Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 38

""
The usage of is under discussion, see talk:carbon (fiber) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Automobile
FYI, has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:automobile -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Automobiles
automobiles has been nominated for renaming, see WP:CFDS. However, the contents are not solely related to cars, so some sort of category tree rebuild or resort is needed -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Homework
Ok Everyone,

I want you to focus on Mitsubishi Pajero Fourth generation V80 (2006–) There has been some missing parts and I want it filled with car pics I wil take care of the VF commodore article.

Regards Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Modified Volkswagen vehicles
Category:Modified Volkswagen 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) 01:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hyundai Theta localization requested
Ive noticed that the german version of the hyundai theta engine is far superior to the english version

as seen at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_KIA_Theta

the english version is at Hyundai_Theta_engine - 09:01, 13 October 2014‎ 203.152.114.99


 * Feel free to jump in and translate bits from German to English. If required, use an online translator such as https://translate.google.com/ . Don't forget to add the references - just mark the German references with language as required.  Stepho  talk 05:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As a reasonably fluent speaker of German, I can say that online translators don't work very well with German to English translations, especially where, as here, the German text includes technical words. However, I will have a go at translating at least some of this article when I can find the time. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Super Sport vs. Schutzstaffel
I've often had to remove the commons category "Schutzstaffel" from a lot of Chevrolet Super Sport vehicle images. Is there any way we can prevent Schutzstaffel, from being added to the Chevrolet Impala SS, Chevelle SS, Malibu SS, Camaro SS, etcetera? Perhaps add notes to each category? -User:DanTD (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Bill Thomas Cheetah - needs protection due to an edit war
If anyone can help - page protection is needed due to an edit war - none of the participants appear to be reqistered users. NealeFamily (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Request made . OSX (talk • contributions) 00:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks NealeFamily (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Fiat Chrysler nationality
Recently, various editors have been adding national flags next to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, either Italian or British, in the Automotive industry article. I've been deleting them, as the FCA article doesn't indicate a particular nationality for the company, which is aligned with Marchionne's original intent of keeping the holding company away from national entities. However, I prefer to know the general opinion before continuing, as I can be mistaken. My questions are: there is a consensus about FCA nationality? If that's the case, what the consensus is? Thanks. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MOSFLAG I don't think flag icons should be used in such contexts at all: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality". An automobile manufacturer, even if based in a single country, doesn't represent that country in any meaningful sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, no flags. If you have two high-quality sources that each give a different nationality, then leave the nationality out of the lead and the infobox, and elaborate on the different opinions about nationality in the body of the article. Infoboxes are for clear, unequivocal facts; anything in disupte needs a prose explanation. It's also fine to describe a company as "a multinational company founded in..." or "headquartered in...". When in doubt, say what the sources say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. I agree companies, especially multinationals, shouldn't be represented by national flags. In fact, I deleted them all from the table that is the reason for my question the first time they were included, but I had little support and they came back :). I have doubts in citing policies to support my edits, because consensus sometimes override them in particular cases. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

New category for mods
Please comment at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_21. – Fayenatic  L ondon 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

AfD on Aston Martin DB10 article
The new Aston Martin DB10 article is up for deletion here. All comments are welcome on that page. One-eyed Jim (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

""
The name of the article Chrysler is under discussion, see talk:Chrysler -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the Sinclair C5 fall within the scope of this project?
The Sinclair C5 is, as its lead sentence says, "an 'electrically assisted pedal cycle.'" As such, it would be rather better described as a recumbent tricycle than as an automobile. However, for some reason, it has not only been considered within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, it has been ranked as being of high importance to this project.

I therefore respectfully ask the members of this project for the reasons why the C5 falls within the scope of this project and, further, the reasons why it is considered to be of high importance to this project.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective,the thing with the C5 is not so much what it is, but more about how it was marketed, reviewed by the media and perceived by the public as an alternative form of motorised road transport for anyone. If it had been sold as a mere recumbent tricycle or as an electrically assisted pedal cycle, it probably would not have registered on the public consciousness in the way that it did. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * yes, as Antar above. It's a bit of a joke just what the C5 really is, and if it had been sold as an assisted recumbent it might have sold to fewer, better satisfied customers. At the time though, it was massively hyped as "Sinclair's electric car" and has long been considered to fall within such.
 * As this is the project we're considering here, not a definition, then we should of course be broadly inclusive, not restrictive. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K., so basically it was "a car that wasn't" and probably falls within the scope of the project because of this. But why "high importance"? Was the debacle really *that* big? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think to answer that, one would need a much more precise definition of what should constitute a "high importance" article. It seems rather arbitrary at the moment. In the UK at least, the C5 debacle was very big and very notable.Mighty Antar (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Flickr account with old cars exhibition
Maybe some of You will apreciate this photostream. All pictures have compatible licenses, so You are free to upload the files to Commons if usefull.--Coentor (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also with Vespa Motorbikes. All files are from Torrent (Valencia).--Coentor (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Back axles
Greetings. Would one of our engineers please write a new article or add a section in an appropriate place explaining what a Banjo rear axle is and why and the reason it was (maybe still is) used. Its beyond my comprehension. Thanks in advance, Eddaido (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It probably belongs as a section under rear axle or maybe narrower articles as live axle or beam axle. It doesn't need a separate article as banjo axle or banjo rear axle, but they could be redirects.
 * As to the naming, then it's banjo vs. Salisbury style. The difference is simple: how is the pinion carrier attached to the axle tube? Structural rigidity always requires a solid casting to act as carrier for both the pinion and crownwheel - how's the axle attached to this?
 * In the Salisbury axle, the axle has two half-tubes set into a substantial carrier housing. The pinion and crown wheel are assembled into this from behind and their (crucial!) pre-load adjusted. Then the half shafts are inserted and finally a non-structural oil pan is attached over the rear.
 * A banjo axle has an axle (the static casing) separate from the pinion carrier. The axle tube is usually lightweight pressed steel; sometimes tubes into a central casing, more commonly two long halves with a welded seam. The carrier (once again, a substantial casting) has the crown wheel and pinion assembled into it and adjusted as a small and compact unit. This is then loaded in from the front of the axle case. It's preferred in post-war years of mass production to make axles this way as it simplifies bench assembly of the adjusted unit.  It also makes some heavy maintenance easier, as a new pinion and crown wheel (for repair or to change ratio) can be installed into an axle in situ on the vehicle (difficult to do with a Salisbury and still make a good job of the pre-load).
 * The 'banjo' name comes about because of the shape of the casing without the pinion / crown wheel loaded. Especially in early axles, these had a near-circular centre casing with cylindrical tubes either side, around a big circular hole and a ring of studs or bolts. It was double-ended, but it did rather resemble a banjo - a popular instrument in the '20s and '30s too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this Andy. There are still some things I don't follow. Fortunately someone(!) has uploaded a diagram I can use to explain my puzzlement:


