Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 26

Excessively crufty fuel economy tables
Over at Ford Escape and Ford Fusion Hybrid there have been some excessively crufty fuel economy tables added, littering both articles. Over at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid last year, there was a similar discussion revolving around an almost identical table and the overriding consensus was not to include these. When this was brought up at WP:CARS, the consensus again was for this detailed fancruft to be excluded, as documented at WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions.

In this Escape article, the EPA figures are already mentioned in the text (for both the hybrid and non-hybrid). By including the table as well, the exact same information is being duplicated, albeit twice, because the "annual fuel cost" figures are nothing more than a translated way of expressing miles per gallon. Also, there is a clear bias made when this table in included because it only takes the United States into consideration, excluding Canada (as usual) and all other markets that the Escape/Fusion is sold in. Basically, it's all or none, and listing them all would be simply not be feasible.

I would have though that an EPA figure would be suffice. Annual fuel cost (USD), carbon footprint (Ton/yr of CO2), and annual petroleum use (barrel) goes far and beyond was is acceptable. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

For the convenience of the interested editor, the content under discussion is the following:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rated the fuel economy for the 2010 Escape Hybrid (FWD) at 34 mpgus city, and 31 mpgus highway. The following table compares fuel economy, carbon footprint, andpetroleum consumption between the hybrid version and other drivetrains of the Escape family as estimated by the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy. The Escape Hybrid meets both California's SULEV and PZEV standards, with tailpipe emissions better than 90% less than the average 2003 new car and zero evaporative emissions.


 * As stated in the merger discussion above:


 * 1. Wikpedia policies superseds any guidelines set by a WikiProject (if a guideline regarding environmental performance exist please point it to me). Please read carefully WP:CONLIMITED: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."
 * 2. Relevance of environmental performance: Sustainable transport and environmental performance are not obscure fringe topics nor fancruft-laden (as asserted in these discussions) but rather quite mainstream, just like climate change so it cannot be ignored, and Wikipedia reflects theses facts everywhere, except, it seems, in WP:AUTO. The United Nations, The World Bank and all other international development organizations, and many governments of first world countries (and many developing countries too) make decisions and implement policies following such environmental and sustainability principles (wonder why there are so many government incentives for this types of vehicles). Furthermore, comparison tables like the one reproduced below are built with information provided by the US Department of Energy and the US Environmental Protection Agency (not some green advocacy group), both government agencies and considered reliable sources in WP. Therefore, this type of info in a hybrid article cannot be considered fancruft, nor marketing. The rejection of this type of information just reflects the already recognized biased (by some of the editors of WP:AUTOS) against electric drive vehicles that use the glider of existing gasoline or diesel vehicles. The performance indicators included in this table reflect the mainstream new reality that the social and environmental impact of automobiles must be evaluated and relevant information provided to car buyers. This indicators reflect the relevant impacts caused by automobiles, from good old air pollution, through greenhouse gas emissions, to oil consumption/energy independence (particularly to reduce imports from not so friendly countries).
 * 3. As the Ford Escape case demonstrates, you merged the article cleansing it from all environmental performance but the fuel economy, just by claiming this type of content is fancruft regardless of being supported by reliable sources and being a mainstream subject. Again, not following WP policies but supporting yourself in WikiProject guidelines. And by the way, this table is different from the table in the Toyota Camry Hybrid so that discussion is not valid for this discussion. US DoE created this source of info after the Camry Hybrid was merged, and it is the same for the Ford Fusion Hybrid above.--Mariordo (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This pathetic citing of all these alleged policy violations is getting ridiculous. You aren't citing any policies at all, you are merely warping ambiguously worded guidelines to substantiate your cruft. Here's one for you to read since you are that way inclined: WP:Not—just because it is verifiable does not mean it needs to be included. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The fuel economy table consumes a lot of space. Fuel economy data is useful for comparing different vehicles.  In isolation as it is, its close to useless.  I am not advocating mileage comparisons in this article.  Bradkay (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Too much specialist info too thickly spread.   That's my main reaction.   Also


 * ANYTHING citing a value in US dollars (or any other currency) will quickly become outdated because different governments devalue their currencies at different speeds in order to fund their .. um ... spending.  You can usefully record that the thing used 10% more (or less) fuel than a competitor vehicle tested at the same time using the same test (thought even there you have trouble because different fuel consumption tests give different outcomes).   But that problem is dwarfed by the currency one.   How many people - even if you limit your sample to people living in the USA - will be any the wiser if you tell them baldly what it cost to tank up a Toyota HiLux in Michigan in 2000 using US dollars?   And if state sales taxes vary, what does sales tax do to that if you go to Wisconsin?   Or even Ontario?   Or are your figures excluding taxes?  So which of the applicable taxes are you excluding?


 * Most of the tabulated environmental data at this level are way beyond the scope of an article on the vehicle and have the added problem that - even within a single country - there is very little consensus on what is a relevant cost.  The information belongs in a specialist entry where the assumptions on relevant costs can be clearly stated along with their justifications.   Clearly and fully.   You can and should certainly reference between those entries.


 * Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * These tables are updated regularly by the corresponding US agencies (EPA and DoE), and both tables are presented for hybrids that are mainly sold in the US. Doing the updates is a hard work but not an excuse for not including the content. I do regularly update statistical info in most of the articles I created, my GAs, or where I am the main contributors, so more work is no reason for not providing more info to our readers. The info is quite relevant for the American market, where the vehicle is sold. Notability do not depends a worldwide view, it depends of the content, there are thousands of articles for especific countries, regions, etc in Wikpedia. If the US has been for decades the biggest car market in the world and the article refers to a car sold mainly in the U.S., claims of worldwide view are simple nonsense. The carbon footprint of the three different powetrains with different engines is not cruft, not in the US at least, quite the opposite, it has been mainstream for a long time.--Mariordo (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking, but isn't Ford Escape supposed to be an encyclopedic article about an SUV built by Ford? I do not believe it to be Wikipedia role to provide consumer advice about powertrain options, particularly consumer advice limited to a single market, based on a single model year. It seems to me this drifts too far from Wikipedia's scope. --Falcadore (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The information included in the table is the same info provided in the Monroney label affixed to all new cars sold in the US. The figure in the right side shows the Monroney sticker for the Chevy Volt (not quite representative but it is the one that was handily available). EPA designs this labels to be easily understood by the general public, so this info is not too technical as argued above, nor it is some fringe fancruft. Now that mass production electric cars and plug-in hybrids have been launched, this content is even more relevant (and shows that concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and oil dependency are mainstream) and governments have tax incentives and grants as part of their policies to support the sustainablity of the transport sector. Operating costs are included because buyers pay a premium for their hybrids and plug-in cars, and operating costs make up part of that premium, so this is not marketing.--Mariordo (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that addresses none of what I just stated, indeed almost seems as they you agree with me, in that it is consumer advice provided for the benefit of a single market on a single model year. All your reply has done is state that it is federally mandated consumer advice for a single market. Surely data as detailed as this should be used as a reference (since it is no doubt easily obtainable from external sources), not as a contribution with the summary of that data placed within the section on the vehicle generation the data is relevant too? --Falcadore (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The information is technical. Its also nearly irrelevant, not just in an article here but in the real world.  The low credibility and usefulness of the EPA milege ratings are the reason for the scornful use of the phrase "Your mileage may vary" in unrelated every day conversations.


