Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 39

Ford Model B
Hello, I took this photo at an air museum in Italy. This car has a weird story: it was bought in 1933, hid in the 1940s and found again in 1998. It looks to me a Ford Model B with V.8 engine, but I don't know exactly which sub-model if any. Can anyone help? thanks -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 23:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a 1932 Ford V8 Tudor Sedan (Model 18). Interesting car, I'm sure not many Fords were brought to Italy in 1933. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you suppose right. Actually that car too shouldn't have been brought to Italy - Fascism imposed autarky and officially closed foreign trade. I suppose that the car's owner managed to buy it because he was an executive of a major supplier of our Air Force. Then he hid it when the war started, and kept it hidden in order to prevent it to fell prey of German troops in Northern Italy. When he died nobody knew about that secret room where it was hidden and in 1998 the car was discovered still in good conditions because it had been unused fo six decades. -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 09:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Vintage car details - 1906 Chicago Motor Show
For those of you interested in old American cars - The Inter Ocean, Chicago of 4 February 1906 carried a detailed listing of all the cars and specifications on display. It's quite a trove of information. It can be accessed through www.newspapers.com if you have user rights. NealeFamily (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Renault article assessment
A fellow editor raised an issue in the Renault's article talk page that I think needs to be addressed. In 2008, the Renault article was assessed as C-class. However, the article was extensively modified over the years, although I don't know if the improvements are enough to reassess it. Some editors, including me, would like to know what changes it need to once again become a B-class article. --Urbanoc (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia article assessment on hold?
Seems to be dead to me. Ominae (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any official team, any member can assess, assuming they are remotely familiar with the guidelines for such. I probably should jump on a dozen this week myself. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Ominae (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yamaha Tesseract
Please see discussion at Talk:Yamaha Tesseract. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles about 1955 MY cars
I just noticed that there are separate articles about the 1955 Dodge (with sections about 1957, 1958, and 1959 models), 1955 Chevrolet (with an unrelated "pop culture" section), and 1955 Ford (which also includes a 1956 section). There seems to be no reason to have these individual one model year articles. All the information in them is already duplicated within existing articles about the respective models. Thanks, CZmarlin (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worth saying that these aren't really "one model year" articles, but reflect the way that American cars from the big firms were built at the time. As such, they're essentially equivalent to something like the BMC ADO16, although instead of different manufacturer tags being applied, the model names changed (and, obviously, they were updated far more often, as was the American way.) The reason for the duplication is simple; as Dodge, Chevrolet and Ford started producing individual models, they simply reused the old nameplates, which were themselves more complicated than the likes of the "Coupe DeLuxe" tag you'd find on, say, a 1941 Ford. Whilst they are indeed, to some extent, a duplication, they simply follow on from the older years where the main model year was vital to identifying what the car was. For the 1955 Ford, I would actually argue that the Ford Fairlane Crown Victoria Skyliner should be merged back into the '55 Ford article, as that nameplate was only used for '55 and '56 - both of which come under the 1955 Ford article. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm with Luke here.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What I will say, after looking at the 1955 Chevrolet article, is that it is a bit of a mess (as is the 1957 Chevrolet article). Infobox conflicts with the article, and there seems to be crossover between the two articles where said crossover should not exist. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the Rickett the first car
I know that it is generally held that the first car was the Benz, but if you take steam powered vehicles into account, Rickett created a steam powered vehicle solely for carrying a driver and passenger (and a stoker or fireman). It was driven on roads in 1860 made at least one 140+km journey. The definition under the term Car is ''a wheeled, self-powered motor vehicle used for transportation. Most definitions of the term specify that cars are designed to run primarily on roads, to have seating for one to eight people, to typically have four wheels, and to be constructed principally for the transport of people rather than goods.'' The only point of difference between this definition and Rickett's vehicle is that it had three wheels.

What are your thoughts? NealeFamily (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources almost always say that the first car was the Benz, so that's what we have to go with. If they were going to take the argument you did, they'd go for Cugnot's "steam wagon" from 1769, which is the first vehicle that can be reliably said to have moved under its own power. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * But can Cugnot claim to have manufactured and sold his to others, even the first Benz can't claim that. NealeFamily (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would that be relevant? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be so sure about the Cugnot, either... There's real doubt it actually ever ran.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  14:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've not seen much doubt that it ran, but there's plenty of doubt about how well it ran. Encyclopedia Britannica says it was the first automobile in their article on Cugnot.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Britannica might not, but IIRC, C&D (or was it R&T?) had real doubts... Where cars are concerned, I'd take their word over Britannica, I think.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's the introductory paragraph under car that needs clarification. If you cast your eye over the History section and the seperate article History of the car it elaborates more on the different types of power unit and perhaps should include Rickett in either or both somewhere. The fault is that phrase "modern car" in the opening paragraph in the car article, it needs a clearer definition. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer towards the History of the car. That makes much more sense and clarifies the issue I was grappling with. I agree that the introductory paragraph to car is inadequate. NealeFamily (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see an article asking to be written. Not sure how to title it, but if you start with the supposition that Benz is credited as the first, and cover all the others with proper sources, you have something that is a reasonable fork of Car, but a proper fork because it contains educational, sourced, NPOV material about other "vehicles" that were almost the first car.  My 1950s American automobile culture article was kind of like that, there won't be similar for each decade, the 50s were unique. (a 60s might be doable).  Is there enough material to cover this as an article, under the history of the first cars? Like the one I wrote, it is a bit of a culture and history article rather than a hardware article, but those are just as important. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Which reliable and precise sources claim the Benz as the first car, as opposed to the first internal combustion engined car?
 * The first British "red flag act" was in 1861, recognising that road locomotives, i.e. steam-powered self-moving vehicles were already in existence by then and likely to become a significant part of road traffic. These were both agricultural traction engines and the first steam coaches and omnibuses. One might reasonably argue that these were not "cars", but the small Rickett overcomes even those those quibbles.
