Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 37

Requesting reviews of *long* automotive articles
I hereby ask for reviews of the articles History of BMW and Daimler Company. Both articles have a long way to go, but the History of BMW article has come a long way since the multiple issues tag was placed on it in 2009, and it would be good to know which, if any, of those issues have been cleared up.

The Daimler Company article, on the other hand, has not come a long way. An attempt has been made to improve its structure and organization, but it is a daunting task and all I seem to do with it of late is look at it in despair. Any suggestions as to what to do next and how to should be done?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel like you do about the Daimler article. The TOC alone is frightening.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  07:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My instant reaction is that they're both too long.  There used to be a suggestion somewhere that anything >30,000 bytes is ripe for being split which presumably means anything >60,000 is more than ripe for being split.   The first step to deciding where to split what is to put in some sub-headings - maybe a hierarchy of three or four levels of sub-heading - to see more quickly what you've got and how it fits together.   Both these entries seem to have sub-headings, though I've no idea how carefully/thoughtfully they've been added.  Once you've got the right sub-headings in the right places, then I guess it gets easier to see the obvious places to split an entry.   With BMW there's scope for more on the aero-engines, a subject on which I am utterly ignorant and sourceless.  But that, obviously, could easily be a separate entry with just a three line summary in the main BMW article.   You could easily separate cars and motorbikes into separate entries.   BMW's return from the dead after World War II could easily be a separate entry.   Ditto the Glas acquisition and the acquisition thereby of somewhere to put the Dingolfing facility, which solved the problem in the 1960s of what to do about the Russians having ended up with Eisenach in 1945.   That's only one set of ideas about how to split it.   May not be the best set.   But anything this long risks being pretty indigestible.   I don't know so much about Daimlers in the UK, and I'm pretty sure there are fewer coherent sources out there to provide us all with an agreed structure for what happened when.   Some of it goes back a long long way....   You could, presumably, quite easily separate out a special entry on Daimler buses for the Bus enthusiasts.   Something on how the plants were used during the world wars for war enthusiasts.   You might attempt a split between one entry for the company and a separate entry for the cars.   Someone made a start at doing that with the German language BMW entry, though they maybe seem rather to have run out of puff before finishing the job unless - which is entirely possible - I missed entirely the point of what people were doing there.   I guess the starting point for any split of the Daimler UK entry could simply be to divide it chronologically.   Before and then after the Jaguar acquisition.  But .. getting repetitive here for which I should apologize ... the longer entries become the harder they are for the reader to navigate and for the contributors to structure consistently.   And of course if anyone has the time and courage to attempt any such split - preferably AFTER discussion and agreement - on the BMW or the Daimler entry - please take care not to lose any of the information!
 * Also, can anyone help me with a definition for TOC, please?
 * Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I'll start at the end: Unless I'm mistaken, TOC = ToC = "Table of Contents".


 * I looked up WP:SIZE and found this: "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." "History of BMW" has a total size of about 69.5 kB, but it also has several thumbnails and references, so the "readable prose" is likely to be within 30 kB to 50 kB.  If the article is big enough to be split in two, I suppose the logical splitting point would be the end of World War II, but that's just my opinion.  As for separating cars and motorcycles into separate entities, I should note that there is already an article titled History of BMW motorcycles with a total size of about 53 kB.


 * More about the aircraft engines would be good, especially the Type IV and the radials.


 * Do you have any opinion on the existing prose in the BMW article, or on how it might be improved?


 * The Daimler article is huge at about 93 kB, but again it has infoboxes, tables, and tons of pictures, so I don't know what amount of it is "readable prose". We could probably see potential splitting points better if the article were better organized; the structure of the article is one of its main problems, but I'm not sure how even to start with that. Another problem is finding sources; they seem to be few, far between, too old to have scanned versions readily available, and somewhat expensive to buy.  I'll try to get back to working on it, though.


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I just looked another look at the table of contents of the Daimler Company article. I see what you mean. Frightening indeed! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If lots of people contribute to an entry it is likely to make the entry more interesting and more informative.  That's good.   If lots of people contribute to an entry it is likely to make the prose style jumbled.   That can be irksome, but on balance it's usually a small price to pay.  Getting the information (1) right and (2) sourced (and for me (1) is even more important than (2)) should surely come before worrying too much about style, provided the meaning is clear.  We all, necessarily, learned our English in a range of different continents and generations, so you should not be surprised that we have different ideas over what "normal" English looks like.   Generally, therefore, I am content to keep to myself the distressing thought that no one else writes English prose like wot I do.  Though I do occasionally quietly split other folks' sentences where the number of clauses persuaded into a single sentence is giving me indigestion.  Now that I know what a TOC is I agree that it should be welcoming rather than frightening.   Which counts as which may be to some extent in the eye of the beholder, but it's open to any of us to improve the structure of the entry before venturing to split it, and I agree that that's the logical sequence.   The length of the TOC appears to confirm the length of the textual portion of the entry which does reflect the length of it, and supports the case for a split.   Judicious further use of different levels of heading could be useful for "nesting" together more precisely what belongs with what:  that should make the architectural logic of any subsequent splitting more self-evident (and so easier to agree if any of this becomes contentious).  Just - please - can anyone plunging into that one try to avoid losing stuff in the process.  + Good year to all.  Charles01 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Rest assured, I am not going to plunge into this! If I do go in, I will wade carefully and with great trepadition (pause as I check my dictionary) trepidation. In that case, I will do my best not to lose any information. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ferrari timeline splitting
Hello. The Ferrari timeline right now is very cluttered, comprising six decades. Should I split it in two templates? If yes, I'd like to have some opinions on the two timeframes to choose (in my opinion 1960s-1980s and 1990s-present would work well). Thanks --Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the odd thing: The Ferrari timeline is already split into two templates; the one you linked to earlier, and the one before that: Template:Ferrari road car timeline 1947-1968. This begs two questions:
 * What's so significant about 1968 why the first part of the timeline ends there?
 * Why does the second part begin eight years before the first part ends?
 * My suggestion would be to expand the 1947-1968 section by one year (to 1969), have the second template begin at 1970 and end at 1999, and then have a third template begin at 2000 and run to the present. A fourth template would not be started until 2029.
 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * How about a single template with a scroll function like Template:Holden? OSX (talk • contributions) 23:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep I've seen the 1947-1968 template. I figured it was made so short because of the multitude of models made in these early years, and that it stops more or less when mid-engined cars were introduced; all this with the rationale of avoiding two or three almost entirely blank rows. The next template then obviously has to comprise the 1960s to properly show the models that were omitted.
 * I didn't know of the scrollable template, but to me it's not the best choiche for Ferrari: unlike Holden the categories of cars they made varied significantly through the decades (think of the Boxer years or the Dino and Mondial models). On the other hand a scroll function would make much clearer something like the Maserati timeline (that's next on my list).
 * I'd go with SamBlob's idea, but starting the last template in 1996; that's when the Boxer was dropped and the current Ferrari model lines (V8 Berlinetta, V12 GT, V12 2+2) were fully estabilished.--Cloverleaf II (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of probable vandal
Hi, I've just noticed an anonymous user has been going through several car pages and changing dates (I noticed as they broke an image on Oldsmobile Bravada).

