Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 54

Hyundai Aero Town
Does anyone have sources for this on the model history? I am trying to figure out when it started becoming available, but there's very little I'm able to find about its history under English search. Graywalls (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Korean wiki says "Hyundai Aero Town was modified by Hyundai Motor on June 24, 1994 based on the U-MK117 / 517 model of Midi's Mitsubishi Fuso Truck & Bus Aero Midi, and trimmed with a streamlined design." Unfortunately it doesn't provide a source for this and the only archived links from the Hyundai page I could find lead to press release image pages with the text in Korean, so you can't even copy and paste the text to translate. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Electric vehicles Tesla, Inc.
I have just found a note in a responsible publication that Tesla which manufactures electric vehicles is now valued at more than Mercedes-Benz and BMW combined. Is this significant or a temporary pandemic phase or plain wrong? Eddaido (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The crazy run up in the price of Tesla shares puts their value second only to Toyota. Lots of opinions regarding if the company should be valued so highly given the company has never had a yearly profit, the profits shown are often accompanied by questionable accounting etc.  But none of that changes the simple fact that the market cap really is that high right now.  What this should mean in the Wikipedia article?  I'm not sure.  The extrodinary share price certainly is a notable aspect of the company but recall that just over a year back the shares were $170 vs $1000.  I suspect we will see big changes one way or the other in the next year or two.  Personally I think the price will implode but I can't say when.  I also thought it would implode when the shares were around $300 so it's probably best not to assume I have magical insight.  Springee (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Adaptations for disabled Drivers or Passengers.
This Automotive Wikipedia forum currently does not include any information about the range of adaptations available for disabled people, yet it does include a sub section about electric vehicles.

I worked in the automotive industry for 45 years and for the last 10 I was also the voluntary diversity chairperson for disability within one of the leading multinational vehicle manufacturers, this was mainly due to my own son having multiple disabilities, whom I encouraged and supported to get through his driving test, he now drives a heavily adapted VW T6 shuttle using a drive by wire joystick system, https://www.paravan.com/ and a rear tail lift to access the vehicle, stage 1 modifications (base vehicle changes) by https://www.gmmobility.co.uk/

I Decided to add this sub topic having read on the VW transporter T6 wiki page about it being a common vehicle for conversion to a motor caravan, but no information about these same vehicles and many others being adapted for use for disabled people as either drivers or passengers.

The UK based Research Institure for Disabled Customers (RIDC) has an extensive guide to choosing a vehicke for people with disabilities, https://www.ridc.org.uk/features-reviews/out-and-about/car-search

In order for Wikipedia to be truely diverse it is essential that the area of vehicle adaptations for the disability gets more covereage in the Wikipedia pages. Many years ago I edited the disability pages to include vehicle adaptations, yet these were backed out, I still do not truely understand why.

Would one of the Wikipedia editing guru’s please get this new section off the ground and work with me to help build factual information to assist disabled people looking for transportation, as the motor industry & governments continue to ignore the requirements of the disabled compared to electrification of vehicles and disabled people will be further excluded from independant transportation unless they are very rich. e.g. the vehicle my son drives has approximately £20,000+ of adaptations fitted, this will increase as more electric only vehicles become the norm, unless awareness of the divide improves. IMHO Wikipedia can help bring this awareness about. Thanks.

Dbridge276 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Have you seen Adapted automobile? Toasted Meter (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And Wikipedia is an open encyclopaedia. If something is missing then we encourage you to jump in and add new stuff or expand old stuff.  Stepho  talk 12:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@toasted meter Thank you. No I hadn’t seen that Wikipedia section, I will have a good look, I think it needs to be a link on all the manufactures pages as well to promote the topic as every country handles it differently, it is a multi million $ business.

It’s quite amazing how little info their is in the public domain regarding driving adaptations. I once got an email from a US colleague asking about adaptations for a small car (fiesta/golf size) For a person with dwarfism in Columbia that a dealer couldn’t answer. After a couple of calls to friendly adaptation companies I know in the UK I was able to provide a product name and an America’s contact for a replacement pedal box that could be fitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbridge276 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Toasted Meter I have had a good read of the Adapted Automotive page and have added a few useful links to the external sechin and a few updates in some of the other Sections. Thanks for the link. Dbridge276 (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would make sense to link it on the manufacturer pages, unless the adaptions are done by the manufacturer it seems off topic. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I would agree it wouldn’t be good to add links to Original Equipment Vehicle Manufacturer’s like Ford, VW, etc it would be appropriate to add links for adaptation or conversion comped like GM conversions, Allied Mobility etc.

If this is acceptable I am happy to start a list of UK Vehicle Adaptation companies and even some EU adaptation companies and include links to professional bodies that such companies belong to, which have a code of practise for these companies. I presume that these should be at the end with the other references and external links, maybe as a separate section “adaptation companies”.