 * My translation, is it correct?
 * The driveshaft (7) or propellor shaft comes in from the right; the half axles are labelled (1)
 * the pinion is (6)?
 * the crown wheel is (2)? aka drive gear
 * now, from your note above, the pinion carrier is the driveshaft? (Or are you referring to the crown wheel assembly's "planetary bevel gears"?)
 * And it is linked to the axle by the casing / housing?
 * If that's OK then I do understand but I do not understand just one sentence
 * I write because I get puzzled by "A banjo axle has an axle separate from the pinion carrier." Please would you clarify that for me because I cannot understand it. I guess this is because we are discussing simple enough things from quite different angles and that is why I'm floored. I can follow all the rest or I think I can.


 * I think Beam axle is the right place for the paragraph. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That image doesn't help. As it's of the rotating parts alone, it's identical for both the Salisbury and banjo patterns. In both the rotating parts are the same, it's the static bits that make the difference.
 * There are two functions for both axles: holding the tubes and halfshafts in place relative to the crownwheel and also holding the pinion in place relative to the crownwheel. In the Salisbury axle, one large casting does both tasks. In the banjo axle, it's split in two: a heavy casting holds pinion and crownwheel together and a light sheet case hold the tubes onto the casting (and thus the crownwheel). The advantage of the two piece banjo is that the difficult alignment of the gears takes place with a smaller unit. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's a useful image. http://www2.mg-cars.org.uk/images/bbs/posts/71_2010060509323729737_71411322903060_1275762049.jpg
 * MGs (MGB, I think the later MGA too) were fitted with both Salisbury and banjo rear axles over the years. The three pictures show the variants for an MGB. Top is a Salisbury (from the prop shaft front side, with the crown wheel, diff and pinion in place). Lower two are banjo casings with the diff carrier removed, also from the prop shaft front side. They're slightly different because one is wire wheels and the other is disc wheels. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a slightly older MG Y with a banjo axle, with the diff carrier in place. http://www.mgccyregister.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Panhardbb.jpg  Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had no problems with that I just brought in that new image to see if it would help you to get across your meaning for your sentence "A banjo axle has an axle separate from the pinion carrier." No matter then. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Notification: proposed merger of Škoda Garde
I've proposed a merger of Škoda Garde into Škoda Rapid (1984). Here's the discussion. – Cloverleaf II (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Holden W platform


The article Holden W platform has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unreferenced, original research, and I believe this so called "platform" is nothing more than WP:Synthesis based on a collection of (correct) information bundled to create this article on an assumption that such a platform exists. See also: User talk:GTHO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Toyota Corolla (Altis)


The article Toyota Corolla (Altis) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The Corolla Altis is simply the Asian name for the identical Toyota Corolla in other markets.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lancia Beta wiki page
I've had to correct the bit about the Beta rust scandal about only Series 1 cars and saloons being affected. I was there at the time and can assure everyone that all models were affected and were scrapped - Series 11 cars, Coupes, HPE's and Spiders. I can vaguely recall a couple of Monte Carlo cars as well at the scrapyard but wouldn't put money on it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.97.227 (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Liftbacks (nominated deletion of category)
FYI, Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 14. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see this has now been closed. Warren (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Studebaker Avanti R2 - location and date of road test wanted
I found the following quote from a 1962 Australian publication at [www.theavanti.net]

"The Avanti comes in two basic models – the R1 which has a carburated V8 engine – and the R2 which uses the same engine boosted by a Paxton centrifugal supercharger. Official bhp and torque figures have not been released for either version, but judging from the car's performance it would be near 220 and 280 bhp. This takes the Avanti into the ranks of the world's fastest sportscars. With a 3.73 to 1 rear axle ratio and four-speed manual transmission, the R2 will accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 6.3 seconds and from 0 to 100 mph in 16.5 seconds. The standing quarter mile can be covered in less than 16 seconds. During special tests from a standing start along a 2.25 mile straight, an R2 Avanti, fitted with a 3.31 to 1 axle ratio, touched 171.1 mph. Only 60.8 seconds were required to cover the entire distance. The Avanti averaged 133.3 mph for the distance."