They could be legitimately correcting dates but I suspect systematic vandalising, but it difficult to tell for sure as almost all the dates changed are not directly referenced. However the second change they made to the Lexus ES was sourced and the change was definitely invalid.

So it would be good for someone on the project that has a source for such dates to check out the changes Special:Contributions/98.244.154.61 and decide constructive or vandalism!

If this is systematic vandalism and its all they have done then they probably require a final warning thrown their way.

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppets on the German and English airbag site
Hi folks,

I am quite new here and I am just a “simple Wikipedian editor” not a professional one. Furthermore I am not a native English speaking man and not so familiar with communicating over wikipedia. But I have a big concern:

Actually there seems to be a real "fight" for what could be said about airbags – especially on the German site https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag! It seems there are a lot of sock puppets around - who manipulate the site. They also seem to “care” about the englisch page!

E.g. all my efforts to say something about toxic substances coming from an airbag after deploying were quickly deleated on the German page by other Wikipedia-"contributors".

Obviously the reason is: in Germany there is an equivalent to the SAE24-4. It’s the AKZV01 (Arbeitskreis Zielvereinbarungen 01; Pyrotechnische Rückhaltesysteme im Fahrzeug, Workinggroup for target agreements 01; pyrotechnical restraint systems for cars). But this one is kept top secret by the German manufactures! (Therefore there is no official document to find on the Internet... Nevertheless I posses documents/measurements, that these gases will be released by airbags – please ask for them if wanted.)

Apparently these sock puppets also manipulate the English page: E.g. one (German!) member deleatet an (older) hint on the english site telling that a britisch person died because of inhaling airbag gases and dust just after I mentioned it on the German page too with a reference to the English site: (The link was http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/9730969.Driver_dies_after_breathing_in_airbag_gases/ This story seems to be true. I contacted the editor of the story, the Coroner Terence Carney and the forensic pathologist, Dr Stuart Hamilton).

It seems there is an investigation on the English air bag site because of sock puppetry. I would be glad, if this investigation could be extended to the German site as well!

Hope Wikipedia gets rid of these sock puppets soon!

Best Gerhard Samulat (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this presents a problem. WP values WP:VERIFY over truth. That is, if you can't show a reliable reference then it can't be accepted, even if you are 100% sure it is true. So AKZV01 is useless unless it can be read by the general public. A secret standard shown to a handful of editors but denied to other editors in the future (when you are not here to show them) is useless.
 * The newspaper report is more reliable because it mentions a coroner's report. However, it might be challenged on the basis of the Northern Echo's reputation (does it check its facts or does it also report on alien abductions?) Also, was the toxic substance regularly used by the manufacturer or was that chemical present in the air bag by accident. Lastly, was that chemical normally considered non-toxic but in an unusual circumstance became deadly (eg water is toxic when your lungs are filled with it 100%, perhaps the powder mixed with moisture in his lungs to form a cement). All we can say so far is that we know of one report of one death cause by a chemical present in one air bag.  Stepho  talk 08:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ettore Bugatti
On his page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Bugatti

He died in 1947 and his years active are listed as 1898–1952, not sure if post mortem inspiration counts as active years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.245.221 (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed it - you would have been welcome to do so yourself, WP is open to all! Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Who recognizes this car model?
Hi. An user suggested me to try here the question posted on Commons. Yesterday, fixing the categorization of several files on Commons of a new user, I've not well recognized what model of car is this one. It's a classical "yank tank" in Havana and, just to find the deepest category from this subcats, I need the help of an expert. I've categorized it as "Chevrolet" but, in retrospect, I'm no more sure (and I'm not so expert in cars). Could somebody recognize it? Thanks a lot, it's just to avoid a wrong categorization. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I THINK the three round things on the side of the hood/bonnet are "Ventiports" which would mark this out as a Buick.  It is likely someone with more Buick knowledge than I will light on your question and give you a better answer.   But if they don't, you might think of taking your question to the talk page behind the Buick entry.   Success Charles01 (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot and, btw, you are right. After some researches about the Buick Holes and VentiPorts on Google, sites, images etc; I'm pretty sure that it is a peculiarity of the Buicks. Also the shapes and other characteristics of the car are compatible. I've also searched the "holes/rounds" with other parameters (Pontiac, Chevrolet, Rolls Royce etc etc) and did not give any results. Thanks, I can fix the category and rename the file. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a 1950 Buick Super four door Tourback sedan. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, looks like this one. Frietjes (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is that one. Thanks :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 23:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