2A00:23C7:D04:9A00:D4C8:6521:25F0:86D6 (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Guideline or essay - WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions. Please feel free to join in.  Stepho  talk 22:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Article thought on Nissan Paramedic
Wondering on creating a Nissan Paramedic article. Thoughts? Ominae (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Vehicle/automotive technology - Wejo (company) article request
Hello everyone!

I'm looking for someone to write an article for the company I work for, Wejo, who partner with automotive manufacturers to organise and enhance streams of authentic connected vehicle data unlocking its value for drivers, public and private sector organisations.

I'm unable to write the article myself due to conflict of interest, but I have submitted a request with a description and included multiple independent, reliable sources. Here is the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences#Vehicle/automotive_technology

Wejo believes in the power of Data for Good - that's why we want to make connected car data accessible to even more like-minded businesses to drive innovations in safety, convenience and sustainability. Having a Wikipedia page will help raise awareness of the exciting work we do, so it would be great if someone could help me set this up.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Wejoltd. (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds horrible, but I am a luddite with a privacy concern.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  17:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you've identified your conflict of interest, but "rais[ing] awareness of the exciting work we do" sounds more like blatant advertising than justification for article creation. IPBilly (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone! I've now drafted the article, Draft:Wejo, which is waiting for review. I've kept your advice on blatant advertising in front of mind. Let me know your thoughts and suggestions. OH123 (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * To me it still reads like a press release.  Quite good press release.   But wikipedia does not really exist to become a repository for press releases.   Apart from anything else, they generally don't age too well, and one tries, within reason, to "future proof" wiki entries.   I tried checking out your sources, but they read like press releases too.   Those guys have a good press officer / department.  To make it look more "encyclopedic" - ugly word but I can't think of a better one - maybe you should google round the web - or check out the trade press, and find some sources that don't read like press releases.   And to the extent they are notable and / or to the extent they can be made interesting, summarize and incorporate what they say (write).


 * Also, you could probably do with a bit more context.  What business sector(s) are they in?  Do they have any competitors?   If not, that is interesting in itself.  If they model themselves on some geeky enterprise in Palo Alto (or Duesseldorf, or Osaka) that would be interesting.   Sometimes works: sometimes doesn't, but you could make it look relevant and interesting.   Right now it looks like it's been drafted by someone whose hasn't left his desk in the corner office on some very small island for about twenty years (which indeed is how a lot of us feel just now....).


 * Success Charles01 (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Shortdesc and car models
Hi, Just wondering - What should the short description (WP:Shortdesc) be for car models ?, Taking Fiat Tipo as an example - Should it say "a compact car", "a compact car manufactured by Fiat" or simply "car model" ?,

Currently I've been using the first and second examples but truth be told I don't know really what the shortdesc should say, Thanks, Regards, – Davey 2010 Talk 18:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There's no hard and fast rules. I would have a preference for the second one (good information but 10 words or less is nice) but wouldn't complain about the others.  Stepho  talk 23:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry forgot to check back here, Thanks for your help Stepho-wrs, I've since stuck with the second one purely for simplicity sake :), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 19:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Citing Sources
I'd like to ask if citing the original download link for a brochure in self extracting format is appropriate or must it be reuploaded in the extracted pdf format ?

Also i'd like to ask on how to approach writing a vehicle's participation(by its manufacturer) in motorsports where there are only a few written articles left supporting its existence but there are youtube videos showing the car as well as magazine scans on facebook? The vehicle in question is the Toyota Condor in the Kijang Article and while TopCar still has some of its articles about it they dont have the magazine article posted online as in the facebook post nor are there pictures of the vehicle in the available articles online. TheBitterNoob (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be little different from having the paper copy of the brochure or magazine article and citing those without a link at all. To your first question, the brochure itself is the cited work. I don't know if linking to a self-extracting file is okay from a security standpoint (that may be a question to ask at the WP:Help desk), but there's nothing wrong with citing the brochure alone without an online copy available.It's generally helpful for sources to be available online for ease of verification, but there are plenty of articles where hard copy books, magazines, brochures or other documents are cited without being available online.YouTube videos, unless they're of a TV program actually about the vehicle specifically, probably aren't suitable. --Sable232 (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion related to splitting the Chrysler article
There is renewed interest in splitting the Chrysler article. Please see the article talk page for details [] Springee (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Wisconsin Motor
Does anyone have access to trade journals or old newspapers that might tell us the fate of this business? It made auxiliary engines (and for a while, earlier on, those of the Stutz race cars and sporting or stately Pierce-Arrows) for most of the 20th century and sold them all over the world. Eddaido (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