Can anyone verify if the car that achieved the 171.1 mph was a production version, and how, when and where the test was carried out. NealeFamily (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Driventowrite.com
seems to edit Wikipedia for only one reason, to add citations and external links to Driventowrite.com. I can't find any previous discussion of this source. Is it considered reliable? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just a blog. I would say "not reliable" unless the author(s) have some great standing in the industry. I've never heard of the editor before. bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi: I´ve just worked out how talkback operates. You will also notice I´ve extensively referenced the Peugeot 604, Citroen XM, Lancia Trevi and Lancia Kappa coupe as well as adding miscellaneous period references to old print media (magazines). Driventowrite seems to have some material worth referencing as well which is why I added it. Does anyone else know of a good survey of five-cylinder engines which is one artile DTW has which looked useful to me. casalingua — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casalingua (talk • contribs) 13:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

MG
There is a old discussion on merging MG Cars and MG Motor to create a combined history of the MG marque (see Talk:MG_Motor). Any further comments before I attempt to close the discussion? Warren (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead image of the "Morris Oxford Farina" article


The picture at right shows the lead image at Morris Oxford Farina as it currently exists. I contend that this is a picture of a landscape with a car in it somewhere. There are several photos of this model that are more suitable, including some that are elsewhere in the article.

I haven't found anything in WP:CARPIX that explicitly states that the car should be shown up close in the photograph, but I do remember this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 36. The current lead image reminds me very much of Image 3 from that discussion.

Any thoughts?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice picture, but the car is too distant for a lead image! Warren (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Daihatsu Materia/Toyota bB
Anyone fancy merging Daihatsu Materia/Toyota bB with Toyota bB... seems to be a lot of duplication but no idea which would be the lead model. Warren (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, with Toyota bB as the title. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've merged Daihatsu Materia and Daihatsu Materia/Toyota bB into Toyota bB. Thankfully the Subaru Dex was already merged. Not quite sure how we managed to get three near identical articles! Warren (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

New Icon Car?
I'm not particularly sure how long has been the icon for this WikiProject (at least since the April 2008 upload date), but I was curious if anyone else would be interested in creating a new icon or suggesting an image for us to use. While I wouldn't say I am "sick" of looking at the Honda, I would say that a new icon might freshen things up a bit.

The S2000 image is a PNG, and there are few other car PNGs available. Those that are available are illustrations and not photos like the Honda (try these: ; ). I'm not even sure if icons such as this are bound by background transparency restrictions (seems pretty inane). Though if we found a pleasing image that garnered enough support, anything is possible regarding creating a derivative work with transparency and backgrounds.

The S2000 is a great photo, but perhaps we might find an image that depicts a more widely-popular or mid-century vehicle. This WikiProject is concerned with autos from the late 1800s-today, so maybe something "middle-of-the-road" could do rather than a recent car? And for the sake of discussion, does the icon even have to be a car? What about a truck or SUV?

I hope I'm not alone here, and I certainly welcome any discussion on the matter. Cheers --Stratocaster27''t@lk 05:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * While I'm not against a discussion, I'm quite content with the S2000. It's a happy, cheery little car that's sold world-wide. New enough to be modern but not new enough to be in the "must have a photo of the absolute latest model" group. A JPG version might be nicer to make downloads a little quicker but th eimage itself is quite fine.  Stepho  talk 08:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I also have no qualms with the Honda S2000 image. However, if a higher-quality image that was representative of the project was proposed, I would support a change. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am a fan of neither the S2000 nor planned obsolescence, and my initial reaction to this proposal was that it is a pointless waste of time. However, upon giving it more thought, I realize that this is an opportunity to think of what kind of car would actually represent the project.


 * It probably should not be a sports car, as that would be a bit too specialized a vehicle to represent automobiles at large. For the same reason, it should not be a pickup truck or an SUV. A sedan/saloon car or hatchback would probably be best.


 * It should probably not be an icon of any specific country, which would exclude the '59 Cadillac or the Tri-Five Chevrolet (USA), the Mini (UK), the Citroën 2CV and DS (France, although a Renault 4 just might look generic enough to work), the Fiat 500 or 600 (Italy), the SAAb 90 series and 900 (Sweden) or the Honda Civic (Japan). It should doubly not be the Volkswagen Beetle so as to avoid mention of the Third Reich.


 * Despite this, it should be a highly notable car, but not necessarily an easily identifiable one.


 * Based on these criteria, I think suitable cars for the project's icon would include (but not be limited to, of course):


 * Alfa Romeo Giulia saloon (looks like a brick, but its drag coefficient of 0.33 was actually lower than the contemporary Citroën DS's 0.36)
 * 1977-1990 Chevrolet Caprice
 * Chrysler K platform
 * Fiat 128
 * Ford Cortina
 * Ford Taunus
 * Mercedes-Benz W124, upon which, in the 1980s and 1990s, Road & Track heaped volumes of praise
 * NSU Ro80
 * Renault 4
 * Volkswagen Golf
 * Volvo 200 Series


 * Finally, having edited quite a few motorcycle articles at a certain time, I must ask: please do NOT let it be a BMW! They are already overhyped by Wikipedia!


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Curious, two cars you listed as explicitly undesirable are two cars that would be in my top 10 list. The Beetle may have got it's genesis by a mad dictator but became a world-wide phenomena under its own merits. It is instantly recognisable in almost any country by almost any generation. It's also cute and cuddly and decidedly non-threatening, explaining its popularity as a child's toy over so many generations. The original Mini has a similar (but slightly less) world-wide popularity and recognisability. I would prefer to not have a plain sedan because they're just plain boring. Bland is not necessarily a goal to aim for.  Stepho  talk 00:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Being boring might not be a desirable goal, but being representative is. "Plain sedans" are what most people see on the road and what most drivers have on the road.