of pioneer stock
File:Walter O Bentley.jpg

If you think you can see something special in the person in the new to WP portrait on the right you'd be correct. Both his parents were born and raised in Adelaide South Australia quite soon after the colony was founded in 1836. W O's father, Alfred, was born there in 1842 and his mother Emily in 1853. Her father had landed there in 1840 and soon made himself a considerable fortune. Eddaido (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * From WP:NFCCP, point 9:
 * "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)"
 * In keeping with this policy, I have converted the thumbnail into a link.
 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well now, WHO'd have thought of that? Eddaido (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone familiar with the non-free content policy who would not want to get the project in trouble with copyright infringement would have. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
There has been some bad and rash editing on the Fiat page following the pretty important news about the creation of a new parent company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. I'd be interested in editors' views, but my initial reaction is that Fiat SpA should remain as an article about that company, and its 115-odd years history. FCA is a new Dutch-loacted company formed as a result of the new ownership arrangements of Chrysler Group, and appears to merit a new page to properly allow for details of this new company to be expanded over time. Warren (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, both the Chrysler and Fiat SpA pages should remain since FCA is merely a holding company. VX1NG (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Low-energy vehicle
Can someone look at Low-energy vehicle? It seems to be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH or a WP:COATRACK article. None of the currently working references uses the term "low(-)energy vehicle" or the term "low(-)energy", and the article seems to be about high efficiency. Half the references are dead. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC).

Six-wheeled vehicles
An editor has added a long list of other six-wheeled vehicles to the "See also" section of Tyrrell P34. I think this list is unnecessary/inappropriate (I think only other 6-wheeled Formula One cars should be listed there) and plan to remove it in due course. But the length of the list made me consider whether it might be worth having an article about six-wheeled vehicles (similar to Three-wheeler) or possibly a List of six-wheeled vehicles. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You suggestion may create issues of characterisation. For example, does a three-axled bus or truck fit the description "six-wheeled vehicle"?  If so, then the scope of the suggested article would be very broad.  Perhaps it could be named "six-wheeled car" instead. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A list of other six wheeled version clearly did not need to be included in the Tyrrell P34 entry.  It could not have been exhaustive and if it had tried to be exhaustive then it could have ended up unbalancing an entry which is about something else.   So yes, your suggestion is a good one if  anyone has the time and patience to set up a "List of six-wheeled vehicles".   Bahnfrend nevertheless highlights the importance of starting with an intro para that clearly defines the terms.
 * MAYBE it wold make sense to start with a "List of six-wheeled racing cars".  Someone else might do another subcategory in which they have a particular interest.   And so on.
 * OR might it make more sense simply to set up some categories of wiki entries, on the principal that if it doesn't have a wiki entry it lacks sufficient notability to be included in a wiki list?  And that way you avoid the risk of a lot of red links that no one will have the times to turn blue.   I guess you can argue this one both ways.


 * So yes, the more I think about it, the more I see challenges.  But I agree (1) a list of six wheelers does not belong as an integral part of an entry on the Tyrrell P34 and (2) if you - or someone - would like to see a list or lists of vehicles with six wheels, that's reasonable.   And please try to get the parameters and definitions clear and simple at the start.   And good luck.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You both raise good points. I'm not especially passionate about the creation of a new article; I just thought I'd float the idea. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think keeping this as "Six-wheeled racing cars" is reasonable (there aren't many, there is significant interest across articles). This should have a sub heading to that point, not merely "See also"
 * Six-wheeled racing cars would be a fine topic for an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Six-wheeled vehicles" sounds like a good idea for a category to me. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Six-wheeled vehicles" is so broad that it should be a metacategory, with nothing in it other than sub-catgories. Six-wheeled racing cars, Alvis Stalwart, Argocat and 6×4 trucks belong nearby each other, but not together. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ford Figo
I've attempted to edit some newly added content on the Ford Figo page, and removed excessive PR speak and brochure content. Sadly the other editor took exception to any of my deletes or edits, and despite responding to his complaints on my talk page he refuses to consider the WP policies. I wonder if anyone else fancies trying to fix the article as I don't have the desire to enter an edit war. Warren (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it looks like a copyright vio as the text that keeps getting re-inserted looks like it is taken from another website. Warren (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 04:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Proper use of flag icons at Rolex Monterey Motorsports Reunion
Will someone review Rolex Monterey Motorsports Reunion to see if the use of flag icons meets MOS:FLAG? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Maserati Ghibli III move
Before expanding the article I want to move Maserati Ghibli III to something more appropriate. I'd like to have some opinions on the new page name. As per WP Auto/Disambiguation the title should include the chassis/model code; in this case, M157. So the page should become Maserati Ghibli (M157) or Maserati Ghibli (Tipo M157) - using the traditional Maserati diction, as on the equivalent German page. I don't think there are any references for the model code, since it hasn't been officially made public; but neither have these: Lexus LS (XF40) or Jaguar XJ (X350). The third option is a simple Maserati Ghibli (2013). Cloverleaf II (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I vote Maserati Ghibli (M157). I just took some photos of one too, I'll try to upload them this week.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I vote Maserati Ghibli (M157) as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the M157 option. Warren (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅, thank you all. Cloverleaf II (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