 * The EPA's annual changes in the information it presents and its format, plus changes over the years in the testing methods and adjustments in the results, are part of a futile struggle for it to gain credibility, which it lost almost immediately upon first providing gas milesge ratings. Claiming significant relevance of the EPA stickers on the cars is a lost cause.  The EPA can't even achieve that.  And even if they had significant real life relevance, the information still doens't belong in a Wikipedia article. Bradkay (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a consumer advice website. They should not be included for the same reason we don't include parts lists or detailed tables of cam shaft tolerances. If someone is interested, these figures are easy to find elsewhere and I see no problem just linking to them. --Leivick (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Ford Fusion Hybrid gets worse. It acts as a comparison guide with other hybrids. Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide, so why are we comparing the Fusion Hybrid with other hybrids? Last year at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid, Zunaid put it succinctly: "The article is about THIS car, not OTHER cars. In a similar vein, we do not compare the fuel economy of a VW Polo diesel against other diesels in its segment, acceleration of the Nissan 370Z against its competitors, luggage space of one make of station wagon vs another etc., except BRIEFLY in the prose if it is merited. These types of comparison tables are problematic in terms of synthesis and you'd have trouble identifying which vehicles (in the entire world automobile market) to include or exclude in the comparison."

It then lists just about every independent fuel economy test ever performed, which again is silly. Articles on performance cars do not list every 0–100 km/h time obtained by every magazine, they list the official figure if any at all. Any "fuel economy" test performed is rarely going to yield the exact same MPG as the EPA figure. The good thing about EPA is that while the actual figure may not be indicative for every single driver, it's consistent and this makes it ideal to compare one figure with those from other cars. Ditto for other government tests. So all the crufty additions, including tables, comparisons with other models, and independent fuel economy tests (which are explicitly denied inclusion per WP:CARS/Conventions) should be deleted (in any article). A concise EPA figure should remain. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * EPA cycle tests for fuel economy are presented all over the automobile articles, and as I had read from some of your comments, because they are standardized they provide a reliable benchmark. Your judgment of EPA ratings is your opinion, and I respect it, but here in Wikipedia that is called original research. So now WP:AUTOS also decides taht EPA/DoE are not a reliable sources?
 * My point is that the environmental performance is just another feature of automobiles, just as tables describing the technical specs of several engines or the safety ratings (I am assuming climate change and energy independence are not being questioned as mainstream). Then, the carbon footprint, oil imports and fuel economy of different powertrains/fuel of a given model year (that one is for 2011) provide the same useful information for the reader as the safety ratings. Furthermore, if most of the Escape and Fusion hybrids are sold in the US, I do not see an issue regarding lack of worldwide view. Also, this content could be accommodated in a US market section (as I tried in the past). And regarding the alleged promotion, the info comes from government sources, and indeed many government are provided substantial incentives to help introduced more environmentally friendly powertrains and seeking less oil imports (that is mainstream too).--Mariordo (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mariordo, my opinion of the EPA is my opinion, but I am not littering my opinion throughout articles so your criticism is invalid. I am pretty sure most editors will tolerate an EPA figure; what we take concern with are the excessive and redundant charts and comparisons to other vehicles. As others have said, we are not a consumer advice website. Our job is not to assist car buyers in finding the best car for them, but to encyclopaedically outline the car itself. There are other forms of technical cruft that get removed as well, such as the diameter of the brake rotors and what not (see above thread). You have a specialised interest in MPG that goes far beyond what the vast majority of people find interesting. Just like data outlining the diameter of brake rotors is removed, so too should crufty "environmental performance" numbers regarding a single market during a single model year.


 * Even in the case of the Fusion, a car sold only in the Americas, you have ignored Canada and South America. Even if Canada was included at the very least, yet another table would be needed, adding to the clutter. A compromised solution, may be to link directly to the fueleconomy.gov website. This way, you won't have the burden of updating these articles either. It should also be noted that in 10 years time from now, how relevant is all this information going to be when the car is out of production? Are the handful of readers who find this information useful now going to find it useful in a decade when fuel prices will likely be two or three times higher?


 * Then if we include the cost of fuel, what about other running costs? These include servicing costs (which usually vary at each dealer), the cost of new tires (for each diameter and width of wheel on offer), replacement transmissions (which may have an average life span of only 170,000 kilometres), the cost of a replacement key if the original goes missing, the insurance risk category, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The be-all and end-all of hybrids is the economy and (hopefully) reduced emmissions. Which makes the tables worthwhile. As stated above, they currently only detail a single country (the US) but it is reasonable to assume that this is representative of other markets. If other markets differ markedly then they should be added to the table (if data is available) but otherwise I wouldn't worry about it. Since EPA is a government department with a large number of users, it is considered a reliable source. I did statistics at university and I learnt that averages like the EPA figure are often useless for an individual (eg your driving style and circumstances may vary) but they apply well to a large population (some drivers get more, some get less but on average it balances out). However, the table could be trimmed down a bit (after all, it only has to be representative, not exhaustive) by removing the annual columns. I'd also be tempted to remove or merge some of the rows but I'm not quite sure which ones (6 cylinder gasoline engines have very similar figures and are quite different to the hybrid, E85 and 4 cylinder figures).


 * On the other hand, the second table comparing the Fusion to other hybrids should be in some common article instead of being listed in each and every hybrid article.


 * A few further notes about the current discussion. I treat consensus the same way I was taught in statistics to treat confidence intervals - anything less than 90% is unreliable and 95% or 99% is preferred. 9-4 is nowhere near consensus, look for 10-1 and that final 1 should have rather weak arguments (and Mariordo has good arguments). Rebuttals don't count as addressing the issue unless they are strong enough to convince at least some of the participants to swap viewpoints. Currently we just have a couple of monkeys screeching at each across a stream (no offense, this is meant to be humour). Now, back to the fray :)  Stepho   (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you know that a 10-1 consensus is almost never going to be attainable (although it did happen with the Escape). Why should a minority of two or three editors out of 10 justify a retention of the status quo? Nothing would ever get done if that was the case. 51 percent is not a consensus, nor is 60 percent. Above 65 percent, I think is reasonable.