 * The fact is simple: steam cars pre-dated petrol and electric cars. The Benz was a petrol car. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Falconry
The above discussion offers this link (a more unclear page title I've rarely seen :, which leads to a page hatnoted for another page, which would appear to be the same subject... Huh? Shouldn't these be merged?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  17:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, Falcon is the longstanding name of a series of large cars produced since 1960, AU was a particular model in that sequence. Greglocock (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Then let me suggest it be renamed Ford Falcon AU; as it is, only people who already know what it means are going to get it...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As per WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions, disambiguation for individual models should be in parentheses to show that it is the model code and not part of the marketing name. For example, "Ford Falcon XT" can mean two different things, the Ford Falcon (XT) series from the 1960s, or the "XT" trim level used recently, Ford Falcon (BA) XT. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It may have something to do with being from Oz or something, but I'm not finding that clear at all (after looking at both pages). Maybe some clarification is needed beyond the pagenames? With an eye to people completely unfamiliar?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The lede says "The Ford Falcon (AU) is a full-size car that was produced by Ford Australia from 1998 to 2002. It was the first iteration of the sixth generation Ford Falcon and also included the Ford Fairmont (AU)—the luxury-oriented version of the Falcon." which makes it pretty clear, so I guess your beef is with the title of the article. I don't particularly like Ford Falcon (AU) as in normal use it would be referred to as an AU Falcon. Greglocock (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I support what and  said - no need for any change. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"The lede says" Yes, I read it. It wasn't exactly clear to me what the "AU" was referring to: a sub-model, a country, a trim level, or something else. It's still not. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  14:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * How is it any different from Chevrolet Corvette (C6), Mercedes-Benz C-Class (W203), or BMW 3 Series (E90)? It seems just as obvious to me that the AU refers to the particular model as those titles do. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You may be right, & maybe it's previous exposure to those & not this one.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It may be a good idea to include an explanation of the model code. So instead of "It was the first iteration of the sixth generation Ford Falcon", I changed it to "The AU series was the first iteration of the sixth generation Ford Falcon". OSX (talk • contributions) 02:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that hurts it. The same wouldn't hurt the others, either, IMO, but I'm too tired to go fix them just now. :) Thx.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  03:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Recalls-notability
Every year there a few recalls which are notable, either for real reasons, or because of media circus. At the same time almost every model has recalls. Is there really any point in listing recalls that are not notable? obvious example say Ford Falcon AU. Greglocock (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Reproducing reply from the above article's Talk page "I am reading Notability and it talks about stand-alone articles. Indeed, it reads "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." The information added is verifiable, reliable and relevant to the subject. I note you took up issue with other valid content previously". For completeness, verifiable reliability is now possible with the added reference link but, of course, I stand to be corrected if I am wrong and/or there's really a more convincing and sound basis for deletion. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope, only major recalls should receive attention (e.g. the Toyota unintended acceleration recalls from a few years ago). The Ford Falcon (AU) recalls are not very severe or notable. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I respectfully recommend the application of common sense.  Don't ban mention of recalls, but only mention the ones that are critical.   Big ones, ones that hit the headlines, ones that involve high profile litigations....   That's probably only 1% or 2% of all the recalls that happen.   But please let's avoid attempting to dream up "one size fits all rules" where they're not needed and where they can too easily become an excuse for unproductive p**sing contests.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's pedantic to repeat, as CtrlXctrlV said, that *notability* is not the issue unless you plan on writing an article on a recall. An article on a vehicle which is itself notable only needs to be concerned with WP:UNDUE, not WP:NOTABILITY with regard to what to mention and what to leave out. We often end up chasing red herrings when somebody deletes content from an article and cites anything from the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines as the reason.That said, I agree that, based on common sense, only recalls that received significant attention, particularly in mainstream media, should be mentioned. The issue is that if you mention minor recalls it violates neutrality (not notability) by blowing it out of proportion with undue weight, because it's unlikely that other articles about similar vehicles list every single minor recall, hence WP:UNDUE when one article highlights them.Specialist publications like Motorcycle Consumer News have a regular column where they list every motorcycle recall, large and small. That's routine coverage and isn't a reason to add it to an article. But non-specialist publications that write up a recall are a different story. Even non-critical recalls that for whatever reason attract attention in the NYT or CNN or whatever should probably merit attention, especially if the source tells us a meaningful or interesting reason why the particular recall is worthy of note. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, & if it's made the Times or CNN, it's already newsworthy on its own merits, or they wouldn't be mentioning it. Which would seem to qualify it for mention here, too.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, Proposal:recalls are mentioned in articles when they have received widespread attention in the MSM. This does not include single MSM articles mentioning them as they are announced. For instance http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/holden-issues-a-record-13-recalls-including-barina-trax-and-colorado7/story-fnkgdhrc-1227090048958 would not qualify, whereas the Toyota floor mat/throttle issue or the Ford burning cruise control presumably would. Greglocock (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support as proposer Greglocock (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Seems the reasonable approach. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  23:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Greglocock's proposal, again it seems the reasonable approach. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Support --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok by me so I may as well point out that I added similar information (preceding this discussion but previously flagged by OSX) in the Ford Falcon (AU) article and those for the Mitsubishi Magna, Holden Commodore (VT) and Ford Territory - that now require attention/revision. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I re-tagged those with Undue-section instead of Notability. Note that besides WP:UNDUE these lists of all recalls, outside of those covered in MSM, would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE and could be tagged with section. Or simply deleted on site, since it appears there is complete consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - We have to be strict because the car pubs will cover everything, we need to focus only on what get significant coverage from at least a few MSM outlets, else we drown in trivia. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Minor recalls are a dime a dozen, even major ones aren't rare. If major mainstream media starts picking up on it, then it becomes notable.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Lotec Sirius