GM X-Body RWD
Don't forget the Canadian X-bodies, the Acadian and Cansa! Big Ted 3/17/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.127.225 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the GM X platform (1962) article, and if so feel free to edit it! Warren (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Jaguar XJR-8
Dear auto experts: Is this automobile notably different enough from the other XJRs that it should have its own article? If so, there are references available, such as these:   &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:N, each individual car easily meets notability for a separate article. However what might happen as a practical article? Jaguar XJR Sportscars is misnamed, almost empty and substantially wrong in the details. If we can't get "XJR" to work as an article, why would the XJR-8 fare any better alone? In an ideal world with a perfect article, would the story of Jag's sportscar racing in the '80s be explained better by one article with a coherent timeline, or in isolated snippets?
 * See also Jaguar XJR-9, which is probably as much as we might ever realistically hope for. An article with lots of facts, but conveying no knowledge. It fails to even mention the most crucial aspect of the -9, with just a passing nod to the -9LM. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking time to reply. I see that you have plenty of opinions about this, so I guess I should have been more specific. The article above will disappear under db-g13 in a month or so unless someone improves it and moves it to mainspace.  I have no personal interest in this car (my upright bass won't fit in it, I'm sure); I just found it in a big pile of about-to-be deleted old drafts and thought someone here might like to fix it up.  So I'll leave it to the automobile enthusiasts here to decide. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jaguar XJR-8 - hadn't seen that. Merging to XJR would probably be best (if we actually cared about article quality), but a simple go-live at Jaguar XJR-8 would be fine and easiest. It certainly meets notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no wonder you were confused! I thought that I had copied that link as the title of the section, but it looks as though my "copy" didn't work, and I ended up pasting a URL that was already in my paste buffer instead, and in my hurry to leave for a gig I didn't check my work. Sorry! Glad you were able to figure out what I meant. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's in mainspace now, but I shortened and rewrote it considerably because it was rather promotional and essay-like. Perhaps someone could look at it and make sure that I didn't accidentally create some inaccuracies.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Jaguar XJ (X350)
I'm not convinced that the facelift version of the Jaguar XJ (X350) needs to be removed from this article into its own. Especially as the editor doing this has yet to create the new article. My revert has been re-reverted so welcome further input from editors. Warren (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * New article is at Jaguar XJ (X358). I'm not an expert on Jaguars, but I would have thought that if it's an X358, it's not an X350. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * X358 is just a facelift of X350, so I support a merger. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge - no need for its own article until the X350 page gets unmanagably large.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. Jaguar gave the car a different chassis number.  So the scenario is a bit like the facelift of the Holden HD to the Holden HR, except that both the facelift and the Wikipedia article appear to be more substantial in Jaguar's case.  If we'd been talking about the Mercedes-Benz W124, which was facelifted twice, without a change of chassis number, I would have agreed that one article is appropriate, but not this time. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree with your statement - the X300 became the X305 (XJ12), X306 (XJR), and X330 (LWB) which still doesn't justify separate articles. The W124 did assign separate chassis numbers for different bodystyles (A124, C124, T124, V124), which also doesn't justify separate articles. Cheerio,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A new chassis number is no different to the myriad of different names that Jaguar designated its flagship sedan (Daimler, Sovereign, XJ, etc). If the X358 info gets too bulky, then there would be a case for a split again. A stong case also exists for the merger of many Holden pages. A facelift is a facelift no matter how many times the chassis number changes. BMW also changed the chassis numbers with the facelifted versions of the 2001–2008 7 Series, both of which co-exist. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Presumably the demerger that triggered this exchange was undertaken by someone who was planning ahead - intending and hoping that the X358 entry would grow with useful coherent contributions.  A remerger would discourage that process because you'd need to read or at least skim through a lot more "entry" in order to notice the gaps on the X358 bits which you had the necessary combination of sources/inspiration/commitment to fill.   And as a reader, only those with lots of patience and time would get even that far.   So .... assuming we have faith in person or persons yet to be identified to build the X358 entry into something more informative and interesting, without imposing "low quality verbiage" - YES - very much in the eye of the beholder - I think we should leave the X358 entry separated out in order to encourage it to grow into something ever more interesting and more informative.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The project number for a program is no indication of the size of that program. In fact program names and numbers are often made deliberately confusing. For instance if you read the press leaks there will have confirmed the existence of a LR program called Pegasus since about 1985, which is true enough, since Pegasus just meant 'stuff we're working on'. Similarly you may think installing new tires and EPAS on a car is scarcely worthy of a new program number, but it was. Greglocock (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why there can't be an article about Jaguar's flagship sedan and a separate, more detailed, article about each of its chassis numbers. Articles about other brands, eg, Mercedes-Benz, are organised in that way.  I also suspect that there would be significant resistance to a merger of, eg, Holden HD with Holden HR, as there would be to, eg, a three way merger of Ford XA Falcon, Ford XB Falcon and Ford XC Falcon.  These chassis have always been perceived as different generations of their respective model, even though the HR, the XB and the XC were also facelifts.  As to whether the X358 is perceived to be a different generation from the X358, I don't know, but Jaguar labelled it as such.  I also agree with Charles01 about the desirability of encouraging improvement of content.  This WikiProject has more than 10,000 articles, but at the moment only eight of them are assessed as featured articles, and only 32 of them as good articles. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Jaguar X numbers are not chassis numbers, but mere project numbers. A facelift normally sits with the original article unless it is so significant it merits its own. I can't see how the X358 will develop into much more as it was fairly short-lived.Warren (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merged as per most, excepting Bahnfrend and Jaguar (and perhaps Charles01?). Nonetheless, until there is enough material to justify a split I cannot support this one.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Why was I not tagged in this discussion? I created the article for the XJ358 because it is its own model - the facelift has nothing to do with it. I had already put in enough content and references to make it eligible for its stand alone article! The XJ350 ceased production in 2007 and its successor was the XJ358 which took over in 2008 to 2010. It is a different car and different models need different articles? ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 15:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * How is it different? It is a very light facelift of the XJ350. This is why it was never a standalone article before.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a different model (XJ350 to 358), different engine and different specs such as interior and body. It is essentially a different car and meets several criteria of having its own article. I was bold and created an article for its successor. Regards ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 15:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is also no consensus in this discussion to have the article merged nor has there been one on the car's talk page! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 15:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The differences are a new front bumper and an altered grille. They are nearly indistinguishable unless one is an X350 expert. The engines seem to be mostly the same, judging by the article. The number means very little; Jaguar also gave their own project numbers to the X300-based XJR (X306) and for other submodels.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Currently it is four to three.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems to be some confusion over Jaguar model codes - these are not chassis codes, they are model references or project codes. I've not seen anything above to support two near identical articles, and still think a merge would be beneficial so that the very minor differences can be part of the article.Warren (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have spent hours putting in so much effort into various Jaguar models from the X308 to the X358 - nearly every single edit I have made has been reverted - even small ones. I don't understand why? There has not been a proper vote in this section and instead of gaining a real consensus with other people's opinions the article was merged abruptly? It's notable enough to be in its own space. I guess the only remaining option for me now is to greatly expand the X350 page so the X358 can be in its own article again. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

