsubishi Sapporo article. I had originally added the infobox and engine details on 14:09, July 28, 2006, and he had arbitrarily swapped around the codes/capacities on 00:52, August 15, 2006 while making other edits.

Now, this issue has a little more history. He did exactly the same to the Mitsubishi Cordia / Mitsubishi Tredia articles on 22:39, July 5, 2006 (Cordia) and 22:41, July 5, 2006 (Tredia). I reverted them too, and pointed out on his talk page afterwards that I was following the established standard shown on Template talk:Infobox Automobile. It's nice to see he's finally trying to discuss the matter before making arbitrary stylistic edits, although (and this perhaps does not assume good faith), he didn't bring this subject up for two weeks after making his changes to the Mitsubishi Sapporo page; but within 24 hours of his work being undone.

As for my personal opinion, it depends on exactly what's written. Where you're talking about an engine family (e.g. Vauxhall ECOTEC or Mitsubishi Saturn), putting the capacity first is fine. For example, with "1.6 L Saturn I4" 1.6 L is acting as an adjective to describe what kind of Saturn engine it is. However, specific engine codes give that info. "1.6 L 4G32 I4" is tautological, as the 4G32 is a 1.6 L. Say "4G32 1.6 L I4", and that way you have an engine code descriptor, followed by an explanation of what it means (assuming there's no wikilink, or the reader doesn't want to follow it). --DeLarge 12:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we please keep personal issues out of the discussion? Secondly, I believe that in the infobox brevity is key, as we need to devise a compact form for every bit of information. In some cases, like e.g. PSA X engine, the engine family name is quite too long to be included in the infobox, while the engine code is usually up to 4-6 characters, so it fits just right. Secondly, even if this is a bit of a tautology, it gives more precise information - e.g. sometimes there is more than one 1.6 in a family. Last but not least, the most common way of identifying an engine is by displacement in litres, so it is only logical to put that first, it is also easier to order the engines by displacement in the infobox. Therefore, I would suggest the following syntax:
Displacement (litres or cubic in. in case of older American engines) ; Engine family or engine code in case it is known ; ohc/ohv/sv ; diesel/turbodiesel/LPG; I4/V6/etc. - example:
2.0 L DW10 dohc turbodiesel I4
I guess when it proves too long, turbo (in case of diesels) can be dropped, as well as ohc/dohc/sohc etc. How about that? Bravada, talk - 12:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think, if we're going to run out of space, the name/code should be the first thing to go, especially if it's mentioned or wikilinked in the main text. The infobox is there to give the reader a quick snapshot of information, and telling someone that a Renault is powered by a DW10 is less informative than telling them it's a turbodiesel (which can always be abbreviated to "TD" with a wikilink pipe). "DW10" (or whatever the code is) doesn't say anything about what the engine is, just what it's called.
The example you give is also a reason why I suggested the code first. I think it's syntactically bad to have <configuration> <name> <configuration>, which is how 2.0 L DW10 DOHC TD I4 is laid out. <name> <configuration> in two uninterrupted blocks (i.e. DW10 2.0 L DOHC TD I4) makes far more sense to me.
Not quite sure this even needs discussing. I see it both ways on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and don't feel the need to standardise. --DeLarge 14:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Yup, now that I think about it you're absolutely right that the code should be dropped in the first place
  2. Turbodiesel should not be abbreviated to "TD", as it is not an established abbreviation and there are manufacturer-specific names using the "TD" cluster, like TDi, to start with, and that would create some confusion
  3. It is important to discuss it and establish a standard, so that edit wars would be avoided
  4. I think that whenver the engine is mentioned, the displacement should go first, and it usually does, as this is how the engines are most often identified.
  5. A Renault powered by the PSA/Ford DW10 would be quite something ;)
And what do the others think? Bravada, talk - 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
For turbodiesels, it's easy. "TD" is fine as long as you wikilink, since a TD page exists. We already wikilink to straight-4 by piping "I4" (even though "I4" itself is a WP:DAB, so that follows precedent.
Again, "I4" is a quite commonly used and unambigious way of referring to an inline-4 engine (quite like V6 or B2 etc.), while the "TD" with regard to "turbodiesel" is not - this is my issue with it, not the need for wikilinking of course. THIS is actually creating a Wikipedia-only standard that goes against the "outer world", unlike what is discussed below. Bravada, talk - 15:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