Hi, in article Lotec Sirius a lot of information is incorrect. In addition the used references are not very reliable ones. According to the history section of the manufacturer's website the car was not built in 2001 but in 2000. It never went into serial production. Only a single one has been built. According to the car's section of the manufacturer's website the acceleration from 0-100 kph is not 3.7 seconds but 3.8 seconds. The top speed of 264 mph is definitely incorrect. The manufacturer claims a top speed of 400 kph although this is just a theoretical value that has probably never been achieved driving. The car does not have a 5-speed transmission but a 6-speed transmission. For more detailed information check out https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lotec_Sirius&stable=0&redirect=no Regards from Germany, --217.227.73.63 (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Bill Thomas Cheetah - edit disputes
The Bill Thomas Cheetah entry seems to be the focus of some kind of dispute over rights to build replica's - does anyone have any information about the dispute, its origins, and whether it is recorded in any reliable sources? The main protagonist/s seems to be from Arizona based on the IP addresses NealeFamily (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I did find this: Bill Thomas passed away a few years back and I guess there have been misunderstandings and disagreements ever since about those "certificates of authenticity" and who actually owns the rights to what between Bob Auxier and Bill Thomas' son (Bill the Third, along with the rest of the heirs). Not to mention a few unhappy, disappointed and/or disgruntled Cheetah customers rustling around in the underbrush. Plus there's another outfit building its own version of an "evolution" Cheetah (Ruth Engineering in Grafton, Ohio), along with some serious and even bitter disagreements about what makes or does not make an "original" Cheetah, what the correct specifications might be for such a car (did they or did they not ever have disc brakes?), who owns what and who owes what to whom. The genuinely stupid part is that everybody involved originally got that way because they flat fell in love with the original Bill Thomas Cheetahs (myself included) and stupider yet is the fact that there is all sorts of legal posturing, wrangling and saber-rattling going on (lawsuits, depositions, etc.) but it doesn't look to me like anybody involved is particularly worth suing. on Burt Levy's blog site http://www.lastopenroad.com/burtsstories.html but don't think I could cite it as WP:RS NealeFamily (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That there is so much contention & confusion, even among people directly involved, does make me wonder if it doesn't call in question all the sources on it...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  14:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably makes it difficult for people who own original Cheetah's made by Bill Thomas as well - to many claims to the throne as it were. I am trying to be as careful as possible, but it is like walking through a minefield. NealeFamily (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

MG Car Company
Per this change, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MG_K-type&type=revision&diff=672569515&oldid=672565121 and specifically MG Car Company to MG. I can agree that this is a GF change in line with the previous discussion on this page. However for the pre-1935 MG cars, it's an important distinction and should be re-instated. Pre-1935, MG was a separate company until it became part of Morris. These pre-1935 cars are seen (perhaps snobbishly) as "more pure" than the later Morris-era cars. More so then than now, although the MGCC (the modern owner's club) still distinguishes from the MGOC (the other owner's club) on this basis and with a name chosen to reflect the MG Car Company's name of the period. This is one of those naming details that matters, and it should be restored. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for the extra wordiness. MG suffices for the pre-Morris cars, and MG (Morris) suffices for the infobox for the post-Morris cars. No reason why this should be given special treatment over any other article. And putting back "MG Car Company" is just adding in some of the redundancy and/or inconsistently that we need to get rid of. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not redundant though, that's the point. It's a subtle point, not obvious outside MG circles. I understand why you might not notice it. Yet (yet again) you are setting yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of all knowledge. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You whine about digs above, and yet you can't resist another one. I am not, and have never set myself up as "the ultimate arbiter of all knowledge", and your desperation to discredit me at every turn knows no bounds. It is redundant, because MG sums up the original company just fine, and we do not, and should not, start writing company names out in full in every single article. This is not a MG Wiki, it is a general Wiki which needs standard practices. The lead and infoboxes are supposed to be shorter summaries; any wordier things belong in the main body of text. It's noteworthy that, whilst constantly digging at me, you aren't actually going through and improving these articles yourself. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The silence here is eerie. Is it because Andy makes clear well-argued point after clear well-argued point? Eddaido (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * [ec] Read the sources. Read discussion of MGs, by authors knowledgeable about pre-war MGs. You will see the MGCC distinction being used to apply specifically to the pre-1935 cars. "MG (Morris)" is a wikineologism, and those are to be avoided.
 * If I am not "going through and improving these articles " myself it is because I was hoping to have some discussion here, and at places like the Infobox automobile talkpage, as to how to improve them first. We should restore the production numbers. Particularly for the racing cars, these handful numbers are the clearest indication of that model's specialist nature. I don't know how to restore those production numbers, your point that they don't belong in the production dates field is a good one. Maybe we change the infobox template.
 * Unlike your behaviour today though, I am not just turning this into a personal antagonism and edit war. Would you really prefer me to be simply editing over you? That's not the way it should work. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see no evidence that you aren't making this personal, and rather a lot of evidence to the contrary. MG (Morris) matches the way consensus fell in multiple discussions for the infobox, and, again, matches the template's documentation, and the vast majority of my infobox changes (forget the mergers here a second, which only occurred on a small number of articles) were to bring things in-line with the template - improvements you could easily be doing yourself if you weren't more interested in getting one over me. And for all your mention of sources, I don't see you adding many into these often poorly-referenced and lacking-in-detail articles. And, frankly, numbers alone don't tell much of a story; plenty of production cars have been made in lower numbers than many racing cars (even versions of the same car - McLaren F1 GTR versus LM anyone, as a random, non-specific example?) And for all your remarks about how you perceive this car clubs to work, let's quote MGCC here; "The MG Car Club was formed in 1930 by the MG factory, when in Abingdon, and has been providing top quality support for generations of MG owners ever since. Our strong factory connections mean we possess a wealth of historical material at our headquarters." - no mention of "The MG Car Company", is there? And the only time it is generally used seems to be to clarify that it was when the company was independent in some places (I can see MGOC articles that use it), but it isn't used every time MG is mentioned or even close to that. Again, the lead and infobox are for shorter summaries, so MG is more than sufficient (or, at a push, MG Cars perhaps), whilst the main body can reflect any longer names if appropriate. Plus, MGCC would still be inconsistent with cars produced by the same company under different owners, and would create a mess for those cars built both before and after the merger. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "consensus fell in multiple discussions for the infobox" - where was this discussed for MG? Yes, there was a discussion (largely about Dodge), but the idea that one simplistic rule will apply in all cases is childish. Where was the MG / MGCC discussion, if any?