 * The EPA is a reliable source, so quoting the EPA mpg figure is fine. The other stuff like annual fuel costs is redundant and is going too far. If you don't agree with this then that is fine, but an opinion held by yourself and Mariordo is not going to invalidate the opinions of the majority. Not once in my time at Wikipedia have I seen a "no-consensus" declaration given to anything over 65/35. I take it what you learned in university is to do with repetition in science or similar? That is, if you repeat an experiment, 90 percent of the data should be within a small range, with less than 10 percent outlying. Discussions cannot be called "unreliable", so this has little relevance amongst human beings. People are different, people think differently, and people have different opinions. This is why when people vote on a two-party preferred basis, the end result is usually 45/55 at the most. Name an election that resulted in a 90/10 ratio that is not in a communist or fascist state? What works in science does not necessarily translate to what is desirable in the real world. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, good, we are starting to get some common ground. At least part of both sides say that EPA data is reliable. You (OSX) and I have also agreed that the annual costs are not appropriate (doesn't translate to other countries, whereas the mpg and tons of CO2 can be representative of most countries). Hopefully we can sway a few more monkeys editors that a trimmed table is more useful than either no table or a large table.  Stepho   (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Stepho, I have always said an EPA figure is fine (even during the Camry discussion). I just don't see why we have to go beyond what is reasonable with all the other stuff. Not too keen on the tabular format myself, I prefer prose which is the format preferred Wikipedia-wide. Tables are a lazy option because they require zero creativity in the formulation of sentences. Encyclopaedias should be written in prose wherever possible (how many tables do you see in Britannica?).

As a fair compromise, I will agree to:
 * An MPG figure in prose;
 * A figure in prose (I did not advocate the inclusion of this previously, but this figure tends to be quoted with the MPG or L / 100 km figure by governments in Australia, Europe and North America at least).
 * Both figures are to be contained within a section specific to the market in question, titled "North America" or "Europe", et cetera. These same sections would also list other market-specific information such as trim levels as well.
 * No mention of independent tests, unless it is widely cited that the figure(s) is/are extremely difficult to achieve in the real world (i.e. Mazda CX-7 2.3-litre turbo and Chevrolet Equinox). This would require several citations from reliable sources.
 * No comparisons to other vehicles, or mention of unrealistically low figures (such as those 80 mpg figures the hypermillers achieve—these are not relevant to "normal" drivers, and hypermilling can be achieved in any car).

I think we as a WikiProject have been very accommodating to Mariordo's concerns. Prior to the Camry discussion, the general consensus at this WikiProject was to not mention fuel economy data at all, due to its subjectivity and market variance. I then managed to form a consensus that government figures are okay so long as they are contained within a section specific to the market in question (as documented at WP:CARS/Conventions). I have now said a figure is okay as well.

Now all that I ask is for Mariordo to consider the wishes of all other editors here and accept this compromise. He may include links to the fueleconomy.gov website, documenting the information agreed as unfitting for a general-interest encyclopaedia by all other participants in this discussion and those previous. This compromise would apply to all vehicles from the fuel-sipping Prius to the antithetical, mammoth-sized 6.0-litre V8 Ford Excursion. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite as opposed to tables as OSX, as they can sometimes make information clearly visible which becomes unreadable in prose form. However, the giant and disruptive tables used before, the "yearly fuel cost" and the comparison tables including other cars do not belong. I made a smaller version of the table that may prove more palatable - but I still fear that these exact tables will then start popping up in every article for every car which is on the EPA website. Nonetheless, I feel that a collapsible, smaller table which does not cut off the main text is much nicer than the current edition. I also repaired the references, a few of which were broken due to bad spacing and one of which still pointed to EPA's Ford Fusion page. I bolded the combined MPG, as this would be of main importance to most.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The proposed table isn't all that much smaller than before, so I cannot support it—a text-based solution is fine. Imagine if these tables were utilised in a three-generation article sold in just two major markets such as the UK and the US? That would mean six ungainly tables cluttering everything up. Collapsible or not, it takes everything too far. What if the 2012 Escape has efficiency improvements? It will only add to this. Prose is much more succinct:


 * The Escape with front-wheel drive and the 2.5-liter engine was given a combined rating of 23 mpg by the EPA; all-wheel drive versions were rated 1 mpg lower. The hybrid's rating was 32 mpg (FWD) and 29 mpg (AWD), with the gasoline 3.0-liter version rated at 21 mpg (FWD) and 20 mpg (AWD). The 3.0-liter E85 version was rated at 16 mpg (FWD) and 14 mpg (AWD). OSX (talk • contributions) 10:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer tables due to my mathematical training. But in the spirit of co-operation I can accept Mr Choppers suggestion exactly as he gave it. But I am not the one you need to convince. Let's see what the others have to say.  Stepho   (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tables may be a bit easier to read, but they look terrible. See the result here with just three generations and three major English-speaking markets. Once you say yes to one table (for the US), you can't deny editors from including other major markets. It's getting to the point where I am wondering whether we are trying to give readers information about the car in general or just fuel economy data? So please think about the consequences before agreeing. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * EPA MPG figures with conversion templates in prose are horrible, some sections are full of numbers in certain American market cars, I would use tables for consumption figures. For example "Corollas with the 1.8-liter engine have an EPA fuel economy rating of 27 mpg city/35 mpg highway, both numbers being lower than those achieved by the previous generation. The 2.4-liter is rated at 22 mpg/30 mpg with the automatic and 22 mpg/29 mpg with the manual. All engines are ULEV II certified. Toyota carried over the 13.2 gal fuel tank from earlier models.[18] In order to help improve fuel economy the new Corolla uses an electric power steering unit instead of a belt driven hydraulic pump."  if we convert this to l/100km and imperial gallons it just isnt good for prose. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 13:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Conversions can be left out as far as I am concerned. They only add to the clutter. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this is international Wikipedia for english users, those mpg figures doesnt give much info for europeans or those who are not familiar with mpgs, and many of the cars ares sold worldwide, and even if they are not sold, it might be intresting to read (=understand) those figures, In my opinion best way is to add those figures to same table were engine/performance figures are. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 16:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is another option I fully support.--Mariordo (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with the proposed simplified table as shown above. Tables are the best way to make comparisons and as stated by Typ932, to provide this content in prose is not easy on the reader. Of course the example provided by OSX in the RAV4 article is horrible, but I do not see that one as the typical case because the use of these environmental performance tables is useful only in qualified cases, such as hybrids, for vehicles sold in a few markets, and with a bit of creativity and common sense we can keep it to something manageable, and you can always play around with tables to present valuable info in a readable form. Wikipedia articles evolve over time so I will not concern so much about the what ifs. As an example, if an editor decides to add a column to include passenger volume in ft3 (i.e. the Fusion Hybrid), then such info can be removed on the grounds that such feature is not related to environmental performance. I am comfortable enough with this solution to go ahead and change right away the Ford Fusion Hybrid and Escape tables.--Mariordo (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Fuel economy is only one of many aspects of a car's attributes, and does not merit tables, full of fuel economy stats, in isolation. By all means, add a column to a performance table and add a fuel and CO2 column if appropriate, but a stand-alone table is of little use. Also EPA is of no interest to the rest of the world outside the US. CO2 is of interest in much of Europe (especially in relation to taxation), so a C02 figure is of some interest (though not annualised as suggested previously in this discussion. Same with barrels of oil... it is up to the reader to interpret performance data to suit their own needs. Prose should be the preference as noted above, so to highlight a particulalry interesting model with good performace figures would be appropriate, but every single derivative of a range? Leave that to the manufacturer's websites and fan websites. Warren Whyte (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * CO2, when listed, should most definitely be measured in g/km rather than based on assumptions of yearly use. Simply multiply by 37.57977.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * While one aspect of a car's performance, I think fuel economy data has little relevance. On anything other than a current model year car, the data is historical trivia.


