Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 20

Dodge Ram/D-series: Merge or…?
I think something ought to be done with Dodge D Series vis-à-vis Dodge Ram, but I'm not altogether sure what. The D-series article is considerably less thorough and of much poorer quality than the Ram article — D-series pickups were made long before 1961, to cite one obvious and fundamental factual error; I snapped this picture last Spring in Seattle, and I'm sure reliable support exists to fix that error. More to today's point: there's substantial duplication of coverage scope between the two articles. See the 1981-1993 sections of both. I wonder if we might see better, faster improvement of the material on the early trucks if these two articles are merged. The Ram name was applied to the trucks starting in 1981, but the D series names weren't dropped from them until 1994; it seems to me this was just a designation change, not a fundamental departure or shift in the evolution of the vehicle change warranting separate articles. Perhaps I'm on the wrong track and there's a better way of handling this? I wanted to get some discussion before I propose a merger or anything. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would merge only the 1981-1993 section of Dodge D Series into Dodge Ram, then maybe clarify in the otheruses template at the top that the D series article is about the pre-1981 truck while the Ram article is about the post-1981 one. I think there's enough good material in each article to keep both. --Vossanova o&lt; 15:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "D-series" had more than just light-duty pickup truck models that the current article describes. The line included "real" work trucks that started from D-400 to D-700 models - see a D-600 truck here. Therefore, the article should be expanded to a complete discussion of the large variety of medium-duty trucks and export markets, and not merged into the article about newer Dodge pickups! Just my opinion! CZmarlin (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CZmarlin: Surely. And the "Ram" had/has more than just light-duty pickup truck models, too (, typical of Ram 4500-5500-6500 models in Mexico).
 * Vossanova: Yours sounds like a good way forward, thanks. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 17:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For what I understand, there was a simple model change from D-Series to Dodge Ram, like the Silverado replaced the C/K. I believe it should be dealt with just like in the latter case, any many other for that matter, i.e. the history of every model in each separate article. The technical commonality, can be explained in each respective article. "Ram" and "D-Series" are nameplates, and if Lee decided that a model was a "Ram", so it was. Just my 2 cents, PrinceGloria (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The case for expanding beyond the description the light-duty consumer versions sold in the U.S. is very clear now! The late-model medium-duty Ram trucks in Mexico are interesting, and I never heard about them! CZmarlin (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've read the larger capacity Ram trucks have only really taken a big share of the marketplace quite recently. Big chunks of information on the subject here and here. Nevard (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PrinceGloria: No. The 1981-1993 trucks were named Dodge Ram D100, Dodge Ram D250, and so forth. Again, the "Ram" name was applied for 1981, but the "D" designations weren't dropped until 1994.
 * CZmarlin: It's even more interesting than that. The Ramcharger was continued past 1993 in Mexico …some interesting partsbin engineering there, eh? —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 13:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that is a neat vehicle! I wonder if they would take a "rare" 1975 D-600 in an even trade :) CZmarlin (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann, I would say it still constitures a model change. Had it been "D-100 Ram", there would be some confusion. "Ram D-100" is a clear case for me, the old model version designations were kept, so they might merit a mention in the D-Series article, but I wouldn't go as far and consider the model BOTH a D-Series and a Ram. I'd say it has to be decided what it was, and to me it was obviously more a Ram than a D-Series. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh…how strange. You still seem not to understand, and I'm not sure why, because it's very simple: The D-designation and the Ram designation were used on all of the Dodge full-size 2wd pickup trucks made between 1981 and 1993. The 4wd models all had the W_designation and the Ram designation from 1981 to 1993. There appears to have been no official order of the designations ("D100 Ram" or "Ram D100"). What part of this isn't clear to you? —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression it was rather clearly "Ram D-100" rather than "D-100 Ram", with "D-100" being a variant designation. I will research into that more, I understand it wasn't that simple. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Afraid I'm coming to the party late, so I may be missing something already discussed, but I vehemently disagree with merging the two articles - except for the '81-'93 section. I feel the Dodge Ram article is already too long and adding the other model years would make it monstrous.--Flash176 (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I wasn't dead set on the idea either, for that reason. The consensus here, which I agree with, is to clean up the '81-'93 section of Dodge D Series, pare it down to basics and use Main article: Dodge Ram, and develop the (many) missing parts of Dodge D Series. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 01:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've actually been wanting to make separate pages for the different generation Rams for a while now, but really don't know what extra information I would put in the new articles.--Flash176 (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Submission of convention to WP:NAME
We seriously need to get back to it. As I feared, as soon as the Pandora's box was opened, the two-year still on Talk:Mazda Axela was suddenly disrupted. We need to get formal with that soon, or else chaos and "I was here first" ensues. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anybody? No? Dust? PrinceGloria (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Um... well, what are you proposing as a next step? 81.178.67.229 (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on the discussions on the Trooper and Axela move requests, I am not anticipating the sort of unanimous support from this project that would be needed to justify an exception to broader policy. IFCAR (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The proposed policy would support the proposed Alexa --> Mazda 3 change. From what I can gather, the following has been proposed:
 * Original market name if the car is sold under various titles throughout Western countries.
 * Most common name if a particular name is overwhelmingly the most common name in major Western countries. E.g. Lexus vehicles, Mazdas.
 * Community discussion in contentious situations like Honda Accord, where there are two or three different versions per "generation", and one of these is sold under the Honda Inspire name in Japan. Another example would be the Toyota Camry/Toyota Scepter.
 * PrinceGloria is right, we need to get a move on. Who here is a good writer? Someone who can rewrite the above three points into a more acceptable style. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd avoid potentially contentious phrases like "major Western countries." I'd imagine there could be some debate about what's "major" or "Western" -- whether Australia is either, for example.

Perhaps instead of listing out an entire policy, list only the exception to existing WP:Name policy instead of going into details of cases that would already be covered. So as you propose it, the only wording that would need to be presented would be along the lines of: "If there is no overwhelmingly common name for this car, using the home market name is preferred."