 * "MGCC would still be inconsistent with cars produced by the same company under different owners" What other owners? I'm taking about the pre-1935 situation here, when it was MGCC. Of course it will be different for later periods  (and I would favour simply "MG" for 1936+).  Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you read the template description at all? I'm guessing you haven't. It's hardly "childish" to have something that, by and large, works with everything - and again, you're misrepresenting what I was saying - the template documentation supports using either MG or MG (Morris) based on the examples given ("You may show the parent company of a given manufacturer in parentheses after the manufacturer entry, if applicable."), I never said anything about that talking about MG or MGCC - although the examples given certainly don't use the long form... I still see 0 reason why the pre-Morris cars should be indicated by a longer title in the lead, as using MGCC prior to 1935 is a pointless inconsistency with the vast majority of the cars from later years, and we have too much inconsistency as it is. Again, more wordy things belong in the main body. Oh, and by the way, as much as you've complained, most of the articles actually said the "MG Car company" in the lead, rather than MG Car Company, which may seem like a simple distinction, but it rather more implies that the name of the company was MG Car. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, the change from "MG Car Company" to "MG", & the claim of consensus, is as ill-considered & flat wrong as the changes Luke's made to (frex) Ford Pilot, from "Ford Motor Company" to "Ford", claiming "overly specific" & "consensus". It appears this is an "I don't like it" change, not a change with merit, & the basis of the change is simply false.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  14:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not claim that there was an explicit consensus for that change - or if I did, I did so by mistake (I may not have explicitly mentioned it as being a separate change when I was making the ones that were with consensus.) But I see no reason to use the full company name as per things like WP:COMMONNAME, and it is also worth noting that I have received thanks for making precisely that kind of change from at least one editor, if not more. It's nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's part of the standardization and bringing things in line with the template instructions and such things - nowhere does it use the full name in the template, it doesn't say "Toyota Motor Corporation", it says "Toyota". And bringing things into line with the way the documentation presented is, of course, clearly bringing things in line with consensus. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ?? Your basis for deciding the appropriate way to describe MGCC 80 years ago is the template documentation?   That makes no sense at all.
 * "bringing things into line with the way the documentation presented is, of course, clearly bringing things in line with consensus." Utter nonsense. Again, the idea that one simplistic rule (any rule) will apply in all cases is childish.  Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, having a general rule is not childish, and I did not say it should apply in all cases - what I've said all along is that I fail to see a reason why we should give a random variation to MG, when it was the same damn company just under a different ownership. And, again, MGCC is not directly based on the template documentation, MG (Morris) is - how many fucking times do I have to write that out before it goes into your skull? The template documentation is a small factor, yes, but it is not the primary reason - which is that MG is just as accurate a description of the company without there being excess wordiness, and that it is consistent with all MG Cars products. Dismissing template documentation as being "nonsense" is laughable. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ♠"I did not claim that there was an explicit consensus for that change" You did it on at least two different pages I watchlist (the Pilot & the Anglia) that I recall. Would you like to see the edits?
 * ♠Furthermore, there's rather a large difference between adding division names & using the full company name. Is it the common name? No. AIUI, the infobox isn't for the common name, but for the full corporate name; so, too, first usage. Neither do I see a good reason to delete (or even pipe), provided the abbreviated name is used for the body of the page.
 * ♠I'm also interested how it is somebody can talk the way Luke is & have it ignored, when I'm much more restrained & called incivil... (Nothing like a double standard at WP...)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct; I did use the wrong edit summary on the Anglia and the Pilot, and I apologize for doing so - no real excuse for that, the only consensus that applied is the grammar change (which is kind-of obvious.) There possibly are others where I made that mistake with the edit summary, and I apologize for each and every time I messed up the edit summary in that way. Secondly, exactly what are you saying by this not being the common name? Because "Ford" and "MG" are most definitely the common name, and I cannot think of any explanation for them not being. And, if you look at the template documentation, you can clearly see that every example used follows WP:COMMONNAME and does not spell out the company in full, so in the infobox at least, we shouldn't be doing that unless we have a consensus swing to change that. Also, it's hardly like I'm the only person who has spoken that way, and I'm reacting badly to snide remarks by other users - one of my flaws, which is being exploited by one or two users here who know exactly what they're doing. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two aspects to the name issue: format for presenting them, and the appropriate name to use. The template documentation can only describe the first. The second is entirely subjective and depends on subject (i.e. MG history) knowledge.

In this case, for 1936 onwards, I'm quite happy to have it just as Luke was putting it, which also agrees with the template.
 * : MG (Morris Motors)

However for 1935 and before, this should be:
 * : MG Car Company

This is a separate issue from the formatting described on the template, it's about WP:COMMONNAME for the pre-1935 MG cars, using the name that was correct in period and was used increasingly afterwards to distinguish the "true" Kimber MGs from the Morris-influenced cars. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet another Infobox:Automobile discussion
Based on the edits by User:Eric Corbett on Austin A40 Farina, it seems like the formatting of dates in the infobox is not consistent with WP:MOSDATE, which states A pure year–year range is written (as is any range) using an en dash—​– or –—​not a hyphen or slash; this dash is usually unspaced (that is, with no space on either side); and the range's "end" year is usually abbreviated to two digits: 1881–86; 1881–92 (not 1881–6;  1881 – 86). This is not something that I was personally aware of. Should the infobox documentation therefore be updated to reflect this? And if it should be, should there be a bot task or something run to make all of the changes? Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 15:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete production numbers from infoboxes?
Should production numbers be deleted from the infoboxes? Particularly for rare models, where this is a small handful, accurately known and significant figure. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be moved down into prose, if there is a source present, or removed altogether if there is no source at all (as per any unsourced information.) The production field in the template makes no mention of any provision for production numbers. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I always felt like that field was intended for dates, not statistics. So usually I follow Template:Infobox automobile to the letter and delete them. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that because you think that production numbers are irrelevant to an article? Or because bureaucracy over template parameters is more important than giving our readers a good article?
 * I do neither of those things. Production numbers are important enough to belong in the infobox. Especially when they highlight the obvious difference between a mass production K1 and a K3 racer. So instead I want to find a way to get them in the infobox appropriately, using the right parameter if there is one and expanding the template if there isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But of course, I'm a bureaucrat fond of awful articles, and I think that production numbers are entirely irrelevant. That's why I wrote sections like this one or this one.