 * Its difficult to justify inclusion of material in an article that people have shown real life they pay little attention to. For example, in 2008, with US gas prices at all time highs, large vehicles remained the best sellers.


 * Consumers treat much of the EPA data as cruft. If its cruft real life, its double cruft on wikipedia.  I prefer no fuel economy tables and a passing prose menjton at most. Bradkay (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternative powertrain meat puppetry

 * ''Please see: Sockpuppet investigations/Mariordo/Archive (closed).
 * ''Please see: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666

Hi, Pineapple fez has just notified me of Mariordo and company's rock-bottom Meat puppetry attempt, see green.autoblog.com. Thoughts?

Here's an archived version should it go missing. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And here's some shoddy journalism from "Miss Electric": original, archived version. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, not even wait for me to show up! First, Meat puppetry is clearly tag in the top as " This is a failed proposal " so you are directing the discussion to the wrong policy. The right place is WP:MEAT. Second, you are maliciously bringing your unsuccessful attempt to get me sanctioned due to canvasing (see here), which ended up in nothing one admin explained to you that my behavior was within the policies, and another admin had to call your attention for making threats and a list of demands (not counting the votes of the alleged canvassing). Third, it is an universal legal principle that you are innocent until proven the contrary, but you already said from the first line that I am guilty (not suspect). Since you already opened an investigation I will make my case there, but both blog publications have a lot of content from the discussions above and specific quotes, from me, from you, and other editors. Wouldn't you think that there is possibility that the guy or gal was so lazy that simply did a cut and paste? And to add more spice to this alleged "leak" you are accusing four editors of suspected sockpuppets just because they support the same POV as me? Four, I really welcome the scrutiny, external and internal, in favor or against my POV (AutoBlog has a lot of those with very similar wording use in the discussions above), and I most of all, I do not understand your huge concern, Wikipedia is wide open, everything we write is registered in the history, available for anyone to check, so this WikiLeak is just an oxymoron! Last, when are you going to learn that discussions here are based on arguments to try to reach consensus, seeking excuses to eliminate votes against your position has been a constant throughout the hybrids. As stated in WP:MEAT: Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideallynot be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Are you worry that the tide was beginning to change? Stop the distractions and let's go back to the discussions. I would say no more for respect of Wiki civility pillar (or until I cool down).--Mariordo (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems to be pretty clearly Mariordo based on the language in the "anonymous" tip (I could go deeper into my reasoning if needed). If this is the case it is a pretty startling bad faith attempt at off cite canvassing.  The effort to remain anonymous means that they no what they are doing is against policy and wrong.  We picked up a few SPA votes, which should certainly be discounted.  What I find interesting is the comments on green.autoblog largely support the merger of these articles with a good understanding that as hybrid versions of vehicles become more common separate articles for EV and hybrid powertrains become less important. --Leivick (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I thought when I was reading the comments, astounded that most are in favour of the mergers!


 * Like you've said, there are a number of other give-aways in the language that point it to Mariordo, but I'll bring those up if need be later. I would like to solicit the opinions of a few more editors before making a formal complaint. In my initial two mergers (Camry Hybrid and Elantra LPI Hybrid) Mariordo canvassed votes from editors that he knew or had a strong reason to believe would support his perspective. Pleading ignorance barely scrapped as an excuse the first time, but second time round he had no excuse. It seems that he is getting a little more advanced with his canvassing attempts this time.... let's waits and see. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't say it's meatpuppetry at all. At no time does the un-named source request that readers of the blog come to WP to contribute to the argument. It's only the blog authors (Sebastian Blanco and Miss Electric) who do that. And looking at the comments on the autoblog article, there doesn't seem to be a mass inclination to join in. Meat-puppetry, like vandalism, has a specific definition on WP and I wouldn't say this meets [sic] it. --DeLarge (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it meatpuppetry either. It is canvassing, while not directly requesting votes, it is clearly intended to scew the discussion in their favor and the anonymous nature of the "tip" is clearly an acknowledgment that they understand the issues with this and want to avoid scrutiny.  How are we supposed to develop a consensus when editors are clearly attempting to poison the discussion by soliciting outside voices to argue in their favor. --Leivick (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Outside voices? I thought Wikipedia was the encyclopedia anyone could edit? If this canvassing brings in some new, very rational and sensible arguments in opposition to the mergers, should we discard them purely because they're from new editors? We can judge the arguments by themselves without worrying about who they're from. --DeLarge (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Um, it's a green car blog so it is clearly an attempt to skew the voting. It is also against policy to do this. I have seen big notices placed by administrators at the top of discussions before that say something along the lines of, "If you were requested to comment here from outside of Wikipedia please do not join in this discussion as it may skew the results of the discussion..." OSX (talk • contributions) 23:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly is meat puppetry. The notice at the very top of WP:MEAT, states:

The definition speaks for itself really. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It still wasn't meatpuppetry though. Read what I said, and re-read the blog postings. The anonymous source NEVER says "come to WP and argue in our favour". Only the blog authors themselves do that. As DJL says, it was canvassing.
 * If you check WP:CANVAS you'll see the appropriate/inappropriate chart at the top of the page. By only e-mailing one person (with no guarantee that a subsequent blog posting would result) and by keeping their tone very neutral and non-canvassy, the anonymous source has managed to tick two of the four boxes as far as keeping their behaviour "appropriate".
 * And it's canvassing's a behavioural guideline, not a policy. ;) --DeLarge (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Look at terms used in the definition: "It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to [...] communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate."