ASEAN NCAP
has uploaded rather large tables across several dozen articles with ASEAN NCAP scores, including some very granular data and large pictures that smell like copyvios. Is this promotional content? Is it important? Any opinions?  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  03:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Crash test info are fine, but for this case think it's too large and all over the place. I would suggest to keep this table only if the car is predominantly marketed in ASEAN and probably nowhere else. We don't need to know whether the Camry gained five stars in ASEAN NCAP especially since it probably had passed NHTSA crash tests with flying colors. I would say the ASEAN NCAP probably is one of the crash test with the lowest standard (or, the most 'forgiving') in the world. Andra Febrian (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that for a vehicle sold in both N.America and Asia, the US NCAP is worthy and the ASEAN NCAP is not worthy?  Stepho  talk 22:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not my point, rather ASEAN NCAP tables would be more fitting in Southeast Asia-specific car articles. Both standards are completely valid and worthy, but we don't need to be reminded a detailed ASEAN NCAP scores when the car is mostly sold somewhere else as it would be quite distracting. And yes, my point being 5 stars in ASEAN NCAP is easily obtainable still stands. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your point is not quite clear. If a car is sold in both N.America and Asia, then are we allowed to show both NCAPS or only one?  Stepho  talk 10:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz GLB-Class edit proposal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mercedes-Benz_GLB-Class#Article%2Fimage_proposal

Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Made the talk page discussion less confusing, please read when you can. --Vauxford (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Darracq disappearance
Why would it be that readers suddenly stopped looking at these pages in mid-June 2020? I realise its probably because the scales fell from their eyes and they found a better place to go but how do I find that better place so I can go there too? Eddaido (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alexandre Darracq:
 * Darracq Motor Engineering Company

Recalls and service bulletins
To what degree should Wikipedia cover recalls and service bulletins? My query is prompted by this edit adding a TSB regarding an issue that dealers are instructed to check and fix on vehicles that have not yet been sold.

Since the aforementioned example is a pre-sale concern that no customer will see I don't see how it's even remotely noteworthy and it should definitely be removed. However, I don't think this has been discussed in the past so it may be helpful to decide where to draw the line. Service bulletins are a common occurrence for any production vehicle and documenting them all would be impossible, so unless something is extraordinarily notable, I don't think any should be included.

What about recalls? I would question the value of including them unless they receive lasting coverage outside of automotive trade media. Wikipedia isn't a place to look up recalls on your own car, and with exceptions for severe cases (the 2009-11 Toyota vehicle recalls being one of the most significant examples) none of them have lasting notability. And without any significant coverage, all a Wikipedia article could do is list the recalls out, which would approach being an indiscriminate collection of information. --Sable232 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Or to put it another way, does anybody care about service bulletins and recalls from 20 years ago? Everything we add today has to be thought of from the viewpoint of who cares about it years in the future. It would have to be a big ticket item for anybody to care, probably involving class action lawsuits, wide-spread mass media coverage, etc or something which effectively killed sales of the vehicle.  Stepho  talk 01:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Almost never should be included. A specific recall with no other context should never be included.  Most notable recalls will be notable for something other than the recall itself.  For example the recall of the Ford cruise control parts that caused fires or the GM ignition switch recall.  Another example would be the first year Focus recalls.  They were notable because there were so many, not because any particular recall was worth including.  That edit should be reverted.  Springee (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Chevrolet Corvette owners
List of Chevrolet Corvette owners has been nominated for deletion. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Article Assessments department, updated
Greetings, For WP Automobiles assessment, I added progression, pie graph, rainbow. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Fraud?
In Commons there is a set of photos claiming to be of an Aston Martin DB1. Somewhere else it is said to be a 1953 Aston Martin replica built for a Paul Jackman. Elsewhere it is said to be the car that won a then famous race at Spa in Belgium in 1948. Google says its for sale and vouches for its authenticity as stated in Wikipedia Commons :))

Is there any truth at all in this or is it just an enterprising fraud?

On the left is the real DB1 and here is a link to a picture of the Spa car It can't stay categorised the way it is now but how should it be categorised?

Does anyone have any verifiable information about this particular "Paul Jackman replica" car? Eddaido (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly it isn't the Spa winning car... initially I thought it might have been the DB1/2L delivered without a body but from this article it looks like it's a bitsa car built by Aston Martin engineer Paul Jackman, and was supposedly at one point wrongly believed to be a DB1. A7V2 (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The silver car certainly looks like a stock DB1. The green car is a replica of the special prototype 1953 Aston Martin DB1 2-Litre Sports.