 * My opinion: the infobox wasn't designed to handle production data, and the template page proves it. Without a specific entry in most cases it's just added clutter. That's why I usually remove that information from infoboxes, usually, except in the case of small production vehicles. As it is mentioning the total production number in the lead and history section seems good enough, while a dedicated section is appropriate if more detailed data is available.—Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I always felt that was exactly the right place and I was never alone in my feelings about that. Put a quantity slot immediately below if you wish but leave the information there, please, don't just throw it away (even if you are not alone in that either). Eddaido (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to a specific section in the infobox - such a thing is a reasonable idea, and it is something that tangentially related infoboxes have (such as Template:Infobox Weapon, which is of course used for the military vehicles.) At present, however, the template makes no provision for such things. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox was not intended to be used for production figures. These are normally relegated to with the prose or to a sales/production table (if there is the detail to warrant this) towards the end of the article. But please, when "fixing" this up, please don't delete them. Make sure they are moved into the prose. @Lukeno94, if there is no source it is not policy to delete. Cars are not covered by the living people rule. The convention is to tag the number(s) with, or preferably, to find a source yourself. Deleting good information is not useful like you did here. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are per-year production figures then obviously they belong in a table. However there's often just a simple overall figure, and that's all we really need. That belongs, by and large, in the infobox. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andy. If simple overall production figures are available then the summary nature of the infobox makes it the natural place to put it.  Stepho  talk 02:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the various supporters of production numbers. Not too detailed, but one or even two totals can be very useful to the reader. And, please, don't keep deleting it all for now. Just as a favor, not because of some bureaucratic reason.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If we are to include production numbers in the infobox - which I don't really have an opinion on either way, to be honest - then they need their own field. The sole reason I remove them is because there is no current provision for them in the template, as my edit summaries (when I don't cock them up) should show. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Rare or unusual cars, the info box is the place for the number. If it is a discontinued model and we give a sum total of the units produced, that makes sense as well. Current models, meh, but it doesn't bother me either way.  As long as we are talking single sum numbers, the info box seems a natural as it is a significant statistic.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Facelift"
The usage and primary topic of is under discussion, see talk:facelift (disambiguation) ; as the automotive topic is listed as a prominent use, I thought I'd let you know. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Overly specific manufacturer descriptions

 * It's come to my attention that, on some of the American car articles, the manufacturer seems to be overly specified. For example, on Chevrolet Corvette, the lead states the Chevrolet Corvette, known colloquially as the Vette, is a sports car manufactured by the Chevrolet division of American automotive conglomerate General Motors (GM). There is a similar situation on FCA and FordMoCo related articles as well - at least for the US-based firms. But why do we need to specify that the division is part of a great company? It seems to be adding words/information for the sake of adding words/information, even when it isn't that necessary. We don't see this sort of situation on most other firms - for example, the article on the SEAT León does not specify that SEAT are part of VAG, Ferrari articles make no mention of the Fiat company, etc. It also seems that, for whatever reason, the main holding company is being described as the manufacturer in the infobox on some articles (such as Jeep articles). It seems like this over complication extends to some BMC/BL/AR/etc-related articles where it probably shouldn't, such as the Rover 800. Could someone give me a good reason why things are done this way? It would certainly be easier - and just as accurate - to say that the Jeep Grand Cherokee was built by the American manufacturer Jeep, or the Rover 800 was made by Rover, etc - and it would look neater as well IMO. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree some standardization is in order, but I'd disagree deleting is the way to go. If we're writing for a general audience, & a worldwide audience, can we be sure the reader knows Chev is a GM division? Or Ferrari is owned by FIAT? IMO, the obvious answer is no, & that suggests we need to include the corporate parentage in all cases. Does it make for "wordiness"? Yes. Does it seem unnecessary when you do know who the parent is? Yes. (Am I contradicting my usual preference for "writing for the head of the class"? Probably. ;p )  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  14:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think thinning it back is the right way to go. This is why we have wikilinks.  If they want to learn about Chevy, they can click the Chevy link.  The article isn't about who owns Chevy, it's about the Corvette.  The same for others.  There might be a rare exception, but for mainstream and modern cars, the maker is enough, tracing back to the conglomerate is overkill.  This is particularly true since so many have traded hands, which would make us update too many articles.  These changes don't affect the car itself, only the corporate structure, which isn't the purpose of that article.  At the end of the day, a Chevy is a Chevy.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's precisely my thinking. I agree that there are situations where we may need to specify - Dodge Ram, for example, which is now sold under the Ram brand rather than the Dodge brand. But most of the time, if you want more detail, you go to the main article - as you said, that's what wikilinks are for. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm with Luke and Dennis. Some brands change hands faster than a game of pass the parcel in an Irish pub. The car article can just add a wikilink to the article describing the brand and that brand article can then go into the details of the brand and its owners. The car article should not go into brand ownership.  Stepho  talk 12:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied that works. I would suggest adding a mention of the parent in the infobox (if it isn't there), however: it may not be strictly needed, but I maintain it may be worth having, for readers making a casual pass at a page on an automotive subject--that is, somebody not wanting to be bothered chasing links. (I know, that's what links are for, but--have you ever gotten off on a far tangent chasing links? )  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be strongly opposed to infobox inclusion, as long as it isn't getting too ridiculously lengthy. I would still view it as unnecessary, just not to the same degree. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox doesn't bother me, even listing prior owners in select cases. That is where you would expect to find that kind of info anyway, not in the prose where it mucks up the flow.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so we're all clear, I'm not desperately wedded to inclusion in the infobox; I only think it'd be a good idea for general readers for a "page at a glance". Those interested in more can always follow the links. (Those with lots of time can follow lots of them. ;p )  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

We previously had a parent company field in the infobox but it was decided it would be removed to reduce the amount of clutter in infoboxes. For cases where the parent is to be included, they style is: manufacturer: Chevrolet (General Motors), Škoda (Volkswagen Group), etc. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 24 and Template:Infobox automobile usage instructions. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking it, so combined is a pretty clear consensus against adding the parent in the template or prose without an extraordinary reason. The rare times you need to add a parent (Dodge/Ram) you probably better do that in prose anyway. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