Also, if you aren't opposed to more detail, I'd be in strong support of any wording that adds that if the car is not a significant vehicle in its home market compared to the rest of the world -- for example, the Toyota Scepter or Saturn Astra -- an alternative to the home-market name should be used. IFCAR (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case of the Scepter, what alternative name would you suggest. Not that I want to start an argument about specifics here, but the narrow Japan-only Camry (1990-1998) has no alternative name. The current solution seems to organize the Camry/Scepter quite nicely, rather than the old "everything in one article" format that was previously used (like the Accord article at the moment). By the way Australia IS definitely Western (by that I mean Americanised), even more so that Britain. Whether it is a major market is a another question, but Australia's size and isolation (only country that is a continent) seem to ensure that it is overrepresented in a global context. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, the sample above discussions show the need for an unambigious rule, not one opening roads to more disputes. Obviously, we cannot refer to "major Western countries". We might refer to "English-speaking countries", with a specified list thereof, though it might itself prove contentious. Secondly, anything like "overwhelmingly common" will leave the door ajar - I could imagine users arguing that if a car is sold under one name in NAFTA, the name is "overwhelmingly common". I could even see myself both agreeing and not agreeing, depending on case. Last but not least, saying it's "preferred" will not cease any discussions from users who'd say thata particular case is one where this preference does not apply.
 * Which is why, given how much undue weight is put by many editors, especially not necessairly majorly involved in this WikiProject and Wikipedia at all, on the article's title, I believe we need one, unambigious and straightforward rule. Anything else would not be any more helpful than WP:NAME is as it stands. And I do believe we're losing far too much time and letting chaos rule with WP:NAME alone.
 * Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I admit to being guilty for including those in the first place high above, but let us not mix article scope with article name, shall we?


 * Guys, as unpopular as the idea might be, the original/home market name is the simplest rule we can come up with. It's easy to define: "The name as used in the home country of the manufacturer that conceives it". Anything else and it'll become about popularity contests, whether it's based on the most common name worldwide or the most common name in the English language. There are some cases where I'd like to keep everything tidy in one listing (cases like Toyota Scepter --> Toyota Camry, Hyundai Avante --> Hyundai Elantra, Hyundai Verna --> Hyundai Accent, Mitsubishi Galant Fortis --> Mitsubishi Lancer) or we can actually easily agree that the name outside its home country is the most common one (Mazda Axela --> Mazda3, Mazda Atenza --> Mazda6), but...


 * Then there are the messes. Most Isuzu and GM-Daewoo models, for example, have been sold outside their home countries under so many brands and nameplates (Isuzu as Opel, Chevrolet, Holden, Geo; GM-Daewoo as Chevrolet, Buick, Holden, Suzuki) that it's always more practical to list them under their home names. Then we're going to come to terms with cases like the Kia Cerato/Spectra and Kia Carnival/Sedona, the latter being used in English speaking countries, but the former in their home market and in every Continental European country. The most common name in English probably means the VW Vento and VW Bora would need to be changed to VW Jetta (case of USA being bigger than UK and Australia), and that every post-1982 Opel sold as Vauxhall would use the Vauxhall name (case of UK being bigger than Ireland), in spite of the fact that in both cases, this is a rebranding limited to one or two countries. Either of these is likely to birth contention with opinions based on emotion rather than logic. The home market name is perhaps the most scientific alternative (if we can describe what we do here as "scientific" :-) ). --Pc13 (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You have made some good points Pc13, especially the Opel/Vauxhall example. Opel is the common name outside of the UK, so based on this and the others above I think your right original market name is probably best to be used universally, except in the extremely overwhelming cases like Mazda and Lexus vehicles. I can see the chaos and debates being created on almost every article with the vehicle in question subject to badge engineering. Should we go back to the original compromise: original market name, except if that name is only used in the original non-English speaking country? OSX (talk • contributions) 11:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What about naming articles as Kia Cerato/Spectra, Volkswagen Jetta/Vento/Bora, etc? I'm not sure I like the idea myself, but thought I'd throw it out there anyways.--Flash176 (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Caveat: If this were used, it should be no more than 2 names in the article title. Any other names could be covered like they are now, in the AKA section.--Flash176 (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It would set a terrible precedent and be ridiculously unwieldy when there are more than two names. IFCAR (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I just added the 2 names thing.--Flash176 (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Daimler Davos: is this a hoax?
Daimler Davos, has been listed here for three years, searching Google brings 104 results (mostly Wikipedia forks). OSX (talk • contributions) 13:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like a hoax to me. The article's creator only had one edit (out of four total) that wasn't related to the Davos.  swa  q  15:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely a hoax. Speedy delete this thing.--Flash176 (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Aka field in infobox
Someone has been using lately this aka field to show Type codes in Audi articles like in Audi S4 article, I think these should be removed, what do you think?. The template doc says:# aka: other names of the subject car/automobile. --Typ932 T&middot;C 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And the template document is based on exactly what encylcopaedic rational? 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat against referring to models by "internal codes" in the articles in general. A bunch of BMW and Jeep articles have similar codes.  They seem to be used mostly by forum fans; e.g. "my XQ has a Johnson Rod from an XJ".  I would use whatever terminology the press would use.  In other words, "x-th generation model" or "20xx-yy model".  Regarding the "aka" box, they should be also known to the general public, with some kind of reference available.  --Vossanova o&lt; 15:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree the code should only be in aka field if it is well known and generally used in public talks..which is not very often...  --Typ932 T&middot;C 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I strongly suggest you contact Audi UK - because they ALWAYS use the typ codes in written communication - and not just to 'specialists' such as car dealers and motoring press, but also to everyday motoring public - so in terms of your two 'tests' above - Volkswagen Group typ codes are extremely well known (virtually every internet forum in the UK, North America, Germany, Australasia - ALL use either typ codes or platform codes), and secondly, typ and platform codes are virtually always used in public talks (again, in the UK, North America, and the rest of the locales previously mentioned). But hey, I forgot, you are a self-confessed Italian car fanatic (by your own admission) - and just because you personally are NOT knowlegeable enough on another marque, and don't like something - you bloody-mindedly go out of your way to stop what you personaly don't like from happening.  This is an encylopeadia, not some kind of fanclub pi$$ing contest!  Encyclopeadias deal with facts, NOT blinkered fanatical one-dimensional points of view.  You personally are extremely destructive to many other highly valuble Wikipedia editors - because the simple facts on these project pages show that you are constantly arguing with other peoples opinions - and cause valuable time to be wasted in 'fire-fighting' like this!!!!  78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the type codes should be removed.--Flash176 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The type codes should not be used in the aka field, which is meant for simple model names (eg Corolla, Sprinter, Vibe). On the separate issue of internal codes vs generation numbers, I am dead set against generation numbers. These often differ by market depending on when it was first released in that market. Even if a magazine calls something a second generation, that magazine is probably heavily biased to its home market. This completely screws up any hope for a global article. Stepho-wrs (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you too clearly have absolutely no understanding of the Volkswagen Group typ codes. But yes, you are correct with 'generations' of cars which can differ from market - which is why the VW Group typ codes are VITAL - simply because they do NOT change (apart from when a genuine true new 'generation' is released).  Finally, as seems to have been discussed previously - 'generation' nomenclature has never been used in the UK, South Africa, Australasia, and Asia.  'Generation' seems to be a North American thing - and it has been previously agreed that 'generations' are fine for cars of North American origin, whereas for cars orgiginating from markets other than North America, then their common evolution nomenclature should be used.  So B5/B6/B7/B8 Audi A4, VW Golf Mk1/Mk2, etc, Jaguar Mk2, Rover P6, Vectra-A, Vectra-B, Vectra-C, etc, etc.  And being as Wikipedia is NOT just for the USA, but is a worldwide resource, then these 'differneces' should be respected!  78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Model codes are great for use in section headings, but I do not think they have any use in "aka" fields. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Within reason. Personally, I think the section headers in this specific article (Audi S4) are atrocious. Two different internal codes, including one in a foreign language which is never explained in the main text, and year ranges (which use a hyphen instead of an en dash) as well? The TOC is a mess, it makes pipelinking to section headers more complicated and messy for other editors, and overwhelms the non-technical reader with obfuscatory language. --DeLarge (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have lost me. Care to clarify the two different internal codes?  And what specific 'foreign' language bit do you have an issue with.  I don't understand your 'year ranges' - is that some kind of html code or sommat?  Finally, the TOC and 'pipelinking' - that one is easy, because the sub-headers are set with page anchors.  I genuinely want to help, and I am genuinely trying to use 'language' which satisfies both UK and North American 'tongues' - so please, rather than just bitching and moaning, let us all try to be constructive rather than destructive.  Regards.  78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * HERE IS ONE C4 HERE IS TWO (Typ 4A, 1991-1994), but cmon header like this