 * "Advertise" is the operative term, and advertising is certainly what has occurred. Mariordo has been very sneaky in his use of terminology to cover his back to claim any number of excuses. We don't know what was is in the contents of the original email, but I can almost guarantee that there was some sort of request to publish a story on it. We only get to see the quoted material that Mariordo wanted to see published. Call me cynical, but it is only basic common sense. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And as I said before, they sent one e-mail with no guarantee that a blog post would subsequently be written unless they have editorial influence. The blog authors did the "advertising", and the blog authors made the meatpuppetry requests. The anonymous source did neither. --DeLarge (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No guarantee, but certainly the intention and hope that the blog authors do the advertising. What was published of the anonymous source does not explicitly ask others to join in, but the second response below certainly has links to the appropriate discussions down to the very section headings. If it is as neutral as you claim, why would Mariordo choose a green car website? Why not a general interest website? It would be like having a debate on Israel and one editor emailing an anti-Israeli blogger to assist in skewing the discussion. If you oppose the mergers that is one thing, but to defend a text book case of meat puppetry is not on. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and on the AutoblogGreen website, Sebastian Blanco states, "AutoblogGreen was sent the an [sic] anonymous message through a friend..." Would a friend who is also interested in green vehicles really turn down such a request? I think not. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be a shame for this to turn into a Wikipedia policy argument. I got the feeling that there was a start of a consensus that stand alone articles for a mere powertrain alternative of an existing car rarely merited a stand alone article, and the blog appears to be ignoring the pretty sane discussions here and doing eco-friends no favours by playing the green-wash card. Warren Whyte (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Warren, meat puppetry (like sock puppetry, but sneakier) is a serious policy violation—the outcomes of major discussions can be skewed by this behaviour. I am not trying to turn this into a policy argument, but there is a clear and serious violation at hand here that is disrupting the very foundations of this project—community consensus. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is ample evidence that it is you, since you admitted on the blog that "a few years ago did my bit in trying to upgrade the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid, which at one point was a "Featured" article." Well I checked the edit history and confirmed this. I have zero doubt that it was you; the language used, the tone, and the terminology; it has Mariordo written all over it. How many people around the world do you think are following this discussion? And why would the tipster need to remain anonymous if they weren't a particiapant in this discussion?


 * "Are you worry [sic] that the tide was beginning to change?": well yes actually. By seeking editors from a website that has a clear bias to alternative-propulsion vehicles, the higher majority of the reader-base is going to oppose the changes because it is a green car fan website. Just like if I posted the a similar whinge on an anti-hybrid/EV page, you wouldn't like it (and I am not anti-hybrid or EV, I just don't see the point in separate articles). If I am anti-hybrid and EV, I must also be anti-performance car and anti-badge engineering as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is obvious Mariordo is trying to attract off site support for his position. I don't even disagree with Mariordo on a lot of what he has said and have voted in agreement with him a number of times, I valued his voice in this discussion, so accusing me of attempting to undermine his position based on Wikilayering policy is a total red hearing.  What I find doubly troubling is his response to it, which amounts to: 1. "You used the wrong link to the policy page, here is the right one." (So what?) 2.  "You have accused me of this in the past". (Doesn't make a difference, being accused of something in the past and not having been reprimanded doesn't give you a pass now.) 3.  "I haven't been proven guilty, but will not assert my innocence." (This isn't a court of law and pleading the fifth isn't going to work here, the fact that you sent these messages anonymously indicates that you knew what you where doing was wrong and wanted to avoid scrutiny). 4. "It isn't a problem anyway." (It is a problem when you attempt to sway a discussion by selectively soliciting outside influence.  How would you react if OSX went to an anti-hybrid blog and said "eco nuts are trying to create needless pages to boost hybrid vehicles.")  5. "You are doing this solely eliminate votes and undermine the consensus building process." (This sort of canvassing is what undermines the consensus building process and creates huge amounts of needless drama.  OSX pointing it out is a result of your actions, so shifting the blame isn't going to work)
 * I'm not really sure what should be done, but I think ANI might be a good idea and I definitely think SPA votes need to be discounted. --Leivick (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You can see my initial response, where it belongs. I will not participate in the Roman circus here. Since OSX already open an investigation and do not see the point to continue discussion here. Go and comment there.--Mariordo (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply Daniel. I am not really qualified to deal with these sorts of deceitful practices, because I usually keep out of red-tape that extends beyond WP:CARS (I have never had to deal with anything on this scale before). So far I have opened up an investigation here: Sockpuppet investigations/Mariordo. Would ANI be redundant or a worthwhile excerise? OSX (talk • contributions) 05:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the sockpuppet investigation is going to turn up anything because I don't think there are sockpuppets involved. I do think making a neutrally worded post at ANI would probably be a good idea we could go around in circles here.  I would suggest showing your reasons for believing the anonymous tipster to be Mariordo.  In my mind the lack of denial and outright support for the behavior makes it clear to me, but others might need the connection in language and circumstances between the tip email and Mariordo's other posts to be fleshed out.  Also try not to make it too long a lot of ANI regulars practice TL;DR. --Leivick (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "The term meatpuppet may be considered derogatory and should be used with care." Meat ---North wiki (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the huge concern is. The comments at Autoblog Green largely agreed that hybrid vehicles don't need their own articles.
 * Furthermore, the blog post specifically calls on people who already have "clout" -- that is to say, established editors, not people newly recruited for the cause. IFCAR (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Buick Roadmaster
This was once a short concise article. Sections on generations have been added with charts and photos but almost no text. The result is a page that is mostly white space, and a lot less usable than the article was without the generations. I have posted about the problem at Buick Roadmaster Talk suggesting either more material be provided or the generations be removed. Bradkay (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sales numbers
is adding US sales numbers to several articles. I've noticed it when he reverted my deletion of a US sales table from Mercedes-Benz C-Class. Should we allow this? US sales are not particularly more relevant than any other country, and if we start adding other countries, when should we stop? --Pc13 (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good-luck finding global tallies for so many models spanning an entire decade, if I personally could have done so I would have.Socckee (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I generally think sales numbers are okay, so long as they are cited. However, I certainly see your point about the potential for these tables getting very unwieldy when more than a few markets are listed. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the tables are unwieldy when they are collapsed, anyone who wants to view the table would probably be interested in the data.Socckee (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's a car widely sold worldwide, they should have worldwide sales/production figures or none at all. Picking out just US sales for a Mercedes is biased and wrong, and it opens up the door to adding sales for X Y and Z markets and thereby turning the article into a mess.


 * The proliferation of sales and production figures is becoming a problem. Missing/incomplete data, the mixing of sales and production figures (see Talk:Mercury (automobile), usage of figures for only a single market, and in some cases the lack of an indication as to what the figures even are, create the potential of these things hurting the articles more than they'd help.


