Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Templates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 New templates 1.1 Mazda RX 1.2 Ford 1.3 Cadillac 1.4 BMW cars 1.5 Nissan 1.6 Hyundai 1.7 Rover 1.8 Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles 2 Fair use images 3 The point of these templates is...? 4 Guidelines for timelines 5 Proper formatting 6 Template naming 7 Toyota template? 8 Big proposal on templates

[edit] New templates

[edit] Mazda RX

I updated the Mazda RX timeline template. I love this thing! I'm very happy with how it came out. --SFoskett 19:25, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ford

I'm starting a Ford template. Boy, they have lots of models! Anyway, modifications and article placements are welcome! --SFoskett 19:23, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cadillac

I've made a Cadillac timeline now. We should use the "timeline" nomenclature for this type of template, methinks. Anyway, please comment at Template talk:Cadillac timeline. --SFoskett 14:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BMW cars

I've added User:Hotlorp's BMW cars template. Great work Sfoskett, these templates really tie the car articles together well. akaDruid 08:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nissan

I added a template for all Nissan models, but it definitely needs some work. It needs to be expanded. See /Templates#Nissan and Template:Nissan. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hyundai

I've begun with a Template:Hyundai cars (copying the one for BMW). Needs a lite more work though. I'll check for ideas at these templates for other makes. --Boivie 14:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rover

I've added Rover but it needs expanding to mention all Austin, etc. models.Spute 11:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles

A newly created Template:Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles (Europe) timeline. Please cast your eyes over it, and look for mistakes, thanks. -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 14:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

"Fair use" images are not permitted on templates. See WP:FU: "Fair use" content should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be only linked to from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. --Tabor 03:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The point of these templates is...?

Do we really need any of these templates? Wouldn't it be easier to simply have most of this information on the marque's main article page and link to it from any of the model, engine, etc. pages? Some of these templates are becoming ridiculous to look at. Take the Chevrolet, Mercedes-Benz and Pontiac timelines as examples. Or the Saab template. They're ghastly! They take up half my screen! And they certainly don't clarify any of the information they intend to spread (in most cases I would challenge they make it more confusing). Am I alone in my opinion? --93JC 23:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Tiemlines may help to navigate along a segment (e.g. all the mid-size cars by Cadillac) and along a decade (e.g. which cars were produced by BMW in the 1970s). A list of cars or a category don't help a lot, since alphabetical order may not be relevant. I think timelines are very useful; about traditional boxes, I'm not sure. -- NaBUru38 00:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines for timelines

I see a number of different styles for timelines. Most have the vehichle class as the major category (e.g. Peugeot), whereas others include subcategories (e.g. Acura and Ferrari). BMW has each model listed which makes sense given they've pretty much kept the same model names throughout their history. Is there any consensus on how these should be standardised?

Another point of confusion is that some models (such as Subaru Legacy) get individual cells for each model revision. This does not seem to be the norm. Should it be so? -- Balfa 04:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

About categories, I think automobiles sorted by segment and type are OK for timelines, as they currently are. If the categories fit, they should be used, depending of region: subcompact, compact, mid-size and full-size; city car, supermini, small and large family car, compact executive car and executive car; mini and compact SUV, crossover and sport utility vehicle; mini, compact and large MPV, coupé, convertible, sports car, roadster and supercar... But if they are not, others may be used, for example by engine type, layout or seating. Ferrari, Aston Martin and Early Mercedes are examples of this.

About nameplates, if a model features several generations (e.g. Honda Civic, Ford Mondeo, BMW 3 Series), each one should have its own box (if the model has an article for each generation, each box should link to the correspondent article, of course). They should be sorted by "real" generation, not by model years or facelifts. -- NaBUru38 00:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper formatting

Just spent about an hour trying to fix what I thought was an error on this page following the Ford Motor Company template, but turned out to be two errors within two templates. {{Template:Ford}} and {{Template:Ford Motor Company}} both had incorrect coding problems with "center" commands. What a pain. It's amazing how one piece of code can throw everything that follows it out of kilter. Stude62 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we need some rules on template formatting. For example, the boxes' width should be more or less standarised, perhaps 100%, 85% and 70% as only widths. Colours are now pretty much similar between timelines partly because I've edited many of them: C0C0C0 for boxes with models, E0E0E for empty boxes, EFEFEF for the boxes with decade and classification labels.

But one of the most important guidelines to be decided is the year ranges. Many timelines of vehicles of the North American market (Buick, Chevrolet, Mazda, Oldsmobile, Subaru) only include the 1990s and 2000s, which is too narrow in my opinion; and some include five or even six decades (Aston Martin, BMW, Cadillac, Ferrari, Jaguar, Jeep, Peugeot, Pontiac, Saab), some of which don't fit even with 1024x768 resolutions. The former should be exanded to cover the 1980s (and early templates if possible), and the latter should be cut in two, with three or four decades each, and with the modern timeline covering the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.

Another problem is the classification of early models. It is difficult to trace back the ancestors of current models, for example many Fiat or Citroën models are very hard to classify because the vehicle dimensions and their rivals are unknown, and there is of course very few informetion of the in Internet.

I want to clarify that what I wrote isn't Wikipedia's policy, it's just what I think. Please add any ideas, yours can be (I mean, they're probably) much better! -- NaBUru38 00:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template naming

I'm sorry, but we need yet another topic to discuss. Most timelines I've created follow the scheme "Early/Modern Region Automaker vehicles" (for example, Template:Volkswagen (Europe) timeline 1980 to date). Perhaps the automaker should have gone first, but now it's rather late to fix that.

Sable232 used "postwar" for some new templates (Mercury, Ford, Buick and Oldsmobile), which seems much better than my original idea, since some makers like Ford have been producing automobiles for a century, which means we'll need three or four templates and the early/modern options aren't enough. But Ford' timeline name needs the reference to the region, since it has featured an enourmous variety of model lineups throughout the world.

My idea is that any new timeline should have a standarised name. Please add you ideas. -- NaBUru38 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Very true. Actually, I used "historic" on the Mercury template because I originally intended to start in 1939, but the template didn't look right. I think "postwar" and "prewar" are the best terms to use, because WWII is the most universal point for describing automive eras.

From a regional standpoint, it's probably best to denote the region in cases where there is a long line of distinctly different cars. I'm thinking maybe "Ford postwar vehicles-North America" might be the best way. That would put the make first, and keep it short enough.

Or, maybe, how about using "Ford Australia" and "Ford of Europe"? Their overseas divisions are usually called that. --Sable232 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toyota template?

Both Scion and Lexus have templates, but Toyota doesn't. Are they going to make one? Something14 07:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big proposal on templates

Please go to this talk to discuss a proposal on automobile templates. And reply there, by the way. -- NaBUru38 00:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)