C4 (Typ 4A, 1991-1994) this is just ridiculous, it should be just S4 1s generation or S4 (1991-1994). Now the header looks like wholly different car than S4--Typ932 T&middot;C 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep this problem is also in some other Audi articles, I think these should be cleaned and typ codes removed and use 1st, 2nd etc. generation or years in headers, there has been some over enthuastic Audi editor... --Typ932 T&middot;C 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the codes, left only ur for some sport versions --Typ932 T&middot;C 05:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So now you have completely trashed any kind of consitency, and are throwing your teddy out of the pram to get your own way! 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not consistency if you make all Audi articles very different than other brands articles --Typ932 T&middot;C 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we need to calm down a bit here (remember WP:NPA). I entirely support documenting VAG typ numbers in WP articles about VAG cars (I myself have added many), but I have an open mind about whether it's better to keep the section titles simple and descriptive (eg. "First generation (1996-2003)") and only mention the platform code and/or typ number in the body text or infoboxes, or, on the other hand, to eliminate any ambiguity by giving manufacturer's designations in the section title, resulting in rather cryptic and less comprehensible titles. Of course, linking to complicated section titles can be worked-around using explicit anchors (as I have done in several articles). Also, using the generic term "generation" descriptively for different, err, generations of the same model of car is, IMHO, quite common in the UK.


 * The meaning of the "aka" infobox field is not precisely defined in the template documentation, so there is no "right" answer to whether this should be for alternative model names or manufacturers internal designations. I'd probably incline towards the former. Letdorf (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC).


 * aka: other names of the subject car/automobile  this is clearly against type codes, type code is not other name  --Typ932 T&middot;C 16:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Careful here
Caution is warranted before we begin an an all-out type code clearing frenzy. I agree that type codes like this are easy to overuse, but in some markets, such as Australia, type codes are routinely, ubiquitously, and commonly used (rather than model or production years) to refer to various generations and facelifts of a car. What an American would call a "1961 Valiant" is in Australia referred to as an "R-model" Valiant. Likewise with the XR Falcon, the VE Valiant, the HQ Holden, etc. Let's be careful to bear that in mind. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This confirms that typ codes, and similar ways of designation are actually quite global.  Cheers :-)  78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed; this has to be done with sensitivity, not a blanket rule. Many of our articles on 1960s BMC & Rootes models, for example, are titled with their internal code names because there were so many roughly equally important badge-engineered versions, and it's the only way that makes sense. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And again, clear historical evidence that the 'British' car industry is well versed in such designations. Thanks for clarifying that.  78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure about it concers Audi, everybody knows what is A4, or 1st generation Audi TT or so, these articles are very messy with all this data, this is not any databook, its very hard to read and follow and try to find what was the 2nd generation eg. A6 or so. its much easier to just write 1st generation 1987-1998, 2nd generation 2002-2007 and so on than like this C6 (Typ 4F, 2005-present) this data is meaningfull just for some Audi enthuastic nobody else dont know these and are very hard to follow. And these should not be used on infobox. Just cleaned Audi A2 article. If you you want tell the codes these should be in the main text not in headers --Typ932 T&middot;C 07:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You just dont get it do you! '1st generation' etc are NOT how European cars are designated - AT ALL !!!!!  To quote your example, Audi A4s are without doubt, always referred to by their platform code, as is say the Volkswagen Passat - just because YOU don't like them, and just because your native language is NOT english and you have difficulty in understanding 'technical' issues, you are again being bloody-minded in imposing your own narrow-minded point of view!  If you really want some serious 'technical' jargon, take a look at some of the articles in this Category:Opioids - just because an article may contain some technical information which a reader may or may not understand, are you really suggesting we should 'dumb' them down to the lowest common denominator????!!!!  78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I dont like those because they make articles very messy and are not used in general public in even in Europe, and its not the way other articles are written, we try always make similar car articles, not the way you want. We dont need the codes it simple and those codes arent used by any magazines either they are just factory codes.