 * If the icon of the project is a picture of a car with a strong national identity, then we will get accusations of national bias.


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * SamBlob, I have to both agree and disagree with you. This certainly is an opportunity to discuss a more representative image for the project, however, I think the vehicle chosen should be notable and recognisable. Looking at other transportation-related WikiProjects: Aviation's icon is the Wright Flyer, Buses is a red London Routemaster. These are both extremely important and notable symbols (probably the equivalent of having Karl Benz's Motorwagen or Model T as icons) of these projects. If well-photographed or illustrations of, say, the 2CV, Beetle, or 1950s Cadillac Deville exist, these should be prime candidates for a representative icon. As a reverse example, a Chrysler K, though it sold well, is perhaps one of the most dreary cars of all time and probably difficult for people across the world to recognize.  Cheers --Stratocaster27''t@lk 02:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at both projects, I also notice how they chose logos that are symbols on their own right and not directly identifiable with any currently active manufacturers or marques.
 * Replying to both comments above, the fact that a car is recognizable as make/model shouldn't be a criteria here. This is WikiProject Automobiles, not WikiProject Volkswagen or WikiProject BMC. Whatever we choose, it should be instantly recognizable simply as an Automobile. Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I the the Beetle is the obvious iconic choice. and frankly, it's links with nazism are pretty tenuous, in context.Greglocock (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tenuous links? Even if it went on to become a world car, it was designed by Adolf Hitler's favourite engineer (who plagiarized Tatra's patents) on specifications dictated by Adolf Hitler himself. Just like that other thing. Not really the best choiche in my opinion. – Cloverleaf II (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly with SamBlob's ctiteria. Reasons above. – Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Two more possibilities, along the same lines:
 * Dodge Omni / Plymouth Horizon / Simca-Talbot Horizon
 * Chevrolet Chevette / Isuzu Gemini / Opel Kadett / Vauxhall Chevette
 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A summation of all I've said earlier: The most important property of the car in the icon is that one can point to it and say: "This is what a car looks like." The second most important property is being as uncontroversial as possible. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the argument re Naziism, the Type 1 really didn't depend on the Nazis, but on the British Army (since it never reached mass production til postwar anyhow). If the (IMO tenuous) ties are too much, what about the Model T? Or the New Beetle?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  16:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the Beetle would be completely inappropriate, not just because of its Nazi links, but also because it is both a celebrity in its own right (independently of its status as a means of transport), and highly atypical in its engine location, cooling system, and appearance. I also agree with SamBlob's criteria. As far as SamBlob's list is concerned, most of the cars in the list, and also the Ford Model T, are either too Euro-focused or too North America-focused to be a suitable worldwide choice, and the NSU Ro80, although important and highly influential, is too rare and had a Wankel engine.  I accept that the Chevrolet Chevette, etc, almost qualifies as a worldwide choice, but in my view only one of the listed cars really stands out, and that's the Mercedes-Benz W124.  Not only was it built in huge numbers (2.5 million plus) over more than a decade (1985–1997).  It was also produced in five distinct body styles (sedan, wagon, coupe, cabriolet and stretch limousine), with a wide range of petrol and diesel engines (2.0L 4 cyl diesel to 6.0L V8 petrol), and two and four wheel drive, and was sold in significant quantities all around the world, including in Japan, Eastern Europe / Russia (mainly second hand), Africa and even India. And, as SamBlob hints, it was highly praised in North America, and therefore also influential in relation to North American car design. (Disclosure: I have owned more than one 124.)  Bahnfrend (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think if we really need to change the icon, and we're not looking for an iconic automobile, then like the project itself, we should be using an image that gives a more general overview of the topic. Heres a few I would consider as possibles:


 * I think a side view would be a big step forward.Mighty Antar (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Front three quarter is the normal angle for infobox images, and it should also be used for the icon image.  I'm afraid I also can't agree with OSX that Audi has the most neutral styling of the German brands - in my view, its Bauhaus-inspired styling tradition makes it the most German of the German brands.  Of OSX's suggestions, the obvious NPOV choice for me is the Volkswagen Passat (B6) - just look at the list of places where it was assembled, and bear in mind that it was sold in North America, too.  In deference to Trekphiler, it's also front wheel drive, and the three quarter view of the sedan could almost pass as an image of a hatchback as well.  Bahnfrend (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I’ve skimmed across this discussion and here are my thoughts in response to the aforementioned and my preexisting notions.