''
 * You still haven't responded to my statement from 9 March:
 * ''"The differences are a new front bumper and an altered grille. They are nearly indistinguishable unless one is an X350 expert. The engines seem to be mostly the same, judging by the article. The number means very little; Jaguar also gave their own project numbers to the X300-based XJR (X306) and for other submodels."
 *  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  03:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to say that they are different models and whatever the facelift gave the X358 does't really matter because it is an individual new car. Also, its production life spanned between 2007 to 2010 until the new XJ took over. Apart from those facts, I think that the X358's article is large enough and notable enough to become its own. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"The Škoda Superb is an executive car produced by the Czech car manufacturer Škoda Auto from 1934 to 1949 and from 2001 to present
That is from the lede of the Škoda Superb article. Clearly nonsensical, as the only thing the 1934 to 1949 vehicle and the 2001-onwards model have in common is the name. Can someone from this project please sort this mess out and split the article in two, as both policy and common sense would require. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maruti LUV
Dear automobile experts: I have been fixing up an old Afc submission that I found among THESE about a car model. I am not an automobile expert, though. Is this appropriate content and sourcing for an automobile article? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * An article already exists at Suzuki Ertiga where this model is detailed. Even the manufacturer doesn't call it the LUV apart from as a marketing tag line as per their website. Some content might be suitable for adding to it, but the AfC should be rejected in my opinion. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox automobile
I must have missed the discussion, but why is the name now appearing outside the infobox? Frietjes (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge into
See talk:Minivan where I propose that MPV be merged into minivan. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Multi-Purpose Vehicle has been redirected to Minivan, however a discussion is still occurring at talk:Multi-Purpose Vehicle -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please add wikipedia "the market for lemons" to this project.
At a minimum a "reference" and as a cite under "agreed value insurance". The important concept here is that the "good cars" are kept original by original owners and never come to market. Re: Jay Leno's search and purchase.(98.88.57.77 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC))


 * That article uses cars as an example but is actually an economics theory. It would be better under the economics project.  Stepho  talk 11:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem with the Ford Ranger (T6) article
Just minutes before this writing, I chanced upon the Ford Ranger (T6) article. However, the two sections immediately following the lead seems to have a problem. It looks like it is written like a promotional item and it does not cite sources. Which of the following is the best action: (a) delete such content, (b) tag the sections and rewrite them encyclopedically, (c) neutralise wording, or (d) there is a better action? Thanks, Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles "Pete" Hagenbuch
Dear automobile experts: This seems to me to be a well-known engineer, but I don't know where to look to find non-company and non-forum articles about him. Maybe someone here who subscribes to automobile magazines can help. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Automobile classification
Hi all, What should we do with Automobile classification? I think it has grown to an unmanageable size, because of course we've got to list every possible classification with multiple examples. It's currently transcluded in three articles, but due to the size I don't think it's really helpful in any of them. Should it be cut down, or turned into an article, or what? bobrayner (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves: Holden pages
There is a discussion at Talk:Holden VF Commodore that affects 16 articles, and as a result of the large number of pages involved, I thought I would post a courtesy notice here. Basically, the proposal is to move Holden pages to the disambiguation standard employed elsewhere by this project:


 * Holden VF Commodore → Holden Commodore (VF)
 * Holden VE Commodore → Holden Commodore (VE)
 * ... et cetera

This is in accordance with WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions and is exampled by the existence of pages including: Toyota Corolla (E170), Toyota Camry (XV40), Lexus LS (XF40), Jeep Cherokee (XJ), BMW 3 Series (E90). OSX (talk • contributions) 05:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC).

The name of the article is under discussion, see Talk:Driver's license for the renaming request. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible Wiki hoax on Bentley 4½ Litre
I think I've run across an active Wiki hoax. Back on January 24, 2006, an editor who hasn't been active since 2012, Sfoskett, added the claim to the Bentley 4½ Litre article that W. O. Bentley originated the phrase "There is no replacement for displacement".

In 2009 the claim appears at Autozine.org. I see it on a few other blogs but nothing reliable. Nothing seems to pre-date the 2006 Wikipedia edit.

I wasn't able to dig up any hints of any such quotes by W.O. Bentley in any news archives I have, Questsia, Gale, NYT archives, HighBeam, or Google Books. All I see is two medium-low reliability MotorBooks: Sports Cars By James Mann and Supercharging Performance Handbook By Jeff Hartman.