 * I noticed also that many Audi articles has caption in infobox pictures what is not needed, same info can be found on the header or the infobox name, these shouls also be removed, no need for double info. --Typ932 T&middot;C 07:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, if the caption states specific detail, like say the 'year', or that it is a 'US' model, then the captions should stay. But I conceed and agree with say the Audi A2 caption.  We need to have (a) some flexibility, and (b) some basic common sence!  Rgds.  78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The infobox says the year, the caption should use only when there is something special (for example facelift made between years or similar, all necessary info is usually in the box. This has also been discussed here earlier....... --Typ932 T&middot;C 16:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 78.32.143.113. Just because you don't understand a model code system does not mean that you can scrap it. I tend to prefer headings that incorporate the generation, model code and production years (for example Toyota Camry: Sixth generation (XV30; 2001–2006).) I think that this format (or similar) is the best way to go as it satisfies both sides. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So you think this is good header C4 (Typ 4A, 1991-1994), I think we maybe need votin or something about these Audi articles, maybe peer review of this certain article and see what a person not familiar with Audi world or car business at all, things about these articles, anyway these codes arent allowed in infobox , also those caption texts should be reconssidered, I think they arent in line what we have discussed here earlier. --<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#DFDFDF;padding:0 3px 0 4px;">Typ932 T&middot;C 06:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Order of comments
Guys, please stop adding comments all over the page. You're making it hard to keep up and see what's been added. This is how you should be doing it. Thanks.--Flash176 (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution
We have evidence that type codes are valid, common, and (at least in some markets) exclusively used to discern one vehicle from another. We also have evidence that the AKA field is being misused as a place to state these type codes. It's a misuse because that's not the AKA field's purpose. The easy way forward here is to create a new infobox field called Type. As with most other infobox fields, its use would be optional in any section of any article. That means it wouldn't cause any clutter in articles or sections where its use isn't warranted. It would free up the AKA field for its intended use, and I don't foresee any problems it would create. How about it? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Might be a good idea, though I would name it something more generic, like "internal code" or "manufacturer's designation", as other manufacturers have similar nomenclatures. Letdorf (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC).


 * The best name is "internal code", I think. However, I prefer not to have yet another infobox field that takes even more room, whereas descriptions like "Ninth generation (E99)" fit perfectly in the infobox name / title.
 * Dear 78.32.143.113, the Golf Mk.III and the Mégane Mk.II are called like that only in the United Kingdom (within Europe, I mean), because "mark" is an English word. Other countries use Golf III and Mégane II, i.e. third-generation Golf and second-generation Mégane. Not all cars can easily be described with generations (see Fiesta, Escort, Passat, Volkswagen Gol), but a lot do indeed. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki says up to now Fiat Doblò, is the last O in Dobló correct? On the car it is Dobló
Wiki says up to now Fiat Doblò, is this correct? On the car it is Dobló Even the Fiat internet pages differ per country with the last O.

Do we correct wiki?

Regards, Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.176.177 (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hard to say, do you have any close picture of the car with the text? --<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#DFDFDF;padding:0 3px 0 4px;">Typ932 T&middot;C 18:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Their English/main page (www.fiat.com) spells it Doblò, so I see no reason to change the article name.--Flash176 (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As Flash176 says, the right name is Doblò. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Brabham BT46 GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Brabham BT46 for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

GM EV1
I've done a lot of work on the GM EV1 article, and it would be great if more editors can take a look and make improvements. I would love to see this end up as a featured article someday. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for Talbot Tagora
nominated Talbot Tagora for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Aubergine (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial
After PrinceGloria addressed his concerns regarding the inaction and disorganisation of this project's proposed submission to Naming conventions, PrinceGloria along with Scheinwerfermann and myself have come up with a draft submission (please see: User talk:OSX).

Considering we really need to get a move on with this long overdue submission, please, give your support or objection to the above. If you have a problem with what is written, change it and submit it below! Regards. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't support "all markets but the original one." A car that's called something in every market but, say, its home market and Honduras, should still go by the most common name. Instead, I'd recommend "a common name used in most markets worldwide" -- calculable by a simple tally of markets by country (x name in 32 countries, x name in 17). This would eliminate any fears of defaulting to the American name based on sales VOLUME.


 * I'd further support doing the tally based only on English-speaking markets, but if there's less consensus on that I'd be satisfied with the above. IFCAR (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * IFCAR, I can see the same problem arising too, but this is how things start to get complicated. Of the few vehicles that this is going to affect, I am sure we can make an exemption if it only one small country that is different. In fact I can not think of any cases where this is going to apply, as it mainly effects Japanese and South Korean cars. Also, last time I checked, Honduras was a Spanish-speaking country, so it wouldn't matter. The countries this policy is going to apply to are the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa and India (did I miss any?). I guess due the the very high percentage of bi-lingual people in Western Europe, these countries can be included as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 1

 * IFCAR, you've got a good point that all markets… is problematic, because a troublemaker could point to one obscure market where a vehicle is marketed with a different name and say "the convention says all markets!". But let's take care not to set tangle traps and make unnecessary work for ourselves and our fellow editors down the line. I fear that's what we might be doing if we set up requirements for tallies and calculations on the front line of this convention. I propose just replacing the word all by most. That should avoid most disputes, and we can provide guidance on settling debates (tallies, calculations, etc.) in definitions for the convention. We also, as OSX points out, need to avoid overly complicating the convention. Please see my proposed definitions and notes/examples sections below and let's discuss.


 * I would also place the convention application examples, removed from the proposed convention by PrinceGloria in prior discussion, in the support notes for the convention. I do not agree with just leaving them out altogether; that will not only foment endless repetition of the question, but will leave the door open to fillibustering and forum shopping and other unpleasantness. I think if we're to have the best chance of this convention's acceptance, we need to present a complete convention: The rule, the definitions, and the application notes. So, I propose the following convention package:


 * —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 13:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So just to clarify, would that definition make the home market of, for example, Japanese cars designed primarily for the U.S. market the U.S. instead of Japan, if there's a statement saying that's what the car was primarily designed for? That gets sticky. IFCAR (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Please note the precise uses of the terms original market and home market. They're not the same in the proposed convention. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 14:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Original market means the market for which the subject vehicle was originally designed." Honda Inspire -- designed for the U.S. market by a Japanese automaker. "Original market" -- U.S.? IFCAR (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the information in Honda Inspire supports your statement that it was designed for the U.S. market. That is apparently why we have separate articles — not just redirects — for Honda Inspire, Acura Vigor, and Honda Accord. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 14:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Forget the Inspire specifics. As written, the definition seems to say that if a Japanese manufacturer states that it designed a product primarily for the U.S. market, the U.S would be its original market. If that was not the intention of the definition, it should be re-worded. IFCAR (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 2
Okeh, how 'bout this:

—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 15:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, this whole original market definition needs to be simplified too. IFACR, the "U.S. Accord" was not "designed for the U.S.". It was however, designed with the U.S. market in mind. There is a reason why this same car can be purchased throughout Australia, NZ, Japan and other parts of Asia as well as the Middle East. To even say the quintessentially Australian Holden Commodore was "designed for Australia" would be wrong, as the last two generations have been designed with the Middle East, Europe and North America in mind.