 * On the suggestion of changing the icon at all, consider that a long-established icon or graphic is as valuable as a “better” one.
 * Considering the purpose of this icon, something that is simple, both in recognizability and in execution, is most effective at relaying its symbolism (the Wikiproject Automobiles). It should be understandable (as what it is, not as a symbol for the project) with as little detail as possible. A drawn graphic (drawing) such as an SVG graphic, rather than a photograph, would work better to this purpose. This allows it to easily scale in dimensions with more control over how it will look when scaled. Additionally, a drawn graphic is more easily understood to be a symbol than a photograph is (computers use graphics not photos for icons, don’t they? As does signage and so on).
 * The subject of the icon should both be representative of the project (an “automobile”) and universally agreeable across audiences. Although the English Wikipedia’s main audiences would come from Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. (not to leave out others, but by sheer volume), it should be globally understandable to the greatest extent possible, for the potential to better unify it with other language projects and for foreign readers (readers from other areas reading English as a secondary language). This could both mean either a globally-known car, or an element that all cars share (such as a wheel).
 * As far as globally-known cars, few fit this bill, though notably and already mentioned is the Volkswagen Type 1. The Volkswagen Type 1 works because it is recognizable as a car, not because it best represents all cars. This is to separate the idea of a car from the implementation of cars. Additionally, I think it’s modern enough (they have been after all in production until this last decade) to fit today’s context while being classic enough to be widely known.
 * Few elements of cars are good candidates, because they should be unique to cars (as opposed to other transportation, technology, or ideas), critical to the definition of a car and how it works, obvious enough for a general audience to know it’s relationship to cars, and recognizable by itself. The only such thing that comes close is a wheel with tire. Even then it overlaps with other things, such as motorcycles (a hubcap may differentiate it with motorcycle wheels or other equipment). A piston is often used in automotive-related contexts I think, but it also applies to many other fields.

The best thing I can think of is a blue Volkswagen Type 1 graphic, likely a left-facing profile view. I’m trying to think of it as an identity problem of the project and a user experience problem of design. The next best thing I can think of is to continue using what it already there. Grimmeh (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

sparse page
I am used to getting more depth of discussion regarding theory of operation from wikipedia pages, and found the muffler entry too sparse to be useful. I hope this page can get more attention from an experienced editor to better discuss the techniques used for various muffler designs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.31.11 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Guideline for templates such as Template:Nissan
Should there be a official guideline for certain templates like the one listed on how they should look? Where the current, discontinued, and concept models are listed as well as categorized as car/pickup truck/etc. be acceptable? And should other stuff like engines, joint-ventures, and links to other websites be necessary? Seqqis (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Renaming Chevrolet Bolt
Hi guys. This is to let you know that I just opened a discussion to rename the article Chevrolet Bolt to Chevrolet Bolt EV in the corrsponding talk (see here). I thought some of you might be interested in participating in the discussion. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Gas station attendants
Category:Gas station attendants has been proposed to be renamed to Category:Filling station attendants; for the discussion, see WP:CFDALL -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Move requested for "overhead valve" article
A request has been made to move Overhead valve to OHV engine. The discussion is here: Talk:Overhead valve. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo Giulietta disambiguation
Alfa Romeo Giulietta currently redirects to Alfa Romeo Giulietta (750/101). I think it should be made into a disambiguation page: none of the three generations of Giulietta can claim to be the primary topic. If there's some consensus I'll proceed. I'm also here to seek help, since presently there are a hundred Alfa Romeo Giulietta links that would have to be changed to Alfa Romeo Giulietta (750/101), possibly by using a bot. –Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it the case that all the existing links to Alfa Romeo Giulietta should be changed to link to Alfa Romeo Giulietta (750/101) instead? If so, then I am willing to update the links using AWB. DH85868993 (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Of course, all of them; bad choice of words on my part, I wrote a hundred because I checked how many they were beforehand. –Cloverleaf II (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll let you know when they're done. DH85868993 (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've replaced all the links from article space to Alfa Romeo Giulietta. There are 17 links remaining from the Talk, User and Wikipedia spaces - I'll leave it up to you to do those manually if you think they should be changed. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I'll get right on it. –Cloverleaf II (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ –Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger or Delete
Hello I have found a few articles which do not in their current referenced state meet WP:GNG and would like to bring it to the attention of members of this project. Mopar, Motorcraft and GM Certified Service, each of these divisions do warrant some sort of inclusion in Wikipedia, however in their current state they are in dire need of some help. At this point it may be best that they be merged into their parent company's article. Please help save these articles.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed updates to Template:Infobox automobile platform
Hello, I have proposed the addition of some parameters to Template:Infobox automobile platform. Discussion here: Template talk:Infobox automobile platform –Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Vehicle brake
I've proposed merging Vehicle brake in to Brake. Discussion is on Talk:Brake if you'd like to weigh in. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

electrical systems
We have an article on the 42-volt electrical system, do we have articles on standard 12v/14v system, the old standard 6V/8V systems, and the other versions? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Gearing listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gearing. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Cropping images
An easy way to crop images is to use the CropTool. It takes just seconds to crop the photo; the programme will then automatically upload the cropped file over the top of the original—very convenient. Further info: Commons:CropTool. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've used this tool a number of times by now, works perfectly. Thanks for the tip. Cloverleaf II (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

1955 Chevrolet Bel Air
I'm just back from Cuba, where we hired a birding guide who drove a 1955 four-door Chevrolet Bel Air. We took a couple of shots of the exterior and a view of the dashboard from the front seat. The existing article seems quite well illustrated, so I'm not sure there is any value in uploading them. Any views?

It's a bit sad that the locals have to drive cars of that age due to the decades-long US embargo, but it does mean the streets have some wonderful old vehicles on them, alongside the Chinese trucks and buses Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Take a look at what people have already uploaded and decide whether any of your pictures could add something useful, either because they're fantastic pictures (sun in the right place, you were standing not too close and not too far from the car, not too many distracting reflections and/or shadows,  not from some wacky/extreme angle, not fuzzy because your hand was quaking .... etc) or because they illustrate clearly something important that the other pictures in that category don't adequately illustrate.   If you think you've got something worthwhile, make sure you saved your image with a meaningful name (check some others for inspiration) then go back to wikipedia commons and click "upload file" from the list on the left of the page and ... do what it says.   After that, if another contributor thinks your image can add something important to the entry in wikipedia, they may use it.   (It feels wrong to add your own picture to an entry unless there is no picture at all of the car in question unless you do! - and that does not appear to be a problem with a 1955 Bel Air.)