So, to summarize then; we should remove mentions of the parent company from the lead except in unusual cases, and should change any infoboxes that contain non-standard entries to match the ones displayed in the template. Is this correct, and do we have a consensus for this? Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think so. We can allow for the really oddball exception.  Crosley might fit as an exception, for example.  It is a unique situation that may or may not benefit from an exception.  It needs an infobox, as a matter of fact.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just stumbled on this discussion after an edit appeared in my watch list. I would like to clarify the situation. For example the current version of Singer Vogue makes no mention either of initial parent company Rootes Group or subsequent owner Chrysler UK. For a marque that disappeared over 40 years ago I wonder if many people would know of the connection. (The article does mention both the Australian Rootes and Chrysler offshoots). On the Sunbeam Rapier, Hillman Super Minx and Humber Sceptre articles the lead has been changed but Rootes Group and/or Chrysler UK left in the infobox. (That's as far as I looked before coming here to post!) Thanks Eagleash (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't touched the infoboxes yet, it is something I will get to. But the age of the companies does not matter in the slightest. If there is no mention of the parent companies in the articles, then of course they should be added - in the main body of the text. It's also worth noting that User:Eddaido has gone and reverted wholesale a large number of changes I made to articles, even when the vast majority of those changes were blatantly obvious cleanups that were obviously needed (forgetting the manufacturer changes in the lead for a second.) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course the age doesn't really matter but if you asked a lot of people nowadays they quite possibly wouldn't have heard of Singer or Rootes Group, which, to my mind, makes it quite important that the ownership of the marque is included in the articles and quite early on, if not actually in the first paragraph. Rootes Group and BMC are slightly different to (say) the Ferrari/Fiat Chevrolet/GM examples mentioned above. The Rootes & BMC products often really were just badge-engineered examples of the same car with different trim levels etc., often produced in the same factory with finishing specs as orders necessitated. So I see no objection to saying, for example, 'the (Singer) Vogue was produced by Rootes under (its ownership of) the Singer Marque from year X-Y'. The various marques used by the companies were not semi-autonomous companies marketing their own products albeit likely with parent company approval as say Ferrari would do. Eagleash (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that there needs to be a mention, but not because people haven't heard of these companies - to be honest, I don't think that's relevant in the slightest. The reason we need Rootes Group in a lot of the articles is to explain exactly how the cars stood in the wider ranges, particularly as so many cars are based on the same chassis but have different bodies, or similar things to that. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "I haven't touched the infoboxes yet" Apart from where you started repeatedly deleting one (and were dragged to ANEW). Eddaido didn't revert you (no problem, you went for all three strikes anyway) because you were piping a link, but because you were also deleting a third of the article. I didn't revert you on another article because of Rootes, but because you were then linking it to the wrong company.
 * I don't doubt that this sort of trivial consistency is all very satisfying for you, but the new links have to be accurate too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake on the Commer engine, yes - note how I didn't revert you again? I hadn't touched the automobile infoboxes at that point to change things. Engine infoboxes are separate things entirely, and that was a separate thing I was doing anyway... Interesting that, having failed in your desperate attempt to get me blocked, you're now going to come and rant here in this way. How sad things must be for you in your life. And actually yes, Eddaido did revert me in several places for piping links. So yet again, you've completely failed to pay attention to what's going on, due to your grudge. Good job sir! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See the links added to the ANEW page.
 * Morris Oxford Six
 * Morris Oxford bullnose
 * Morris Oxford flatnose
 * Morris Oxford Empire models
 * This isn't about company naming, it's plain and simple edit-warring because you don't like the coverage of engines in the car articles and keep removing the infoboxes. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not at any point attempted to force any changes through on that particular aspect of things... but by all means, continue to misrepresent me and my edits. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Going back several posts and maybe moving on a bit. How would we describe the manufacturer of the current range of MGs? Chinese (owned) company putting the brand on their output IIRC. From a differing POV we would not describe Jaguars as being made by Tata... I believe this issue is more complex than it first might have appeared and perhaps there is not a 'hard and fast rule' we can use and with all the disagreements that have resulted, things might well have been left well alone. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" Eagleash (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, for MG I would probably suggest using "MG Motor" for the Chinese-owned cars, particularly as that's where the article is located. And I strongly disagree that it wasn't broken, because we had massive inconsistencies within the same manufacturer for how things were presented, even when things were relatively simple (e.g. modern Jeeps and some Dodges.) - some said that Dodges were made by Dodge, others by Chrysler/FCA etc, and others went with "Dodge, a division of Chrysler". Things may not be perfect now, but at least there's rather more consistency than there was. Almost every non-American or non-British article simply states "made by Fiat", or "made by Lancia", or "made by Alfa Romeo", so those bits weren't broken. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree there are inconsistencies which should be addressed and it may (or may not) be a good thing if all pages read in a uniform manner, but I feel it is not always possible and there's bound to be some discrepancies to take into account many different ownership scenarios. Last time I looked the Corvette article still read the same in the first line as in the OP here. Yes, it's a bit wordy, could be trimmed down slightly but all the information is there, readers can click on Chevy or GM as they wish. And the article can proceed to talk about the car. I believe Wiki should be about providing clear, concise and supported information and not necessarily about adhering to some often arbitrary decisions. As for Dodge, just to throw another disingenuous spanner etc... after the Chrysler/Rootes takeover, some Commer vans were badged as Dodge, but we couldn't claim that they were made by Dodge. It could be said they were made by Chrysler UK but... :P Eagleash (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Simple explanation for the Corvette article not having changed; I haven't gotten around to that point yet. I went through most of the FCA-related things, and I'd begun to go through the BL/BMC cars; GM and FordMoCo are on my to-do list as well. :) My edit history should make it clear as to how I was doing things. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As for Commer, the complicated situation is made somewhat easier by the fact we simply don't have many articles on them (which is itself a shame). In fact, we have one; Commer FC, and that only exists because I split out a fairly decently fleshed-out section from the Commer article yesterday. As such, my idea for a lead is present there - although I will say that I based it on what the existing text said rather than checking with sources to make sure everything was perfect, so please correct any errors you see there. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We should stick to the common name of the manufacturer. Getting hung up on the names of holding companies &c is silly - perhaps there's room to discuss this in n article about a marque, but not in an article about a model and definitely not in infoboxes, unless the corporate background is of particular relevance to that model (ie. the SEAT Ibiza). bobrayner (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure where you're jumping into in this conversation, but that is the general consensus for where things are straightforward - sometimes it isn't quite as simple as that though, when the same model passes through several different manufacturer's hands as the years go by, and that's what we're trying to work out. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Some marques are not manufacturers or even incorporated companies so while there may be good reason to avoid having to repeat parent company detail in many car articles, I don't believe this is the same for non-incorporated marques, or brands. For example some Chevrolet products are manufactured by joint ventures so making the manufacture an important part of the explanation. I don't see the removal of this little nugget of information from some articles is particular useful or necessary, and we seem to be veering towards kowtowing to automotive marketing rather than describing the product itself. Warren (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If they're joint ventures, then sure, it is worth mentioning the more specific details, and I try and find a way to incorporate that. But I see no need whatsoever to describe the Corvette as anything other than a Chevrolet, for example - talking about Chevrolet being a division of General Motors in the Corvette articles' leads is just adding words for the sake of adding words IMO - it's supposed to be a short-ish summary, not an in-depth piece. Readers will generally either know who owns Chevrolet, or not care - and if they do want to know more about Chevrolet, then that's what the wikilink is for. Besides, the "parent group" will still be mentioned in the infobox, and it will probably appear in the main body somewhere. Dennis Brown put it better than I can. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The official manufacturer is the one according to the VIN number of the vehicle. Opel/Vauxhall vehicles such as the Combo, Antara or Movano are built by Tofaş, GM Korea and Renault yet the VIN number says Opel or Adam Opel AG is the manufacturer. The same with the Audi Q3 which is built by SEAT, but the VIN number says Audi AG is the manufacturer. --Racerstreet (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can understand deleting "Cheverolet, a division of GM", but changing "FoMoCo" to "Ford" as "overly specific"? How, exactly, is that "overly specific"? If it was "Mercury, part of Lincoln-Mercury, a division of FoMoCo", I'd buy it...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ford Motor Company is not the general commonname - Ford is. Again, for most articles, the commonname is the name that is used, and that's certainly way the infobox template is presented (it never has said "General Motors Company" or "Toyota Corporation", it says "General Motors" and "Toyota".) and it is generally the consensus from most people, either from what they've said in the numerous scattered discussions, or from their actions (be it direct edits, or the thanks they've given via WP's thank tool.) It is overly specific to use the full name when a shorter, more commonly used name links to the exact same company, and there is no other company it could be. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And if somebody was using "Ford Motor Company" throughout an article, I'd change it. That's not what's at issue, IMO: it's a single use of the full company name, at the beginning, where, I suggest, you want the complete name. Why do you think that is a bad idea?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it is unnecessary, and totally inconsistent with articles on Toyotas, Hondas, and the rest. We don't generally say "built by the Toyota Corporation" or "built by the Honda Motor Co., Ltd." (although it wouldn't surprise me if there were one or two examples that did), for example - and it would look a tad weird if we did, to be honest. Plus, WP:COMMONNAME supports Ford as that is what the vast majority of people would call the company. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I've just been reminded by a comment elsewhere of WP:CONCISE, which clearly supports the shorter Ford name; The official name of Rhode Island, used in various state publications, is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Both titles are precise and unambiguous, but Rhode Island is the most concise title to fully identify the subject. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the engine-model year information be scrubbed from articles?
While I understand the wish to streamline the presentation of automotive information for various cars, I would question stripping out information regarding what engines and transmissions were available over various years. For people who are car enthusiast such information is very notable. It also makes for a rather silly table of engines in some cases. Consider this Corvette [| C3 example.]. There are 21 (!) different engines and 4 transmission offered over the life of the car (1968-1982). I think a number of readers might actually want to know which engines were offered which year. I would propose that we either allow date ranges on the engine lists as part of the standard template or we allow articles to deviate from standard in cases like this where it clearly has benefit to the reader. Springee (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As per usual; there is no provision in the template for this information, and 99% of the automobile articles do not include such data, have never done so, and 100% shouldn't contain it. And in this circumstance, it really isn't a benefit to the reader to have years in there; you're adding even more information to a field that is already overloaded with data. If the prose is written properly, then it already covers such a thing in proper detail - and I'm pretty sure the Corvette articles do. If not, then a table of engines should be created in the article, like a lot of the newer car articles do. Such a table can also contain a lot more information than the infobox was designed to handle. It's also worth noting that the initial "objection" was made by an obvious sockpuppet account created just for that purpose. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The above being said, obviously I won't be removing the year information again until this discussion ends (and I'm getting a little sick of people nitpicking at any attempt to bring things into some kind of standard format, like the template is clearly set out as.) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No question the "objection" was a vandal account (and presumably a sockpuppet). Their methods were wrong but the intent wasn't without merit.  I think a subsection with table is a reasonable solution.  It would be nice because it could also contain engine-transmission combination rather than just a list with dates.  Do you have a suggested example to follow?  Also in cases like the C3, Landrover Defender, first gen Mustang etc where the list of engines can get very long does it make more sense to simply have a note to look at a table rather than listing all the motors without even a year range?
 * While I'm one of those nipping at your heals, I do appreciate the effort you are making. The hard thing about coming up with a standard is trying to invent one that really fits every situation.  If you do make more changes similar to the one I linked, it might be good to put a note on the talk page as to the new way that information should be contained within the article.  That allows people who think it's useful a productive way to address their concerns rather than though (frustrated) vandalism.  Springee (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with piecemeal removing the entire set of engines from the infobox; but I'm presuming that's not quite what you're suggesting. I certainly think that having the capacity range in the infobox in such articles, with a hatnote that points to a more detailed table with all of the individual engines, is potentially a workable idea on an unusual case like this one. I don't personally think that the Mustangs are anywhere near as bad, but that situation is made a lot simpler by the simple fact that there are distinct infoboxes and "versions" of the first-gen Mustang, whilst the Corvette C3 doesn't really have that (it's a pretty unusual case, that I definitely would agree on.) Same goes for the Defender somewhat; there aren't that many engines (and they're certainly not indicated by years), although I'd never argue that the Defender is a good representation - it's rather confusing to have the same capacity and cylinders listed multiple times in the infobox without putting in some obvious way of differentiating them. That is something I shall fix very shortly. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a single major option for the engine or transmission, then the infobox should include this and the infobox template should support it. Even if there was also an obscure variant that is mentioned in the article, but the history of the typical vehicle is complete without it.