 * Lets keep is simple:
 * Original market is the market where the subject vehicle's manufacturer headquarters are located. If there is evidence to suggest that the vehicle was in fact designed with a different "original market" intended, then that market name shall be favored. For example, the designed (and made) in the USA Toyota Avalon was sold and exported to Japan as the Toyota Pronard.


 * The "market for which the subject vehicle was originally made available for purchase" is going to bring about problems. The Chevrolet Cruze was first launched in South Korea last year, but it's design was a global effort and will be manufactured globally, badged mainly as a Chevrolet. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 3
I can go along with that, OSX, but then we should be using the more precise term home market. How 'bout this:

—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perfect! OSX (talk • contributions) 17:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me too, though it should probably be "a common name is used..." IFCAR (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been enjoying the sun while you were dilligently working out the above, so let me offer an outsider's view on Rev 3 without having been involved in the evolution of the original wording. I would do away with "most markets" and the rather, pardon my bluntness, contrived method of determining them. We would have to determine which markets should be considered English-speaking, which itself could lead to nasty debates. Let us just go by "common for all markets but the original market", unless a good example can be found of this causing any unintended results.
 * BTW, the term "home market" is by no means more precise than "original market". "Original market" means the market the vehicle was originally designed for, and usually, originally marketed in. "Home market" is a rather loose term.
 * I would also prefer the "original market" to be the one the vehicle was designed for/launched first. Vehicles such as Isuzu Panther were designed outside of their intended market, and establishing their "home market" going by HQ location would be rather problematic. I believe we should do that only when no trace can be found of the vehicle's intended purpose. It is rather clear in most cases what market a vehicle is designed for, manufacturers often take pride in highlighting that in press releases. The issue how much a given local subsidiary is involved in design and production of a given model can prove more contentious, so I'd leave that as a second choice.
 * Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there's necessarily anything wrong with contrived methodology if it accomplishes the task at hand. Using an all markets standard creates loopholes for troublemakers, and this project certainly has at least its share of troublemakers. Using a most markets standard with a clearly-defined definition—contrived though it may be—foils troublemakers.
 * When I referred to "home market" as more precise than "original market", I meant that the former term is contextually more precise, not objectively so. In addition, "home market" is (contextually) not at all loose; it is precisely and concisely defined in the proposed convention.
 * Determining which markets are English-speaking is a nontask: it means those markets where English is an official language. Very easy. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, but then you'd have to take the list of those markets and check one-by-one what name was used in most markets. Please also note that point one needs to refer to most English-speaking markets if you want to go by that. I actually thought the "all markets" rule was easier to apply - unless you can find a market where the same name as in the original market was used, you can assume with good faith that it's a case for a "common name", without listing out any markets and calculating percentages. For the time being, I don't think we know of any markets but Japan where the despised Mazda Axela nameplate was used or any Lexus was sold as a Toyota. OTOH, the Scion brand is not represented in Canada, and UK, Ireland and Malta are English-speaking, so suddenly the Toyota ist/Scion xD becomes the Toyota Urban Cruiser (while IMHO, it still is a Toyota ist rebranded for extra out-of-JDM sales).
 * Please also note you'd have to put in "where English is an official language" rather than "English speaking", additionally bloating the definition. I do believe in order to get widespread acceptance at WP:NAME, we need to keep it concise and easy to understand even for somebody not familiar with the issues here. This is also why I'd leave out the examples, they are rather irrelevant to people not really involved with the WikiProjects or cars in general.
 * Scheiwerfermann, I understand you're becoming tired of the issue and do feel your efforts to push the matter forward should be appreciated, and I absolutely do appreciate that. I just feel we need to make the rules simple to make them easier to apply and harder to attack. If we find that there are too many "obscure markets" popping around, then we can go back and think how to deal with them. IMHO, there are very little, if any. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

RAV4 Rev 4
I'm thinking we needn't submit the application notes to WP:NAME; those can be placed in our conventions section for intra-project reference. Good points about Scion, etc. Perhaps we excise "English-speaking" and just let that point pivot about this being the English-language Wikipedia and see how it goes. So, how about submitting this to WP:NAME:

…and placing this appropriately within our conventions for intra-project reference:

—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 21:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your constructive effort again, Scheinwerfermann. I don't want to sound un-constructive, but I believe you are self-contradicting above. Please note the rule is to use the home market name, unless and only unless the home market name is different from the name used in all other markets. Then suddenly you say that you can actually go by some highest-volume market or something... This is what we were trying to avoid, such discussions can be never-ending.
 * It's either common name or home market name, with the provision that if the home market name is a solitary exemplar, then we disregard it. Quick and simple. Can we really find an example when it doesn't work? PrinceGloria (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * English-speaking common name: Renault Logan (South Africa, India), Others: Dacia Logan (Home, but no English-speaking countries), Nissan Aprio (Mexico), Renault Tondar 90 (Iran). 75.177.138.235 (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dacia Logan should be at Dacia Logan, is there any controversy regarding that? BTW, do log in next time, I am not sure who you are... PrinceGloria (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No controversy over the Dacia Logan, according to the proposal (rev5): Is English an official language in the home market? No. Is a single name used in all other markets? No. &rarr; Home market name. Very easy. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 22:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 5
—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 22:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I still prefer Rev #3, for the same reasons that were expressed that produced that version in the first place. IFCAR (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The only considerable differences between revisions 3 and 5 is this:
 * Rev 3: the model name used in most English-speaking markets (determined by the 75 percentile rule).
 * Rev 5: the model name used in all non-home markets.