Both are from 2011. It looks a lot like the authors got this from Wikipedia, or from several unreliable blogs who copied it from Wikipedia after 2006. Can anyone find a citation for the first use of the "no replacement for displacement" slogan? To me it sounds very American, not something you'd hear in Britain, and it sounds very modern, 1960s or 1970s. Hardly something an English engineer in the 1920s would say. As hoaxes go, it seems to have spread a ways. Here's an example: Half-million dollar baby for you? New Zealand Herald March 31, 2012. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I ran a quick search in Google books and have found the saying being used at least as far back as 1975 (Photosopsis for Basil Bunting, Colin Simms, Publisher Headland Publications, 1975, ISBN 0903074206, 9780903074209), which is pre-internet and pre-Wiki NealeFamily (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have heard this term mentioned before, around 10 years ago, and it was certainly not invented by Sfoskett. Google has documented usage on forums in the 1990s, and American Motorcyclist (December 1988) also uses the term. More results come up with the adjusted phrase: "there's no replacement for displacement". OSX (talk • contributions) 01:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not saying that invented the phrase, but that he started (perhaps innocently) the myth that W.O. Bentley invented it. Early 70s origin seems more likely; I have an unconfirmed hit in The Scientific Design of Exhaust and Intake Systems. Philip Hubert Smith. 1972. ISBN 0837603099. The Seattle Library has a copy at the reference desk.  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a chance that Bentley used the phrase, as he was noted for pithy comments in this general style, but a WP:RS would be needed to confirm it. NealeFamily (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as an American phrase, either from the muscle car community or from the industry itself. It would certainly apply to the big-block Corvette that replaced the fuel injected small-block. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source for it, but I've heard the phrase attributed to GM with regard to their big block engines. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Marendaz - help to amend personal (DMK Marendaz)
Folks

I'm new to making amendments on Wikepdia. There is a tiny detail that appears to be incorrect on the Marendaz page - namely that he was demobilized in 1919 rather than invalided out in 1918. I have DMK's Officer Service Record and wondered if;
 * 1) is it (the article) considered to be worth amending (for such a small detail)?
 * 2) would someone be willing to take a look through his OSR (from the National Archives) to confirm this and to glean additional information (perhaps someone with some knowledge of such records)?

I didn't want to jump in with all crayons blazing.

Thanks

Andy Summers 62 (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Andy Summers
 * Sure, it's fine, although Wikipedia generally avoids citing primary sources like the documents you mention. Primary sources are difficult to verify, and verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia. Often primary sources require special expertise to correctly interpret, as well. It would be much better to verify this though a secondary source, like a published book, magazine, journal and so on. Digging into the National Archives sounds fun but it's very much like original research and another core policy of Wikipedia is No original research. So it's not really as good a use of your time as it would be to go to an ordinary library and locating secondary sources on the subject. I'd start by tracking down the two sources listed at the bottom of the article and seeing if they mention his discharge at all and if it is faithfully conveyed in the article. If good secondary sources are not found on the subject, just delete his war record entirely. It's not particularly relevant to the subject anyway. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Trucks by year
Does this category makes sense? Thank You for participating in the discussion there! --W like wiki (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Phaeton body
An editor has raised the question as to whether the Mini Moke would be considered a phaeton. If you have anything of worth to add to the discussion, please do so at Talk:Phaeton body. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Merging Chevrolet S-10 Blazer with Chevrolet S-10
When I was fixing a link from an article about a GM engine I was a little surprised that there were two separate articles about the Chevrolet S-10 pickup and the Chevrolet S-10 Blazer, as I thought both vehicles share the same engines and other technology, and only differ in looks, and other minor changes. I thought I would bring this up here where people more knowledgeable than me can comment on the idea here or at the talk page which is at Chevrolet S10 talk page#Propose merger S-10 Blazer Rrostie (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hyundai Elantra note
Hey guys. Someone appears to have left a note in the article at Hyundai Elantra ("EDIT: Something wrong here."). Can you take a look when you get time. Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 08:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Three problems, actually: (a) someone using "convert" on a difference between two values when one of the units has an inverse relation to the unit being converted, (b) too much numerical information crushed into too small a space, and (c) an editor adding a "current" value in 2006 and the term "current" still being there in 2014.


 * We really should have a general warning about applying the "convert" function to differences between values where the units are not directly related by a multiplying factor only. Where there is a factor and a constant (as with conversion between degrees Celsius and degrees Fahrenheit) or an inverse function (as with between miles per gallon and litres per hundred kilometres), or anything else but a simple conversion factor, conversion of a difference will not be the same as conversion of a value.


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Interested in saving a page?
Hey guys, I thought I'd give you a head's up on an article that I'll likely be submitting to AfD. The article in question is Russo and Steele, an article about an auction house. I came across it via a promotional account that fairly liberally added the same article over and over again to Wikipedia under different names. The original version was fairly promotional in tone and was mostly sourced via routine announcements of upcoming events. There is an assertion of notability and I will try to find sourcing, but I figured that this would be a good place to start as far as asking for help goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Automobiles At Wikimania 2014
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project? We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply. For more information, click the link below. Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The usage of is under discussion, see Talk:Cars (disambiguation) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Worth noting: not every model is notable
See Articles for deletion/Yamaha FZ700. Not every model is notable; WP:NRVE applies to all products. Unless consensus changes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Automatic" notability opens the door to some very problematic editing. Either a topic passes the general notability guideline, or it doesn't. bobrayner (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion at Jowett Bradford
There is currently a move discussion going on at Talk:Jowett Bradford which hinges on whether the make, marque, or brand is "Jowett" or "Bradford". Any evidence regarding this, or any insight into the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia and the conventions of this Wikiproject, would be welcome. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Merging individual model pages: HSV models to Holden Commodore
There is a discussion at Talk:Holden Special Vehicles that affects 10 articles, and as a result of the large number of pages involved, I thought I would post a courtesy notice here. Basically, the proposal is to merge the various badge engineered HSV articles with the donor various Holden Commodore pages (e.g. Holden Commodore (VN), Holden Commodore (VY))

Models like the Clubsport, Senator, and HSV GTS would redirect to and have their own dedicated summary sections at Holden Special Vehicles. Links will then be provided in these section pointing readers to the various Commodore pages in additon to a brief history of that particular nameplate.