As for the order, "It is important to discuss it and establish a standard"? Woah, there. We establish no standards, especially not by quiet discussion among 4-5 people. We're Wikipedia; we follow standards which can be verified, e.g. SI units. We don't start making stuff up or establishing rules without good reason, My brief tests in Google with both the Mitsubishi "4G32 1600"/"1600 4G32" and the Renault "DW10 2000"/"2000 DW10" shows almost equal usage of both.
First of all, we're talking "2.0 L DW10", not "2000", but that's irrelevant. We are trying to establish a way of presentation the data in Wikipedia to avoid edit wars like the one you pointed to in the beginning of this discussion. I don't think there is anything quite like the SI pertaining to what we are discussing here (what data and in what sequence to include in an infobox field), so we are free to establish that within the WikiProject. And, as edit wars can and do occur, I believe we also should.
I believe we can reach a sensible solution in a discussion, and even if it gets established by a compromise among "4 or 5 people" anybody can later come and present arguments for a revision of the standard - and I believe that if they are valid, there would be no problem with changing it in that case. Bravada, talk - 15:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. I keep calling it "standard" as I somehow started of thinking of it that way (not as equal to SI or other standards like that, just like a WP standard), but we can call it convention or whatever, the substance is important here, i.e. that we agree on ONE way of presenting data in the infobox to avoid edit warring.
PS2. As it seems to be the source of controversy here, I believe we might agree NOT to include engine family names/designations in the infobox to avoid controversies.
Put it this way, what if we "establish a standard", and subsequently start haranguing some editor who isn't following it. Turns out, that editor is Patrick Le Quement, or Nobihuko Kawamoto, or Bob Lutz. Are you going to volunteer to tell them they're wrong, and they better do it our way?
This is Wikipedia and you have to comply with Wikipedia standards, whoever you wouldn't be. If you believe the standard is improper, you can discuss it, as we do now, rather than engage in some nasty edit war or row. As I said, the proposed standard is not an alternative to any existing one, as no standards like that exist, so we have to have a Wikipedia standard. Bravada, talk - 15:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll happily follow any standard that's externally verifiable. I personally dislike writing "2.0 L" instead of "2.0L", but the SI standard demands a space,[1] so I go with the flow. Without a reliable source for this capacity/code standard, you're going to stall before you leave the driveway (to use an appropriate metaphor). --DeLarge 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Not all WP conventions and guidelines are based on "verifiable reliable sources", as there are often NO standards for some things, like in this case. For example, I believe that most members here agree with the "country of origin" as a convention for article naming, even though I cannot even think of any kind of "external source" to back it up with. It's just a logical solution for an issue that needed it, adopted by consensus (that said, it would be good to make sure there is a consensus about it and formally codify it). Bravada, talk - 15:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. Excuse me if I broke into aggressive/disrespectful tone inadvertently, it was not my intention to do so and I apologize if this happened. I throughly respect your point and I believe we might reach a good solution by further discussion. I would like to find a solution we can all agree with.

(resetting indent) No offence taken at all. However, with respect, I totally disagree with the idea that we need a standard/convention, and I think trying to establish one will lead to more trouble than just leaving well alone, because you'll be in conflict with overall WP policy. With regard to stylistic variations it's very clear: "when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." (June 2005 ArbComm ruling). --DeLarge 16:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That said, we would need to repeat the same arguments over and over again. Car articles are, by definition, quite similar to each other, and it is more than probable that the same issues would arise many times. Rather than provide open space for repetitve arguments, I believe it is better to centralize it and later refer everybody here, to see whether their issues have not been dealt with already.
Moreover, we DO have conventions in the WikiProject already, it's only that this section became quite forgotten. I do also believe there are many other "topic-specific" conventions on Wikipedia, I will let you know when I find a good example. Bravada, talk - 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)