 * I am stuck between both 3 and 5, but am leaning towards 3 like IFCAR. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns, but again, is there any ACTUAL case that would merit adding the rather complicated way of calculating "majority of English-speaking markets"? Please note we need to keep it simple, we'd be asked a multitude of questions (why 75%? what's English as official language - e.g. Hong Kong - etc. etc.) Unless we can find a case where adding such provisions would be helpful, I would really try to avoid that now.
 * I also prefer the intial wording (yeah I know...) - they're identical concerning conditions, but IMHO the original wording was a bit clearer. Moreover, we needn't lose the fact that those rules apply ONLY when no common name exists (this means we go by the usual WP:NAME rules in the first place, only applying specific rules in specific cases). PrinceGloria (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, this is clearly far more restrictive than existing WP:Name rules as written in Rev #5, which calls for the most common name but not necessarily a name that is used almost exclusively. "Most English-speaking markets" is more in line with that policy than "all markets but home." IFCAR (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear IFCAR,
 * I cordially invite you to acquaint yourself with what I wrote again:
 * We need to start by saying that if a common name exists (in all marketS), we need to use it, and this is where I invoke WP:NAME.
 * To make the rule easy to apply, I propose to have just three cases, easy to discern. This rule makes discussing the name of the article easy. You just apply what you believe to be true to your best knowledge. If you used the "common name outside of the original market", one has to find a market where the same name as the one used in original market was employed to change the article's name. I believe it to be very unlikely, we still haven't found a case where it would apply.
 * So, all in all, while the "majority of English-speaking markets" might be closer to WP:NAME, it actually doesn't help solve any issues. Using WP:NAME as is more or less equals that, we can apply the 75% rule case by case, it would require lenghty discussions in all cases anyway. Why I believe we need a separate rule is because directly applying WP:NAME, or the "majority of English-speaking markets" rule, is rather unwieldy in the context of cars. A rule as proposed in the original wording, or Rev5, is much simpler to apply in everyday life.
 * Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It may very well be simpler. It would also produce an inferior result. I am sure there are cases where on name is used in most English-speaking markets yet different elsewhere in the world -- perhaps someone more familiar with international automobiles can suggest an example. It would not necessarily have to be the same name as the original market; the second there is a second name it reverts to home market, a situation I do not support.

This project has had no trouble going into great detail on past standards, and there's no reason we wouldn't be able to do the same now. A list of countries with English as their official language and what the car was called in each of those markets is hardly a complicated or debatable calculation. IFCAR (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear IFCAR, I beg to differ:
 * I don't think it would bring about any "inferior" results. I actually believe going by "most English-speaking markets" would bring about "inferior results". Why should e.g. all vehicles going by local branding in Australia be invariably disregarded - it only takes three other English-speaking countries to have the car marketed under a common name... I also don't think we should disregard countries with English not used as official language - e.g. Gulf states, where English is widely used and many models have different branding.
 * Having said which, the above is pretty irrelevant, as the thing here is to find a simple rule NOT to have to use WP:NAME, i.e. discuss every case in detail with regard as to what is the "most common name in English-speaking countries". Adding some formulae doesn't really matter, you can apply those case-by-case in discussions and even find it advantageous not to have to do that in some cases. And I do absolutely find listing car names in every English-speaking market a chore, plus do look around Wikipedia for discussions as to what constitues an English-speaking country etc. Oh, and we'd need to define a market as a country, which might also be disputed by some.
 * I love quirky car names and quirks thereof, yet I can't think of an example. We've got a whole bunch of experts here, and I do believe we can credibly claim to possess a rather good knowledge of international car markets. Yet nobody's proposed an example where the simple rules wouldn't work. We're simply trying to protect ourselves against something that won't happen.
 * I actually believe the project ran into trouble whenever we went into great detail in standards and such. Especially where there was some kind of a clash or dispute between "us" and "general Wikipedia". And this is just the case. If it were another WikiProject, I'd ask them why they need a separate rule just to get what WP:NAME already covered in the first place.
 * So, all in all - if you want to go by the "most common name in English-speaking markets", I would advise NOT to create any rule, but rather apply WP:NAME directly. I see little advantage in a rule that basically boils down to a complicated way of applying WP:NAME, one can do that using their own judgement and common sense.
 * Let me also provide an example how the original wording would simply things:
 * Let's say I create an article for Mazda6. I see that the vehicle is called that way in the US, Canada, Australia and UK. So I assume with good faith it is the common name and call the article "Mazda6". Then somebody comes up and points out that it is called "Mazda Atenza" in Japan, and that it is the original market. I say OK, but since there is no other market where the name is used, we can disregard that. Then the person has to come up with another country where the "Mazda Atenza" name is used to change the article's name (won't happen, case closed).
 * Now, let's look at Toyota ist. Since there are various names for it used accross the globe, and it debuted in Japan first, we can assume the article should be titled using the JDM name (original market name). Now, if we went by "most popular English speaking market name", we'd have to track the marketing of Toyota Urban Cruiser and Scion xD and then somebody could one day say that the list of markets where the car is marketed as Urban Cruiser which can be said to be English-speaking is three times longer than the list for the Scion xD (for now - one market, possibly two in 2010 unless Toyota backtracks on their Canadian distribution plans, or cancels the slow-selling xD). In a broader perspective, we would see the names of articles being rather unstable stuff, which is seldom good.
 * I hope this made my point clear, even if I could use less words. I'll work on a simpler explanation in due course. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have no objection to using the WP:Name standard. But seeing as there's little agreement on that, I would support Rev #3 as the closest to that.


 * Rev #5 would be less stable than 3, as it would only take one market somewhere to change the article name from the most common name back to home market name. If, for example, Mazda were to market the 6 as a "Atenza" in Malaysia.