 * HSV GTS → redirected and summarised to HSV, with details at Commodore VP, VR, VS, VT, VX, VY, VZ, VE, VF
 * HSV Grange → redirected and summarised to HSV, with details at Holden Caprice
 * ... et cetera

This is in accordance with past mergers, such as the merger of all Mercedes-Benz AMG pages with their donor models, merging hybrid versions of the Toyota Camry and Ford Escape to those pages, Lexus IS F to Lexus IS, and countless other examples. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ...and yet the article on the BMW M3 remains. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting help in verifying citations
Does anyone in the project have a copy of this book: ? Several new edits of Coupe de Ville cite this book and others as a reference, and three of the other cited references did not support the cited text, which makes these citations suspicious. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Schlörwagen
I recently came across a reference to a '30s streamliner based on the Benz 170H by this name. Is this notable in itself, for the Cd of only 0.113? Does anybody know more? TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  02:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Should have searched it first....

Merge proposed: "Town car" and "Coupe de Ville" into "Sedanca"
I have proposed a merge of Town car and Coupe de Ville into Sedanca. The discussion is at Talk:Town Car body. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-automatic and automatic transmissions
Today I was airily editing Wikipedia when - looking for a proper link for Fiat's Dualogic - I stumbled upon this:

Semi-automatic transmission "is an automobile transmission that does not change gears automatically, but rather facilitates manual gear changes by dispensing with the need to press a clutch pedal at the same time as changing gears"

But most of the transmissions here classified as "semi-automatic" (Lamborghini's E-Gear, Ferrari's F1, Alfa Romeo's Selespeed etc.) do have an automatic mode. In fact the article then says: "Modern "Semi-automatic transmissions" usually have a fully automatic mode"... So why that "Semi-"? It seems logical to me that everything that can automatically shift gears is an automatic transmission.

A torque converter with manual mode is automatic while an electrohydraulic gearbox with an automatic mode isn't? Cloverleaf II (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Semi-automatic transmission is a term that has been used for various different arrangements over time, I think.  For all I know it also means different things in different places.   It used to be a term which in English speaking markets effectively covered an automatic clutch - eg available on the Volkswagen Beetles as an expensive extra in the 1960s.   By that time the term was also used in English speaking markets for cars (mostly German) delivered with a "Saxomat" which was, again, more accurately described as an automatic clutch.   There was something similar on French cars and, slightly later (as standard this time) on the NSU Ro80.   For UK and Australian intended cars I think, even on small cars, they simply fitted fully automatic transmission as an expensive extra that did horrible things to the fuel consumption and the performance, but saved you from having to change gear.   Where one phrase is used for various different things in different times and places, then I guess the important thing is to define what you mean when you use the phrase.   The phrase is also, it seems, used someimes to define systems in expensive cars (again, usually though not always German cars as far as I can make out) whereby you can indeed choose between selecting an automatic mode and changing gears using your selector as a form of gear lever - that's a stick shift if you are in North America.   Two quite different things, and there are variations on both themes when you get down to individual applications.
 * If the wiki entry on semi-automatic transmission is not a comprehensive tour of the different things that the phrase means or if, which is worse, it conflates different definitions in a single paragraph, then I guess it needs to be clarified, when someone has the time and energy to do something about it.  And if you're the volunteer for the job, thank you.   Regards  Charles01 (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"sportscar" v "sports car"
I invite interested editors to comment at Wikipedia talk:Typo Team DH85868993 (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of some sub-categories of Category:Automobile transmissions


 The following sub-categories are nominated for deletion''' with a dual upmerge to Category:Automobile transmissions and the manufacturer category:
 * Category:Studebaker transmissions
 * Category:Packard transmissions
 * Category:Allison transmissions
 * Category:Porsche transmissions

Please comment at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Automobiles At Wikimania 2014(updated version)
Please note: This is an upadated version of a previous post that I made

[[

File:Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png|thumb|right|550px]]

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014 For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Porsche
For your information, I am fielding a RfC with Porsche as one example at Wikipedia talk:Article titles Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 09:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Valve timing tradenames
Category:Valve timing tradenames, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Merging into Category:Variable valve timing. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Widespread vandalism
Over the last couple of months, there have been numerous instances of vandalism of car-related pages by unregistered users such as (now blocked),,  and several other IPv6 addresses in the 2001:c:3d80:5b::/64 block. These are all Comcast, so my guess is that they all belong to a single person who switched to IPv6 when I got their IPv4 address blocked. Most of it has been very subtle, like changing production years—subtle enough that to begin with, I thought they were simply confused about model year vs calendar year—but there have been more blatant edits, like this series of date edits or removing links to sub-pages or outright section blanking. Vandalized pages include Jeep Wrangler, Chrysler Neon and Dodge Durango—they seem to focus on Chrysler brands—but also Volkswagen Golf, which is where I first encountered them. Please be on the lookout for this type of edit, and be very careful when reverting them as they sometimes use one IP to make an incorrect edit and another IP to change it back a few days later. DES (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Proposed Article Changes Review
The article AAMCO has a pending update on its talk page from a PR company (hi there). Would love to get feedback and hear about any more information that we can make available or how we can better write the article to be more wiki appropriate. Stefannagey (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Chevrolet Silverado 2500/3500 HD
I was browsing through pages, and came across the Chevrolet Silverado page. I noticed that, under the 4th-generation section, there was no information about the heavy-duty models. Therefore, I would like to place a request that someone please add the necessary information.