 * Cuba sounds a wonderful place for those of us who like photographing old cars. I guess the upside of the trade restrictions is that folks there still know how to repair their cars, rather than simply having to listen to the dealer giving them a quote for some new component involving the computer euphemistically termed as the "engine management system".  Also, if it rained all the time, or if there was a lot of salty misty wind off the sea, then those old timers would have rusted away.   Seems they're still there.


 * Success Charles01 (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Uploading them can't hurt, but the '55 Bel Air is probably one of the most photographed cars ever made, mext to the '65 Mustang and various Beetles. : most of them have Nissan diesel engines by now, as there are limits on how long even old yankee stoves can run.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

About new award does it look good?
Doorknob747 20:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs)


 * removable if you want. Doorknob747 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs)


 * how should I change it too look better. We need something to encourage other users to join the project. There are other projects that are big and they give out a lot of rewards. But, I do not see any rewards here :( .Doorknob747 21:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think you might wish to take a look at Awards by WikiProject. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, ill take a look at that. Doorknob747 (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No need for help now. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Auto_barn_star.png  Doorknob747 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried adding it there but it did not work, although i did find WikiProject Anime and manga has awards, so I am going to ask if they can help us with this.
 * We now have the award!!!!!Doorknob747 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That I, personally, delisted and started a deletion discussion at the Commons about. You can't use the Maserati logo, or any non-free image, for a barnstar. Might I suggest you use the already extant Automotive Barnstar, instead? Achowat (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pause the deletion for now, lets do a poll who wants to use the existing one and who wants to use mine. If we use mine we must contact Maserati somehow and ask if we can use thier logo on the barn star.  If you win delte the pic.  If I win remove image listed for deletion.  Doorknob747 (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Like, that's not how this works, for a number of reasons. First votes don't matter. Second, we can't use the Maserati logo. Third, there's already a barnstar for that. Achowat (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Supports DoorknobMhe thats just me. Doorknob747 (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Tesla Model S manufacturing process article
Hi All

I wrote an article for the Tesla Model S manufacturing process, the manufacturing plant has a high level of automation and uses a lot of robots. As far as I know it's the first Wikipedia article about the manufacturing process of a consumer product. I'd very much appreciate someone who knows about cars looking at it.

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Nicely written, but it strikes me as being of perhaps questionable encyclopaedic merit as a separate subject. It presents little real evidence that the manufacturing process for this specific model of car is in any way unique. Almost all cars are manufactured using a high level of automation, so the fact that Wired chose this one to illustrate the fact accordingly really doesn't prove much, and the lack of other sources suggesting particular notability of this specific instance leads me to wonder whether it would survive an AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a notable topic for manufacturing in general. It has perhaps less automation than some plants (it doesn't need it, it's not handling as much volume) but how it really differs is in the lack of human workers too. The proportion of robot/human work is greater than (AFAIK) any other plant.
 * There's also the notable aspect that Tesla's line can run almost on-demand and work effectively at very low volumes, right down to making a single car on demand. Conventional car plants just can't do that - which makes them economically inflexible according to varying demand. We've all seen the carparks full of over-produced and unsaleable cars, because for most plants it's a stark binary choice between doing that, or stopping the entire plant and laying off the staff.
 * Mind, it's not a terribly well-written article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an important subject.  It's also difficult because (apart from superficial stuff penned by marketing folks who've usually only got a very superficial idea of what goes on in their own factories) there's a shortage of the sort of sources wikipedia prefers, and the automakers are fiercely secretive because each likes to think (sometimes correctly) that competitive advantage lies in better managing the conversion process - from raw materials and structured brain waves all the way through to finished cars in the showrooms.   But none of that is a reason to shy away from starting a wiki entry where an automaker - Tesla - has permitted sufficient insights to seep out into the public realm.   Very many thanks for applying time and energy to this one.   If Andy Dingley knows more about how they manage to run the plant (profitably) with a range of volumes (rather than simply switching the second and third shifts on or off) ... well, I'd be interested.   It sounds as though they don't have to worry about shareholders and bank loans to fund their fixed costs - the land, the plant, all those heavy presses and fancy robots and fiddly tools ....  But maybe there are answers out there.   And yes, I expect the other automakers would be interested in those too.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The trade press like Automotive Design & Production is a start.
 * There are two sorts of job in a car plant: fixed & floating. Imagine a line assembling widgets: two people load widgets in and out at the ends of the line, three work at stations down the line, putting the bits of widget into place before they're pressed into place by machines, tested by machines etc. Humans are doing the random pallet loading and the pick-n-place operations. The jobs that are not much better if automated, and hard to automate. Some of these jobs though are fixed: you have to do it in one place, someone has to be doing it or the line stops. Others float: from time to time, someone has to bring a new pallet load of widget parts. Doesn't matter who, doesn't matter what else they do inbetween. It needs five people to run the line, maybe four if it's not busy.
 * AIUI, what Tesla have done is to automate more of the fixed roles. So the line pretty much runs autonomously. It takes a couple of people to run it at full rate, but (and this is the difference) it can still run if they aren't there. So long as one of them shows up from time to time, it keeps running too. So if production is down, one stacker driver or loader might be able to service a couple of cells, even though each cell might keep two busy at full rate. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, AD.  To me it all sounds perilously close to witchcraft, but I shouldn't share the thought because if I do people might think I was out of touch with ... whatever it is we're meant to be in touch with.   My rather simplistic understanding had been that whether at the level of individual work stations or at the less standardised tasks that service them, he humans are there, increasingly, to sort out problems when the robots mess up - eg if a robotically transferred parts bin contains only 248 parts instead of the anticipated 250 (no doubt because another robot in another country tipped out a couple of widgets by cornering too fast on the way from the warehouse).   Anyhow, it does sound as though you have a source (or more) and the understandings necessary to build up the entry a bit which, if you find the time, would be great for the rest of us.   (I'm still worried about how you pay back your borrowings for buying all that fantastically costly capital equipment, but I guess that's the bean counter in me struggling to escape again.)   Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think there should be an article on how the car can catch fire.  *sirens of fire engines in the distance.*