 * Your Toyota ist example would not present a problem. Because there is no overwhelmingly common English name, it would use the JDM name under Revs #3 or #5. IFCAR (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Scion xD only exists in the US. Toyota Urban Cruiser is sold in the UK, Ireland and Malta. The model is not sold in the OZ, NZ or ZA (I didn't bother with other markets, sry). UK+IE+MT+US=4. UK+IE+MT=75% of 4. Hence -> Toyota Urban Cruiser. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, there you go. Urban Cruiser it is. (I'd thought it was UK-only.)
 * So how is that a problem? IFCAR (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We just got an "inferior" result - it is rather obviously a Toyota ist, not the Urban Cruiser, which is an afterthought after another attempt at marketing a LHD version of it as a Scion fizzled (the first one was the hastily conceived Toyota xA for the Middle East). PrinceGloria (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A name used in no English-speaking markets is better for the English Wikipedia? I believe this is where we disagree, and I suggest we break off our own debate and see where other members stand on this. IFCAR (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever which way we decide to go on this, we may want to get our ducks lined up and decide; it looks as though the degree to which this discussion has dragged on is probably damaging our chances of getting anything accepted that doesn't rigidly conform to the general provisions of WP:NAME. Take a look at the comments atMazda Atenza &rArr; &rArr; Mazda6 and Mazda Axela &rArr; &rArr; Mazda3. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So, where are we on this?--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stalled on the railroad tracks again, as it seems, just as in dozens of 1950s teen-car-death songs. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 02:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Japandamonium
anyone else think adding to Japanese mfgs automobile pages Japanese text is unnecessary on english wikipedia? Take the Toyota Tundra for for instance. or better take a look at the Toyota Highlander which isn't even called the Highlander in Japan. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Flash176 (soon to be known as Ridge Runner) (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be good to have some guidelines on this; one thing is that for the Japanese terminology one can typically find the article's left-side ja.wiki link. SynergyStar (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think adding Japanese text to the articles is fairly ridiculous, what's the point of even converting English words into Japanese. That and in Japan to the best of my knowledge automobile names are written in English text anyways.  http://toyota.jp/carlineup/  And I'm not sure what's with the pronunciation back to English deal, in articles like the Toyota RAV4 it doesn't even work properly.  I think the information should just be removed outright, considering this is the english wikipedia and many users browsers aren't even compatible to display Japanese characters. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree --<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#DFDFDF;padding:0 3px 0 4px;">Typ932 T&middot;C 02:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree this is spurious and pretentious and should be guidelined against. I saw it done the other day (or maybe this morning) to Honda Accord. So: Where's the guideline get put, and how quickly and efficiently can we get it done? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 02:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not so fast! A half day of discussion does not count as consensus. I think adding the Japanese name in Japanese characters is worthwhile. It helps interested readers to be able to identify home market (ie Japanese) material dealing with their favourite car. Quite often this material has large tables with English headings and numbers which can be easily deciphered if only the correct model can be selected. Having said that, the nihongo template has a clumsy implementation and could use some serious work. Fonts are a non issue - Japanese fonts are becoming more common on modern computers, Japanese characters are already present in the links to the Japanese wiki and malformed characters (if the user doesn't have a Japanese font) are only a minor distraction from the main English text (usually a row of square boxes or question marks). And did anybody think to invite Japandamonium to this discussion? Stepho-wrs (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification — Sorry, it was a failed attempt at being tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps a smiley would've helped; I had in mind the long debates over article titles, infobox fields, and suchlike. I didn't mean to suggest circumventing the consensus-building process. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 13:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Stepho-wrs. Japanese names are useful (and interesting) for Japanese car articles. The same thing is done for Japanese place names (Hiroshima, Kitakyūshū, Kobe). I do not see car articles to be any different. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks to me English users get the proper pronunciation. Also that's the way the Japanese write their city names.  Japanese don't write their vehicles that way which are global as well.69.65.224.246 (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore by that same logic wouldn't that mean every globally sold product should be spelled out in the language of whatever country it's headquartered? 69.65.224.246 (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think an even better example would be the Toyota iQ. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, there is no reason why the same cannot and should not be extended to other "foreign language" cars. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A number of those vehicles like the Toyota Tundra, Toyota Sequoia and Scion tC aren't even sold in Japan, so I wouldn't even call that their home market. And by simply stating the vehicle is built by a company like Toyota in the heading is enough to say the vehicle's manufacture is Japanese.  Also vehicles sold in Japan are still badged in English, that and the very naming is derived from the English language.  For instance why would you convert the Lexus LS to Japanese when both terms Lexus and LS are English derived, not to mention the Lexus LS didn't even exist in Japan until very recently?  And why are vehicles like the Sequoia converted to Japanese and then back into English anyways?  And this isn't just limited to Japanese nameplates, what about German, Italian, French, etc. brands?  There is definitely a fascination and certain coolness with East Asian letters in the US, just look at people's tattoos, but I still don't think it belongs on the car pages. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a distinction can be made between actual Japanese-derived and English-derived names? I know for your LS example, the nihongo エルエス is a phonetic translation "eru esu" ("l. s."), thus English-derived; while the Toyota Camry is 冠, かんむり "kan muri" which has a meaning (crown) and the Camry name is a phonetic translation, thus Japanese-derived. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no issue with the Camry considering it isn't an English word, but words like Accord, Tundra, Sequoia, Crown, are English. Doesn't the LS stand for "luxury sedan" why convert that to Japanese when even the Japanese refer to it is as the LS?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.224.246 (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have a problem with the removal of the back to English tranlations on pages like the Toyota Tundra, Toyota Sequoia, Toyota Highlander, Toyota RAV4? I'm not sure what the deal with that is. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also does anyone have a problem with the removal on the Japanese letters on pages like the Scion tC, Toyota Tundra, Toyota Venza since those vehicles aren't sold in Japan? 69.65.224.246 (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you some valid points. I have no problem with deleting the back to English translations. I have no problem with deleting Japanese characters on vehicles never sold in Japan. I assume that you are going to leave the Japanese characters for vehicles made and sold in Japan. As a courtesy, you should wait until Japandamonium has had a chance to say something before deleting his work. Stepho-wrs (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I really wouldn't mind if someone else do it for me. Seriously though it could be a week or so before that user gets back on wikipedia. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So really the only remaining point of contention is whether the Japanese lettering stays or goes on vehicles sold in Japan built by a Japanese mfg with English derived names. This also applies to other automotive brands and possibly all other global products. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not quite. 'Crown' is an English derived word but I'd really, really like 'クラウン' to remain in the article. Short answer is: if the car is made by a Japanese manufacturer and sold in Japan with advertising using Japanese characters then those characters are a useful addition to English Wikipedia. Yes, this could apply to other countries but I'm in no rush to force them to be added. Stepho-wrs (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Only saw this discussion on my watchlist now. Can anyone venture an opinion on Honda S2000. The Japanese text was added yesterday, I reverted and was re-reverted. Someone more knowledgeable kindly give some advice please. Thanks. Zunaid 09:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 本田 エス二千 is simply HON-DA-ES-2-thousand. I went to Honda's S2000 web page http://www.honda.co.jp/S2000/ and searched for the characters 'エス二千' and found nothing. If the manufacturer doesn't call it that then I'd say it doesn't belong in the article. I also did a google search on '本田 エス二千' and found a number of web pages but mostly just blogs. Stepho-wrs (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure all the Japanese mfgs only use English characters when referring to their vehicle names. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * http://toyota.jp/dop/list_car.html shows 55 out of 61 cars using Japanese characters (eg カムリ for Camry). Whereas http://lexus.jp/ shows 100% using English initials (eg LS for Luxury Sedan). For Toyota and Lexus at least, these sites would be the litmus test. Stepho-wrs (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