 * I wouldn't oppose doing away with them entirely (the annual numbers that is, not a total for the car's entire production run or for a single generation since that is much easier to manage if the source is available). --Sable232 (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is no harm to make mention of a model's home market or perhaps key export market, but generally I would agree that specific country sales records will make for cluttered articles. I agree that there is interest in overall production (as mentioned by Sable 232), and perhaps on a year-by-year basis, but breaking down sales per country will become information overload. Warren Whyte (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If the models aren't country/area-distinct, segregating them makes no sense, but including, frex, all Ford Escort sales by year (even if distinctly different models) is also a bad idea. (I presume segretating by type is intended, even if annual sales are aggregated...)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  14:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say segregating sales by key regions makes perfect sense. Individual regions aren't even remotely homogenous and these variations are notable.Socckee (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think they are okay, as long they are internatiional figures for cars sold everywhere, or mostly sold in some specific country. Its not good idea to have only some market data for international vehicles. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Warren, the home market, key export markets (usually including the US by sheer volume) and grand world-wide total are suitable. A complete list country by country is overload - imagine the full list of countries for the Corolla :) It must also be made clear whether production or sales figures are being used and whether it is by calender year (Jan-Dec) or model year (varies year by year in the US, ie change over can be in Aug, Sept, Oct or even Nov).  Stepho   (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Define key export markets. It's either a global figure or none at all. --Pc13 (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Any export market that covers 10% or more of the total sales of a vehicle would be a good indication of a key export market and is surely significant and notable. For many manufacturers that would include the US. Russian and Chinese manufacturures would likely not include the US.  Stepho   (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * US sales are always reported by calendar month/year rather than model year. This will allow other countries (presumably also going by calendar year) to be added to the same table, if data is available.  IMHO, whatever country's sales figures are available from a reliable source, go ahead and add them -- but consider adding home/major export markets first. --Vossanova o&lt; 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think Stepho was saying: "either a global figure or none at all". Stepho, can you please clarify? ---North wiki (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That was me. I'm opposed to sales tables for separate countries, because I don't believe it's possible to agree on what a key market is. Any country with a large population will have more cars sold than a country will a smaller population. So does that mean Sweden isn't an important market? Belgium? Lithuania? Israel? Cambodia? Guatemala? The alternative is to allow every market, making it conceivable to have sales figures for 191 countries. That's a mighty big table. --Pc13 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, numbers available most probably are by sales, by country/region (e.g. E.U. market). I don't recall companies like GM or Ford (in the U.S.) release global production number by model on a periodic basis. (It can be quite messy, Ford's Ranger in USDM and rest of the world market are two different vehicles, Ford Fusion are two unrelated vehicles in USDM and EUDM, if my understanding is correct. However, U.S. sales number are reported irrespect of model year/model change, sales of different generations of one model are aggregated. That may present a problem as articles are generally divided by generations. Furthermore, U.S. sales number of all major automakers are widely available and released timely. Information from European market, I found, have significant delays and can be sporadic. ) I think if a reliable source of sales in markets like Cambodia or Guatemala can be found (in English?), it may be considered if in a 'collapsable' form for 'other markets' is acceptable to other editors. -North wiki (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC) edited: North wiki (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my slow response - for the next month I will have only limited time to check on WP. I believe that it is very easy to decide on key markets as per my 10% suggestion above. Yes, small countries like Sweden (where my current projects are located) will probably not get an entry. Australia (where I live) also rarely gets a mention. Australia is often used as a test market because it has western tastes but is small enough to not kill the bottom line when it doesn't work. If I argue for either of them to be included on the basis of 'me too' then the table gets unwieldy. But any market that is providing 10% or more of the sales of a particular vehicle is surely a key market. For some borderline cases you may have to use some judgement. Eg if the breakdown is 15%, 9% and then a pile of 3% and less markets then you obviously go with the 15% and 9%. Note that I consider markets to be broad - eg Europe, S.E Asia, China, Africa, US (including Canada or not???), not necessarily single countries. And of course, worldwide figures should always be added (in addition to the key markets) if they are available.  Stepho  (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sweden, as the home of Volvo, Saab and Scania, probably should be mentioned I would have thought. Presumably these makes have disproportionally higher sales in their home nation, much in the same way Peugeot, Citroen and Renault do in France. Additionally won't car sales increasingly quote Europe as one market rather than 20-30 component countries? --Falcadore (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops, I've let my Toyota bias creep in. I should have said that Sweden doesn't generate the sales numbers of foreign (ie non Swedish) cars - not when compared to the US. For cars made by Swedish manufacturers then Swedish sales will probably make up the requisit numbers. I don't know what the numbers are for non Swedish sales of Swedish cars but the proposed 10% rule would also show whether to accept or reject them. I think I mentioned way up above somewhere that the home market should also be included. Apologies for the lack of clarity.  Stepho   (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A new electric vehicle-only WikiProject
There is a discussion at User talk:North wiki to create either a new WikiProject Electric Vehicles or a task force under WikiProject Environment. A separate WikiProject is redundant to this one, and is nothing more than a veil to hide behind to stop merger discussions like the above being held. Since my concerns have been completely ignored on North wiki's talk page, I have brought it up here.

I would support an electric vehicle task force as a subsidiary to WP:CARS, but not WP:ENVIRONMENT. The latter has been chosen to ramp up green votes as far as I am concerned. I don't think this project has any vocal anti-green members as some claim, we just don't in general believe EVs should be given a higher standing (like performance cars). OSX (talk • contributions) 22:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: separate WikiProject or WP:ENVIRONMENT subsidiary. A separate WikiProject is redundant and little more than an excuse to not be involved with and to cooperate with the existing WP:CARS project. Support electric vehicle task force as a subsidiary to WP:CARS. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has an obligation to be involved with or to cooperate with this WikiProject or any other. Neither WikiProjects nor editors own articles. *** Crotalus *** 18:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: There's no need for an entire project to focus on a handful of automobiles, especially when they're already within a well-defined existing project. As for having them handled by environment, I think a case could be made for that project to take over all or some responsibility for the general hybrid and electric vehicle articles, but that the environmental rather than automotive focus would have little different to say about the hybrid versions of the Ford Escape versus the Toyota Highlander. IFCAR (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Should not be a separate project under wiki autos. Subject needs to become significant on its own, not because it was promoted through a separate wiki project.  Wiki is for what is.  Should not be under environment or anything else other than autos.  Cars are consumer products.  These cars  have nothing to do with enviromental improvement except for the minor fact its easier to ensure compliance with emission standards with static sources than it is with mobile sources. Bradkay (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral:I believe before voting, interested editors should check exactly what a task force is and does. Second, does it make sense to vote on something that would belong to another Wikiproject? I think it is wiser to find out the best way to handle your concerns and seek consensus. And finally, OSX and a few other editors have made explicit their bias against hybrids and the related environmental performance of cars. Just look at the discussion above that I opened to define what is proper to include as environmental performance. Honestly I do not think OSX is the best choice of a spokesman to try to reach a consensus on how it is best to handle this proposal.--Mariordo (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * EVs and hybrids do not belong at WP:Environment. Cars do not help the environment at all—they destruct it. Even hybrids and EVs destruct the environment and pollute. A car is a car, regardless of the power source, even though some cars are worse than others in terms of pollution.