Please review my last two edit
Can some one review my last two edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maserati_MC12#Successor

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaFerrari#Maserati

Please. Thank you.Doorknob747 (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Edits reverted to last proper versions. - Areaseven (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what was wrong with the edits? Boivie (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe I can answer on Areaseven's part. The sources were speculations from 2013. Would have been WP:CRYSTALBALL two years ago, now it's more like science fiction (on top of that a product plan has been made public). This said, that's a quite ill-mannered way of undoing good faith edits from a Wikipedia editor. –Cloverleaf II (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And since it was ill manered i am reverting it back! What do you want 100 sources!  And those edit summaries of him reverting my edits, should be sweeped, they are very unproductive edit summaries.Doorknob747 (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ditto with yours. Quite frankly, your edits over the past week hold no merit, and you've made other editors very unhappy with your approach on automotive and anime articles. Almost all of your edits are based solely on speculation or simply false information, not to mention the countless grammatical errors and improper placement of references you've committed. That last edit summary you posted even borderlines on personal attack, which is a complete no-no here on Wikipedia. So Doorknob747, do us all a favor and lighten up. - Areaseven (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

1970s electric car of possible interest
I don't really know anything about this one; I was uploading images from the Seattle Municipal Archives & ran across it. If anyone knows quite what it is, great! And if it's useful to illustrate anything that currently lacks an image, even better. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 04:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but a great photo and should probably be very useful to someone. Look!   Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mitsubishi badges
A Mitsubishi template has (in my eyes) been cluttered with waaaayy too many variations, seeing fit to include the "Galant VR-4" as a separate link and the like. A discussion is taking place here, but I feel that two editors with opposing viewpoints won't cut the mustard. Anyone care to peek?  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  21:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

FIAT v Fiat
Hi all, recently Cloverleaf II and I had an amicable and constructive debate about this topic thanks to edits to the Turin Auto Show contents, which are now better than ever before. It arose because of my changes from "Fiat" to "FIAT". Just like other brands, FIAT is, of course, an acronym (Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino). My changes were not made out of any personal preference or first-hand experience (through Italian being my first language or having lived there, owned such a car and having acquaintances directly employed by the company in Turin) but because of the following: All of this is no different, to say, BMW (Bayerische Motoren Werke), which is never referred to or sold as a Bmw. It is no Audi or Ford (referring to other 4-letter brands). For completeness, some may refer to the following - Alfa, which is or was also an acronym (Anonima Lombarda Fabbrica Automobili) but if one traces its brand history, the loss of ALFA can be ultimately traced to FIAT's take-over in the 1980s and romanticized approach to a word, and another is SAAB (Svenska Aeroplan AB) that however never sold a vehicle branded or badged "Saab". If this/my position stands, then all relevant articles should be revised to state FIAT... the easy fix, like in the Turin Auto Show (which lead to the above amicable debate), is to use the format  open double suare brackets Fiat Whatever|FIAT Whatever closed double square brackets with affected links but this is cumbersome and time consuming. Over to the rest for a say? The key point is needing to distinguish between corporate body and brand. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FIAT is an acronym as mentioned above
 * Fiat is instead a quasi-legal term
 * though the body corporate/s may be "Fiat", the actual product is sold with a FIAT® registered trademark (e.g. see [])
 * the product is also sold bearing a FIAT logo using capitalized letters, never Fiat (see []).


 * Of course I disagree completely with CtrlXctrlV. Since more than one editor shares his opinion, red FIAT links are unsightly and the matter is debatable, I think it should be discussed once and for all in order to adopt some sort of convention.
 * First off, I believe we can all agree that "Fiat" (not "FIAT") has been in common usage and unofficial print media since the interwar years.


 * Fiat was founded as F.I.A.T. (Società Anonima Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino) in 1899.
 * It became Fiat on 8 March 1906. That day Agnelli's re-established company bought rights to the "Fiat" name usage from the old F.I.A.T.. See:


 * In official literature and adverts, "FIAT" and "Fiat" have since been used interchangeably—with a prevalence of the upper case name until the 1960s. Not absolute though: see exhibit A, one of many newspaper adverts from the 1930s. Exhibit B, official "Illustrato Fiat" monthly magazine, this particular one is from 1955: always, invariably Fiat (btw, full archives online if you're interested).
 * Starting in the late 60s "Fiat" became increasingly common, both to denote the cars and the company. Since 1980 "Fiat" is almost universally used. The one exception (as brought up by CtrlXctrlV) is North America, where Fiat brand has been registered as FIAT.