Thank you! --Cargeek100 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Autonomous land vehicles
Category:Autonomous land vehicles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Merge into Category:Unmanned ground vehicles. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Front-engined vehicles
Category:Front-engined vehicles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal notification
Good morning. I've proposed that McLaren 650S be merged into McLaren 12C. Let's discuss it here -- Cloverleaf II (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bugatti engines
Category:Bugatti engines, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Deleting with Dual Upmerge to Category:Bugatti and Category:Volkswagen engines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Kish Khodro
I am just raising the Article Alert on the Project page regarding Kish Khodro. Kish Khodro is an Iranian automobile manufacturer that apparently went defunct in the past decade. The article is currently under consideration as an "Article for Deletion" (AfD). This group may have thoughts regarding notability of the subject, especially in relation to past automotive AfD's. I found the below references that may or may not be sufficient.--Rpclod (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)










 * Also lists head office address as 18th Old Karadj Road, Complex of Meli, Kishkhodro, Iran


 * Above referenced list is at





Subaru Baja and Legacy (third generation) merger
I have proposed a merger for the Subaru Baja and Subaru Legacy (third generation) articles here: Talk:Subaru Baja. All comments are welcome. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Lexus GX and LX mergers
I have proposed a merger for the Lexus GX to Toyota Land Cruiser Prado and Lexus LX to Toyota Land Cruiser here: Talk:Lexus LX. All comments are welcome. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: automobile articles' layout conventions
Currently all automobile model articles are formatted in different ways, mostly depending on the personal taste of the page creator. E.g. one article has a Racing paragraph, another a Motorsport one; completely equivalent sections describing a vehicle's mechnicals are randomly titled Overview, Design, Specifications, Technical data etc.

So I've been thinking for a while: why don't we (I'll count myself in too..) WikiProject Automobiles come up with a convention for the overall layout of car models' pages? Simple guidelines of course, to be adapted to the peculiarities of each article; uniform section titles would already give a much more consistent feel to the Wiki. What do you think? - Cloverleaf II (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes please! OSX (talk • contributions) 15:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you add a draft new "Layout" section to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions for us all to look at and comment on? Bahnfrend (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea, and a pro-forma technical data form would be good too! <B>Warren</B> (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So Cloverleaf II, how should we go about this? It is clear that your good thinking has some support here. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, as suggested I've thrown together a quick draft  here on the WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions talk page. OSX, Bahnfrend, Warren Whyte and everyone else, we can start discussing there! – Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Link Electrosystems
There is an AFD for this article. Articles for deletion/Link ElectroSystems. The company is an NZ company that makes a form of engine management system. Is it notable or not? NealeFamily (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

MG
There are two MG discussion currently underway that may be of interest to project members: the reconfiguration of the MG page (moved to the existing MG (disambiguation)) to allow for MG to be freed up for the MG article (Talk:MG), and another related debate on the potential to merge MG Cars and MG Motors (Talk:MG_Motor). <B>Warren</B> (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Subaru Baja
This article has been the subject of repeated merger attempts with Subaru Legacy. I inadvertently overlooked the latest attempt and the merger was just made, despite the fact that no discussion occurred and no rational was ever posited for the merger -- and despite considerable previous objections to the merger. Can someone please assist in outlining what the criteria are for automibile article mergers? I would suggest that the Baja was sufficiently distinct in it's design and marketing marketing as a separate vehicle from other Subaru models -- though based on the Subaru Outback (not the Legacy). The body type was also quite obviously different, the body was lengthened, there were numerous unique design features on the Baja: the switchback door, the tailgate, the exposed structural buttresses. Rather than reverting the merger again and starting a revert war, I'd like to get some guidance and consensus on what and when automobile articles get merged. Anyone? 842U (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Take a look several sections above. Notice was given, . OSX (talk • contributions) 14:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Request to get Ferrari 250 GTO to get into WP:ITN (cleanup also required)
Because the Ferrari 250 GTO broke the world auction record last night, as I feel this deserves to be as it is one of the most desirable cars of them all, I am trying to get this into WP:ITN/C but it appears that this article is in real need of improvement. My reasons for nomination is considering WP:ITN in the past had photographs, sculptures and even a manuscript for Bob Dylan's lyrics, so my argument is if these are considered to be art, why can't cars be. I will be very grateful for any cooperation. Link for ITN nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Audi A1
It might just be me, but does the Audi A1 article need a good shake up? <B>Warren</B> (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should take some proposals to the entry's talk page in the form, say, of half a dozen bullet point before you dive in?
 * In principal, I agree the A1 entry has become a little bit tough on the digestive tract.  I cannot tell with a five minute skim whether someone has spent a week of sweat and anguish writing it all up like that, or if he (or she, but I think probably he) has been having a copy 'n paste orgy from ... wherever.
 * Either way, some of the quasi repetitive stuff might go better in a couple of appendices, in a seriously chunky set of foot notes below the entry and/or nicely tabulated.  It's a pity the guy doesn't have a name and a wiki-identity.   One hates to discourage constructive enthusiasm, but it would be interesting to try and understand a bit better where he is coming from.
 * IF you will get into all this - good luck Charles01 (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, it's not pretty. I never know what to do with articles like these. Does one delete good content to make it look neater or what? OSX (talk • contributions) 05:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Automotive Crash Injury Research Center shows duplicated info
The article stub Automotive Crash Injury Research Center has two paragraphs which contain almost exactly duplicated information, only moderately reworded. Should one of them be deleted? SLR Ellison (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Hello. Some decision has to be taken on what to do with Fiat S.p.A. and Chrysler Group LLC now that the two are merging into Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. Come and discuss here at Talk:Fiat Chrysler Automobiles — Cloverleaf II (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Maserati Karif merger proposal notification
I've proposed that Maserati Karif be merged into Maserati Biturbo. Discuss here – Cloverleaf II (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Broad Discussion on Auto Categories - Please Provide Input
There is a discussion going on with how to categorize automobiles in general. Your input would be much appreciated at this link. Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sinclair C5 Good Article nomination
I've recently rewritten Sinclair C5 as a first step towards getting it up to Featured Article status in time for the C5's 30th anniversary next January. As a first step, I've nominated it for Good Article status. Any help from WikiProject Automobiles members would be appreciated - see Talk:Sinclair C5. Prioryman (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Need to add some pics for Holden VF and Mitsubishi Outlander
Let me take some photos of some cars that are on wikipedia and make sure it is a good quality one

Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)