 * And I never claimed to be a spokesperson, I opened up discussion. So what's that about? I actually voted in favour for a task force if part of WP:CARS. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am just saying that you are too confrontational, and good communication is required to reach a consensus among all parties to find the best solution or alternative to this proposal. A first step would be to bring that discussion here, and let other editors with demonstrated NPOV lead the discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is exactly what I have done. I brought the discussion up here, voiced my concerns, and have allowed others to participate. Also, what makes you think you are such a sterling example of NPOV? I consider you to have a strong POV bias, and my strong opposition to this is a quest to neutralise it. That is, hybrids/EVs do not need to be given undue weighting which you believe is fitting. I'd happily take this up with dispute resolution if you have such a problem with me. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote let "other editors" so I was not including myself.--Mariordo (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment Johnfos (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Let me get this straight; the members of WP:CARS are now trying to dictate what other Wikiprojects can and cannot do.  Anything having to do with automobiles must come under your dominion and yours alone.  Your concerns and priorities are the only ones that matter.


 * Your arrogance is both stunning and misguided. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. These attempts at article ownership need to be slapped down hard. *** Crotalus *** 19:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There was no "dictating" at all. The discussion was started here to get the thoughts of editors involved in this project as to whether or not they would support (and perhaps join) a new project or a task force.
 * These endless assumptions of bad faith are reaching the point of incivility. --Sable232 (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see anyone dictating. I see people saying its inappropriate.  You aren't addressing the issue.  The facts of the issue being against you and so you're choosing to allege inappropriate attitudes of those who oppose you. Bradkay (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Oppose: While the major drive behind EV's is being environmentally friendly, at the end of the day, these are cars and every EV article will have at least some editors from Wikiproject Automobiles (possible not even knowing of the EV project). I fear that some articles will be owned by two different projects and that edit warring will become rampant as each side says 'our project has decided that it should be this way, not your way'. It is the continual edit warring that worries me the most. Heated discussions within a project can be hard to resolve (see the rest of this page for proof) but arguments between two projects will be even harder to resolve. I suggest that an EV sub-project (task force? as Mariordo said, I'm not too sure of the proper divisions here) under Wikiproject Automobiles be created.
 * "There's one characteristic a good team member must have above all others. And that's the ability to find a way to admire and care about and appreciate the other team members. Be glad they're different from you. Dick Gordon (astronaut), 1968."


 * Mariordo, thank you for your willingness to let other voice their opinions. OSX, thank you for bringing the discussion to this page. Ebikeguy, OSX has expressed an opinion (perhaps a bit too emotion charged) but has not dictated anything. But we welcome your (Ebikeguy) opinions about the subject too.  Stepho   (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "I would support an electric vehicle task force as a subsidiary to WP:CARS...." Subsidiary? I wish you're confused and made a mistake. With thinking like this, does WP:CARS have any appeal?


 * BTW, OSX, you either take direct quote from me that can support your statement: "this project has any vocal anti-green members as [...] and North wiki claim", OR you carefully review everything I said and revise your statement above accordingly. This surely does not make a good impression to me of your behaviours. -North wiki (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Subsidiary? I wish you're confused and made a mistake." I suppose you don't believe in nested folders on a PC either. Bradkay (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't feel a separate WikiProject would be beneficial. There aren't enough editors or articles to really justify a new one. I would, however, be willing to support a task force within this project. However, what would be the point of one? How would it help to have this task force? What would it accomplish that is currently lacking? (Please note that these are serious questions, not rhetorical ones, so I'd prefer that they be answered with a sensible answer, not snide remarks.) --Sable232 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with a task force, but also don't really see what the point would be. Electric vehicles is too small a set of articles to warrant a whole project at this point.  I get the sense that this project is intended to move the discussion away from WP:CAR because some editors feel the atmosphere here is opposed electric and hybrid vehicles.  I strongly disagree and feel that the accusations that this project is somehow out to undermine "green" vehicle technology are really detrimental to the discussion.  The fact is, creating a Wikiproject or task force, regardless of how it is arranged wont change the result of the discussion.  The same editors would be involved, the only thing that would change would be the title of the page on which they were discussing.  I really think we need work together instead of factionalizing.  Let's try and find common ground from which to work. -- Daniel  22:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Since it appears WikiProject Environment has created such a task force now, I see no point in duplicating one here. --Sable232 (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. People should be grateful when someone else volunteers to take their problems off their hands. Bradkay (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Performax International
A new article has been started by a new editor here at Performax International. The article appears entirley self-promotional advertising. The author particpates in no other articles except to further make his company look better. I'm familiar with the business, they are a low-volume importer of motor vehicles into Australia, specialising in right-hand-drive conversion of low volume sports cars from left-hand-drive markets that have no presence in Australia. Despite large amount of references (mailny to its own advertising so far as can be told, I believe this fails notability, however I wanted opinions of others before I go any further. --Falcadore (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the first two paragraphs are OK. Rest is promotion. Bradkay (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but... is it AfD worthy? What is the usual limits for automotive companies? Is it notable? --Falcadore (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've puzzled over the line between notable and not without success. I concentrated on the first two paragraphs, not the majority of the article which is clearly promotion.  The first two paragraphs indicate this is a real company, although small, not someone hacking up cars in his garage pretending to be a company.  So if its a company, its notable to me.  This may not match policy, which I admit puzzles me. Bradkay (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that if the article is even 20% true, it would be notable - after having been cut down to about a quarter. I would like to include (a rewritten version of) the process of engineering a conversion, as I found that part rather interesting. What do our Aussie editors say, have you heard of Performax Int'l?  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've heard of this Queensland-based company in passing as the company behind RHD Chevrolet Camaro conversions. I am not sure how notable they are though. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No comment from original editor here or on talk page. I reduced article as suggested above. Bradkay (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting out of hand
This feud between two edittors is now becoming seriously detrimental to editorial efforts within the project. While I acknowledge that I has frequently supported OSX through out this, looking at the increasingly hostile and outlandish behaviour of both OSX and Mariordo, I would very seriously like to see both editors take a complete break from editting of at the very least a week in order that time away from Wikipedia might allow attitudes to cool. I would hope that time away from interacting with each might allow some perspective to be gained. --Falcadore (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any trouble with your proposal but it needs to have some boundaries. I will not wave my right to participate in the mass mergers, but if no more new merger discussions are opened during the cool off week I am willing to refrain from making a single edit on this WikiProject Talk page for one week. As for the entire Wikipedia that is not possible. I have to defend myself here and I am awaiting the development of this ANI. Also I edit articles on other subjects that have not been part of the controversies in this page for which I do not see any reason to stop working. I am open to other options.--Mariordo (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't think we need to hear from the two involved edittors on this subject first up. Think you both need to hear the opinions of others before you make any comments about conditions. The last thing this topic needs is another round of the two of you going back and forth. --Falcadore (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What, exactly, do you suggest the Mariordo has done wrong? As far as I've seen he has endured abuse, baseless accusations of wrongdoing, Wikihounding, harassment, etc., at the hands of OSX, for many months.  During this entire time, Mariordo has remained civil, level-headed and rational while OSX has become increasingly antagonistic and unreasonable.  Yes, Mariordo has staunchly defended himself and his positions in the various witch hunts perpetrated by OSX, but he has done nothing wrong.  He should not be punished for defending viewpoints that other editors oppose.  Ebikeguy (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The arguement above is that Mariorodo is a good person and OSX is a bad person. Which, true or not, has nothing to do with what either may have done to wiki articles.  Bradkay (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. My argument has nothing to do with who is a good person and who is a bad person.  I simply stated that Mariordo has remained consistently within Wikipedia rules and policies while OSX has consistently broken them.  Ebikeguy (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh.... no... I'm not mistaken. You have not addressed OSX's allegations.  The basis of your position is an assumption allegations are false, and thus concluded actions by OSX are "abuse", a "witch hunt", and "Wikihounding".  You should start with the information presented.  You're trying to make OSX the issue while leaving the information unaddressed.