 * My opinion: FIAT for pre-1906 (veteran and brass-era) vehicles, Fiat for everything else—according to common practice. If on the other hand consensus arises to use FIAT even on some later models, fine; as long as usage is coherent across all articles.
 * But I strongly oppose using FIAT on any model introduced after 1970. I challenge you to find any references to a "FIAT Uno" or "FIAT Punto". Ok, I'm done. Whew. –Cloverleaf II (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * PS: How can you claim it was Fiat that suppressed the A.L.F.A. acronym? You know better than me how and when A.L.F.A. became Alfa Romeo. –Cloverleaf II (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked on Fiat's website http://www.fiat.com/com/fiatpedia/ It consistently uses "FIAT" only where the entire sentence is also in all-caps and consistently uses "Fiat' in mixed case sentences. As for badges on vehicles, most vehicle brands use all caps on badges, including Ford, Nissan, Toyota.  Stepho  talk 09:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Alfa Romeo correction Cloverleaf II! Usage of either FIAT or Fiat is neither here or there at the end of the day but it is just as wrong to arbitrarily say "up to X date, it is capital letters and beyond that it isn't" in light of the new FIAT branding, now also used in Australia - go to the "Vehicles" tab (seems like a new FCA strategy?). At least in Italian, gramatically, the preferred way of writing is FIAT (see and translate ). Perhaps the conclusion is that both are valid and we should just focus to ensure that articles consistently use only one form. In the case of the Turin Motorshow, since it lists FIAT products prior to the 1970's, for consistency, leave all as FIAT? I don't think I'll have more to contribute noting the absence of material for either choice (save for, again, the new branding practice) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to correct you about the usage in Australia. I just around looked on the Australian Fiat website. Just like the global site that I mentioned above, the Australian site uses "FIAT" in all-caps only when the entire sentence is also all-caps and uses "Fiat" in mixed-case whenever the sentence was mixed-case. This was also true of http://www.fiat.co.uk and even the Italian website http://www.fiat.it . At least for recent years, Fiat seems to have settled on "Fiat" except for where it uses all-caps for everything. Vehicle badges seem to all-caps, eg FIAT UNO even though advertising prose says "Fiat Uno".  Stepho  talk 06:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "FIAT" (all-caps) is pretty rare. Most magazines and websites name both the company and the marque as "Fiat." For examples see here, here. Simple googling it you can find thousands of examples of "Fiat" and very few of "FIAT". As Cloverleaf lI said, the only instance where "FIAT" is in common usage is in texts written using only capital letters. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As per Urbanoc, Cloverleaf 2, Stepho etcetera. No need to capitalize, would actually fly in the face of the company's own usage for over a century. I would also like to revert SEAT to Seat, if anyone shall care to join me...  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have never been persuaded by the "SEAT" usage.  As you write, "Seat" works just fine for the company itself and they should know better (even better) than those of us who contribute regularly (or, indeed, rarely) to Wikipedia.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not so sure on that one. I went through some print ads and some press releases on the official site here, and the company itself seems to be using consistently SEAT in all caps. –Cloverleaf II (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't really mean to sidetrack - Fiat is obviously much clearer meant to be lower caps and I don't want to risk conflating the two here.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes to production and model years
During the past two days, an anonymous user 74.83.71.74 (talk) has been making numerous changes to significant number to the production and model years within a variety articles. Some are clearly wrong and appropriate experts of the particular models should carefully review and perform appropriate corrections. A further alert is that this contributor has taken on to name calling after I corrected their edits (on talk page here) that were wrong. It would be advisable to add additional references for these to help prevent further drive by changes. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There should be a to do list box like other projects have on their talk page.
A to do list is a good way of telling other members of the project what work needs to be done to a article that is covered by this wikiproject. A good example of a to-do list box is here on this Wikiproject page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga  Doorknob747 (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

McLaren cars—proposed page moves
With the recent launch of the 540C McLaren Cars' marketing strategy is fully unfolded—each of its cars is offered in touring (C), sport (S) and track-oriented (LT) models. I think to clear things up a bit we could adopt McLaren's official nomenclature, with the following page moves: What do you think? Too corporate? –Cloverleaf II (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * McLaren 570S→McLaren Sport Series (including 570S, 540C and future derivatives)
 * McLaren 650S→McLaren Super Series (including 675LT, 650S, 625C and future derivatives)


 * Yes, too corporate. These terms might eventually go into regular use, but they haven't yet. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Jackson/de Dion Wagonette


Teh mage above is labelled "Jackson/de Dion Wagonette Motorcar - Single Cylinder. Painted black with red trim. Wheels wooden spokes with rubber tyres. Starter handle at front beneath radiator leather seats. Headlamps are powered. Footplate 'R. Reynold Jackson & Co Ltd. 'The Jackson Car' London'."

Can anyone shed more light on the maker(s)? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's what I found: R. Reynold Jackson and Co made light cars with De Dion-Bouton engines. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move notification: Hemi engine → Hemispherical combustion chamber
I've opened a discussion at Talk:Hemi engine to move the page to Hemispherical combustion chamber. If you've anything to add, please step in! —Cloverleaf II (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hemi engine listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hemi engine to be moved to Hemispherical combustion chamber. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Pillar (car) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pillar (car) to be moved to Pillar (automobile). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Manganese Bronze Holdings listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Manganese Bronze Holdings to be moved to The London Taxi Company. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Co Ltd listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Co Ltd to be moved to BAIC Group. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Kia Bongo
Would someone please check the edits made in June by two new editors to the above. The most recent edits are by someone who might be changing articles randomly, but the edits to the above are at least plausible, although obviously in need of considerable attention. Rather than reverting it as unsourced, perhaps someone here might check and fix it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Plausible. http://www.kia.com/worldwide/vehicles/k2700-k2500-k4000g/product.aspx  Stepho  talk 09:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)