 * If the information is complex, such that it requires a table or a substantial list, then it's too complex to present in a single-valued infobox summary. Only then should it not be in the infobox. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there an easy way to post a notice at the top of the article that the engine-date information should be moved out of the infobox? A problem I see with removing first and then expecting/hoping people to replace later is that many people will never know that information was removed and thus it could be lost.  That said, while I actually would favor inclusion or at least say a strong case needs to be made for removal vs leaving it alone, I do see an issue with citing the information.  In the Corvette case one might ask how do we know a given engine was an option in 1968.  Then again, without the date how do we verify that the LT1 (for example) was an option regardless of the particular years offered?
 * One more thing, I noticed in this 1st gen Corvette change that the engine table no longer notes that the 283 was fuel injected. [] In other articles the use of turbo or superchargers are mentioned as notable.  In the 1950s any car engine with fuel injection would be notable.  A lesser but still notable example would be the LT5 engine used in the C4 Corvette.  It was the first (and only) DOHC V8 used in any Corvette.  Currently the infobox just shows a series of 5.7L V8s.  Addicting DOHC to the box would indicate the notable feature of the LT5 vs the other motors.  I think that it would be a good idea to allow the infoboxes to contain notable information that might not be part of the template.  We would have to use best judgment when something is notable or not.  Springee (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ♠Looking at the linked C3 infobox, the list is a bit daunting. IMO, a separate table of engines is a much better idea, if only for making it easier to read. It could reduce the linking to a single case, pointing to SBC & BBC, or link engine codes to the appropriate engine page subsections. The same format wouldn't be amiss in all U.S. makers' articles, IMO, since many offered a wide variety of engine options. I wonder if engine-drivetrain combinations makes sense, too, since many engines were only available with a given trans.
 * ♠That said, it occurs to me it might be better to put engine-drivetrain combinations on a separate page & link out to it, for clarity & simplicity, rather than repeat the same information in several places, with numerous opportunities for introduced mistakes, & to avoid lack of commonality (& common correctness).
 * ♠I'd also agree, mention of the fuelie 283 & DOHC C5 in the infobox is warranted; these were a big deal.   TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:03 & 00:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Does linking to a separate page result in the same issue that was discussed above, too many Corvette pages? This was an issue we discussed with the leaf spring page back in the day.  Because it applies to several generations of the car it didn't make sense to create an individual section in each generation specific article.  At the same time it seems too detailed for the high level Corvette page.  The finally decision was to make it a stand alone page.  However, if people are intent on removing as many stand alone pages as possible then a stand alone "C3 engine options" page seems doomed to deletion.  Incidentally, I don't see why it is really necessary to cut the number of articles so long as they are all interlinked.  Thus the Corvette leaf spring article could link to at least the C4 and later model pages and perhaps the C2 and later.  Either way, I do agree that with such a long list of engines it might just be better to remove all engines from the infobox and use a pointer to a table later in the article.  The C3 is an extreme case but the later cars still offered a large range (C4 had 5, the C5 had just 2, the C6 had 4 and the C7 thus far has 2 but a 3rd is almost a certainty).  The BMW 5 series is another mess.  The E39 had 20!! engines and 8 transmissions!  The E34 was 18 and 4, the E60 reduced that to a "reasonable" 13 and 4 :D .  Perhaps a rule of thumb would be more than 4 goes in a table with a pointer? Springee (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ♠I wasn't thinking of a 'vette-specific page, but more of a GM-inclusive page, akin to the GM engines page. Or maybe that should host this information; IDK. Either way, what I see it doing is acting as "home" for links from all GM car pages (or all Chevy pages, anyhow; might need to break it out by division), with a list of all the engines & trannys used, by year & model, tabulated. So, there'd be a table for the 283 which had the engine codes, uses by model, tranny, & year used. A bit like this:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! ! Year ! Transmission ! Used in
 * +283 ci SB
 * 19xx-19xx
 * TH350, TH400
 * Corvette, Bel Air, Biscayne
 * }
 * And tables on the page for every engine. Clearer?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see the idea but I'm not sure I like the all inclusive engines page. For a company like GM that would be a HUGE list.  Also, how would you cover companies that at various times were and weren't part of GM (Lotus, SAAB etc.)?  It also might be hard to look of info on say the Corvair (two engine options IIRC) or Fiero (again 2 or 3).  I like the idea of all the info in one place but I think it would be hard to put together.  It also almost certainly would be filled with holes.  The engine options of some older models might be hard to verity while noted models like the Corvette would certainly be easy to check.  Regardless, I like that you are coming up with ideas. Springee (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the recent discussions are most disappointing because they are so unnecessary. We have infoboxes with an established standard layout which is flexible enough so it may be expanded to incorporate the likes of the above information. Sure some articles have much more information to pass on than others. Why bury stuff in extra tables or remote parts of the narrative. Quick and easy to follow is the right answer, using the existing infoboxes adjust where necessary. Where has the drive to minimise properly tabulated information come from? Eddaido (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I asked because it has come up as an issue. Personally I think it's not worth making a huge fuss over changing the work of the page editors.  However, it did cause a minor edit war on the C3 and other Corvette related articles. It's not a change I'm likely to correct but I wanted to get the view of more people.  I would suggest in cases such as the C3 article the dates be added back in until they are tabulated somewhere else in the article. Springee (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ♠"I'm not sure I like the all inclusive engines page. For a company like GM that would be a HUGE list" Hmm... I'm not sure it would be so enormous. If it lists only the displacement & use...
 * ♠I've seen a really good Chevy page with the option codes & brief descriptions; IIRC, it already mentions many, if not all, the models using a given engine, & it's not an insanely long page. (Just don't ask me what it's called... :( I'd have linked to it already if I could think of it.) I'd use that as a model, given a choice. IMO, that approach is readily adaptable to other marques. Nor would it take a major effort to add all the models using an engine to it, nor the tranny options, IMO. Plus it centralizes the information, making updates & error-correction vastly easier, not to mention offering fewer opportunities for vandals (alas, a continuing problem).
 * ♠Perhaps most important, if it already exists in some form, we need not invent it, merely adapt it.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  06:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)