 * I do not have a position yet on the information presented. Your technique is to ignore the information and start with alleged immorality of the messenger.  Its the technique used by American right wingers in political discussions and its easy to recognize.  I'm not interested in what someone says someone else is.  I'm interested in what they have to say. Bradkay (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Civil? Maybe so. But Mariordo (as well as other editors on his side, but him primarily) has done nothing but assume bad faith throughout this entire process and he seems to treat these merge proposals as a personal insult. Ebikeguy, you yourself have called this an "anti-EV witch hunt." You have no business calling anyone else "antagonistic and unreasonable." The insinuations of policy violations from Mariordo are hardly "reasonable."
 * Do you have evidence of any real long-term Wikihounding (that is, deliberately seeking out discussions he wouldn't otherwise involve himself with solely to disagree) or harassment from OSX? As far as I can see he has every right to be frustrated with how angry the hybrid and EV fans become any time someone suggests a merge, and with their constant accusations that the merge supporters are are anti-environmental zealots.
 * From what I've seen of this it looks more like OSX is getting singled out here simply because he took the initiative to start the discussions. This has happened before at this project with a different editor who had to endure constant crap from a handful of angry editors simply because he decided to get the ball rolling and keep it rolling. I'm not saying his behavior here has been stellar and there are some places where he has been out of line in my opinion. However, to make it look like the opposing side has been reasonable about this throughout the process is flat-out wrong.
 * I agree with Falcadore, I think the only way to move anywhere on this is to take a break from it. I think it would be best if administrators, uninvolved or otherwise, evaluated the existing open discussions and closed them, as long as everyone's clear that anything closed as "no consensus" (which will probably be most or all of them) may be reopened after a certain length of time. --Sable232 (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be implying that Mariordo is more reasonable and level-headed than I am. I agree completely.  He remains calm, rational and effective where I become emotional and passionate.  Thank you for supporting my argument regarding Mariordo's exceptionally good behavior during his whole ordeal.


 * As to "evidence of any real long-term Wikihounding (that is, deliberately seeking out discussions he wouldn't otherwise involve himself with solely to disagree) or harassment from OSX," this evidence has been presented in various other discussions related to OSX's inappropriate behavior. I see no need to repost the evidence endlessly whenever one of the pro-merger camp decides to start another thread on the topic.  Please review the evidence where, as you know full well, it has already been presented.  Ebikeguy (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your snide, snarky, and misleading response is much appreciated. For the record, I made no statement at all stating "exceptionally good" behavior" on anyone's part. I don't "know full well" anything about people's vendettas against any editor where I haven't been involved in the dispute one way or the other. I don't follow every incident regarding every article within the project scope and involving every editor thereof. If I had that kind of time I'd probably be an administrator. If you think I harbor some grudge against OSX that would prompt me to monitor his every edit, you're sorely mistaken.
 * The fact that you saw fit to deliberately misconstrue my statement just reinforces the view that your lot are so biased you will stop at nothing to get your way. It's also further proof that this all needs to be temporarily closed down for everyone's sake. --Sable232 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "The fact that you saw fit to deliberately misconstrue my statement just reinforces the view that your lot are so biased you will stop at nothing to get your way." This absurd, irrational statement (which attempts to link a misinterpretation of a statement that I made to a behavioral condemnation of an entire group of editors) suggests that it will be useless to continue this thread, should such statements become the norm.  In reality, this thread serves a limited purpose, at best.  Both OSX and Mariordo are now being investigated through administrative channels for alleged wrongdoings in this matter.  The results of these investigations, and any resulting punishments to OSX and/or Mariordo, will effectively decide the matter under discussion in this thread.  I suggest we wait until such decisions are made before proceeding with the suggestions initiated on this thread.  Ebikeguy (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone behaving improperly (if that is shown to be true) does not prove their position is wrong. It only proves they tried to obtain an unfair advantage in promoting their position. Bradkay (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. Any editting is derailed by this feud. You just spent how many letters defining two sides of the same conclusion. --Falcadore (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have sort of removed myself from this entire debate for a while (it was stressful and it didn't seem that anything was about to get decided on anyhow), but please allow me to express my extreme discontent at constantly being characterized as part of an anti-green agenda. I have even received a message on my talkpage to that result. This is extremely aggravating, as I consider myself very green (100% of my commuting takes place by bike or train). I am interested in combining articles that I don't believe should be separate on a purely encyclopædic and intellectual basis. I'm not voting because I favour one type of car over another, nor one drivetrain over another. The steady stream of "if you favour merging these pages then you are against the environment" arguments are illogical and ad hominem.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Some people, when they find they can't counter a person's arguments, instead try to make the person the issue. However, your detractors subsequent actions are an acknowledgement it didn't work. So I hope you don't remain aggravated over this. Bradkay (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Opel automobiles named its models after military ranks
Opel Rekard = Recruit Opel Kadett = Cadet Opel Kapitan = Captain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.232.209 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Great find. Meanwhile, the sky is blue and Ford favors modelnames which begin with "F". (so sorry, I really didn't want to be snarky but couldn't help it) Also, you forgot both the Admiral and Commodore. And "Rekord" means record, not recruit.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)