One other issue is how many Japanese translations are to be used; some articles (such as Honda Odyssey) have the phonetic Japanese name+translation ("Honda Odissei") and then a JDM market name + translation (Honda LaGreat (本田 ラグレイト "Honda Ragureitto"). Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * google "Honda Ragureitto" and the term doesn't turn up anywhere outside Wikipedia. I thought these phonetic translations are done automatically via software and again why try pronouncing English words in Japanese?  I'm pretty confused about this, does anyone here know Japanese? 69.65.224.246 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would only use the term used in the home market. If the Japanese refer to it by the Japanese characters for Odyssey in their marketing material then fine, put that in the article. But if they don't use that name then leave it out. For the record, my knowledge of Japanese is very basic, relates only to nouns in car related industries and still requires some machine assistance but it is enough for me to get plenty of information from old Japanese brochures and new Japanese websites. Stepho-wrs (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed Japanese from the Toyota Landcruiser since land and cruiser are english words. Also pretending that this discussion favors keeping Japanese characters when most editors have already said no doesn't make it so. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because no consensus has yet developed on this matter, it is not appropriate for you, 69.65.224.246, to delete content unilaterally as you have repeatedly done on Honda Accord and elsewhere. You have been repeatedly been asked (and subsequently warned) to help build consensus and stop removing content from articles; for your failure to do so you have now been reported at AIV. It would be in your best interest to stop now. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached as nobody here has make an argument to convert English words like Accord into Japanese characters. Funny how you'd warn me especially considering how you blatantly assume ownership of the headlamp section. My edits alone you have edited multiple times there with no plausible explanation and also included what appears to be false information in the LED headlamp section. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No individual editor gets to unilaterally decide that a consensus has been reached. The fact that your edits are being instantly and repeatedly reverted by multiple editors means that you are acting against community consensus. You need to stop now. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 03:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Care to point out where anyone said to keep Japanese characters for English words? Besides an arbitrary reason to keep the Toyota Crown which wasn't even converted in the first place. Also you claim to be a consensus building editor but based on what I've seen in the headlamp article which you have taken control of this is untrue, I can count three separate occasions on my edits alone where they were modified for the worse of the article.  What's even more amazing is your knowledge relating to automobiles isn't anything great. And a block on my IP hardly means much considering how I'm moving in just over a week.  69.65.224.246 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was that Japanese characters used in Japanese marketing were okay and that the transliteration back to Roman characters was bad. I thought we had a consensus on this when people stopped arguing. As an example, go to http://toyota.jp/dop/list_car.html and try to find 'Land Cruiser'. It's 'ランドクルーザー' near the bottom of the page. Cheers. Stepho-wrs (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought this discussion was over for the same reason, except it was my understanding vehicles with English names were not to be translated to Japanese. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to agree with 69.65.224.246. Stepho-wrs, my silence over the past week was not an acknowledgment of agreeing with you, but rather waiting on Japandamonium to chime in. He's had over a week to respond and hasn't. I see no reason to keep these "translations" any longer.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, consensus has not been reached, therefore the discussion is still going on. And Japandamonium has had plenty of chance to chime in, so we can ignore him if he says nothing. My main point still stands - Japanese characters are useful because it helps when looking for information in original market brochures and on the manufacturer's website. And I don't really see any big negatives against them. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Having originally thought we ought to get rid of the translations, I'm now reconsidering my position, but neither do I think we necessarily ought to keep or add them. 69.65.224.246, though his coöperative skills have been poor—he is presently sitting out a 24-hour block for 3RR violation—does have a good point: our articles should not include translations that aren't used in a reliable source such as any of the automaker's literature or websites. Putting in such a translation without such documentary support verges on original research. Our job in writing an encyclopædia is to describe the world as it is, not to prescribe how we might think it to be or prefer it to be. If we include a translation that might or might not be valid and might or might not be used by the automaker, we're straying from our job. It would be okeh, I think, if someone were to find support for a translation and use that support only to justify inclusion of the translation. That is, I don't think we need a hardline policy forbidding the translations except in cases where they've been used to dig up some other bit of info (other than the translation itself) included in the article. That said, I don't think this is as critical an issue as, for example, the article-name convention that has (once again) lost momentum. Neither approach (adding/maintaining translations or omitting/deleting them) would bother me overly much; the bigger issue right now is getting on the same page and not having individual editors unilaterally deciding consensus on the matter to be what they happen to want it to be. So let's see if we can build a consensus we can  (more or less) all (more or less) live with. I'd like to get PrinceGloria's input; I find s/he usually has thoughtful insight into matters of this nature, though we don't always agree. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 02:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Scheinwerfermann for inviting me to the discussion. Just to make sure, I have absolutely nothing against transsexualism but I still feel comfortable with being unambigiously male. Is it because I listened to Celine Dion yesterday? All I have in my defense is that it was a Chrysler ad song...
 * My time for WP is very limited now and I guess I was successfully discouraged from meddling into any discussions, so allow me not to acquaint myself with all the backlog above... I understand that the matter at stake is including (or not) Japanese script and pronunciation of non-JDM vehicles. For JDM, I'd say it's obvious that at least pronunciation should be given (the notion that "Crown" is "kuraunu" is indeed as much an encyclopedically important fact as the fact that Aveo is "Avayo" and not "Eyveeoh"). I am by no means an expert in Japanese and the intricacies of the Japan pop culture, but generally I do see the tendency to use the Latin script in marketing. Having said which, a huge amount of sources also refer to the vehicle using the Japanese characters, including our own Japanese Wikipedia, so I guess this also should be considered "popular" and "official" use.
 * I believe it is superfluous to provide those for non-JDM nameplates, though (e.g. Honda Ridgeline, the vehicle and nameplate are both "overseas monopoly"). With nameplates used in many markets, I would tend to agree the inclusion of Japanese name would not cause any harm. Most of the names were first introduced in Japan, even the outright English-sounding ones (e.g. Land Cruiser), so just as much as one would provide a Japanese script and pronunciation for other Japanese subjects and phenomena.
 * I was invited to chip in, so here I did. I hope nobody's offended or anything. Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, PG. I intended nothing but caution with my use of "s/he"; your user name suggests "he" (Prince…) and "she" (…Gloria), so I thought I'd cover most of the bases.


 * We seem to be converging on a consensus that it's definitely okeh to include Japanese script (and pronunciation key) for the name of a vehicle actually marketed or significantly and notably discussed in Japan, but probably not for vehicles never sold or significantly discussed in Japan. Is that a convention we can all live with? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see us at a complete consensus. 69.65.224.246, Typ932, and I have said that we're against it. I believe we can agree that the non-JDM names should be removed, but I still say that the translation is unnecessary, period. I just see it as one more thing we have to deal with getting right.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)