 * See https://www.supercars.net/blog/1953-aston-martin-db1-2-litre-sports-paul-jackman-special/  Stepho  talk 10:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The Supercars story is unattributed. Eddaido (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reports on the Aston Martin stand on different days of the October 1953 Motor Show are about the new DB2-4. There is no mention of any small car. Eddaido (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, looks I should have checked further. It looks very little like the real Aston Martin 2-Litre Sports. And the supercar article says "Story by Wikipedia", so we can't use it as a reference anyway. It does look a bit like a (replica?) AC Ace around the middle and rear but I can't say that for sure.  Stepho  talk


 * - you don't think it's the same car as in the article I put above ? A7V2 (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it is the same car as the one at Goodwood, the "Sigma" special. Looking at this link, it appears to be number 17 of the 16 cars built.  but is clearly a very different animal to 'The Spa Replica' This link provides a chassis and engine number presumably given at the time of it's sale in 2010, so it's a rebodied DB1 that may or may not be fitted with the Spa engine. but I can't find anything online before 2010. . Mighty Antar (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , it certainly looks like the car in your link. At the risk of making a fool of myself again, it appears to be a bitsa made back in the day. Not truly an Aston Martin but using some bits of the famous racer - among bits from other marques such as a BMW chassis. So I'd classify it as a private built special.  Stepho  talk 23:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks people. I have created a category for Aston Martin replicas and put it there. I have also added a note to the file. You can see what I've done here. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Tesla founders
The founders of Tesla is under discussion but at a stalemate. Input from other editors is welcome. See Talk:Tesla, Inc..  Stepho  talk 23:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Speculation in PSA EMP1 platform
I remove speculation about future model in PSA EMP1 platform because Current FCA Model aren t based on french CMP/EMP platform and a user insert speculation like a blog with model of car that cant exist! See this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PSA_EMP1_platform&oldid=977679484 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.147.251.157 (talk • contribs)


 * WP deals in facts, not speculation. We try to avoid future models. We make some exceptions if the manufacturer has made press releases for the near future but, even then, mark them as planned models, not actual models. Even under the best of conditions, manufacturers often change their mind at the last minute. Magazine and fan speculations are definitely ruled out.  Stepho  talk 22:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeep Grand Cherokee (WK2) needs attention
I tagged the Jeep Grand Cherokee (WK2) article for neutrality and being written like an advertisement, I noticed that it contains a lot of poorly written, hyperbolic content, some of which seems straight out of a sales brochure. I have done some fixes but the article is going to need greater attention. Reattacollector (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Having just looked, I agree. That's approaching the Honda Ridgeline levels of hype/fluff.  Springee (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking a quick glance, I'd at least suggest the Trims section get cut in half (doesn't need to be a complete list of features), and the 2018 section converted from a complete list of features into a paragraph. --Vossanova o&lt; 18:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

McLaren 720S
Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:McLaren_720S#Infobox --Vauxford (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance and Opinions re: "Street-Legal"
This has come up several dozens of times on Talk:List_of_Nürburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times and I think there is a lot of confusion as to the difference between "street-legal" (i.e. able to be licensed for use on the road) and "homologated for road use" (i.e. produced according to a country's requirements for new vehicles and meeting relevant safety/emissions standards). Currently at least these pages address the topic, Street-legal_vehicle, Homologation_(motorsport), Roadworthiness, Type_approval, Motor_vehicle_type_approval, and Vehicle_regulation, some of which are specific to the EU. I'd like to collaborate with others to create a page that identifies some of the differences between the two classifications and better clarifies what it means for a manufacturer to produce a new car that is homologated for road use, rather than a car that simply meets the specific local requirements (which vary wildly) to be operated on the street. Speaking strictly anecdotally, there are various interpretations of "illegality" of a vehicle that range from: modifications to emissions systems that would either not meet gov't requirements for new car sales or local requirements for emissions testing; modifications that have been banned for all vehicles (e.g. window tint); modifications that don't meet gov't standards (non-DOT approved racing harnesses); etc that depend on who made them and in what context to determine whether a car is "street-legal". Because the term is so loosely used I haven't been able to readily find good sources for this, but based on the Street-legal_vehicle and Roadworthiness articles some expansion is clearly needed. I'd like to make this as world friendly as possible not specific to one country to the extent that vehicle manufacturers are required to meet a higher standard than a kit or home-built car. I would also like to read other editor's opinions on the topic and how it could be best handled. IPBilly (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd say that it's rather difficult to have a single and uniform definition (and a single wikipedia article on this), because there are so many different regulations. In Germany for example, any vehicle can become road-legal, if it has passed a special inspection by a certified road-vehicle testing engineer. I suggest creating a disambiguation page that links to all articles on the subject that we have, so that we can still add very specific articles to this sort of "list". If, for example, anybody desires describing "Motor vehicle regulations in Hungary", he or she can still do so in the future without having to mess with an already existing article on a similar, but still different subject. The truth is that mostly native English speakers (especially from the US) are going to look up "road-legal things", and they won't be looking for regulations in countries other than the US. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, it's appreciated. I amended my statement above, but to clarify, I'm not suggesting a compilation of what qualifies as street-legal on a country-by-country basis, the opposite in fact. It sounds like Germany is similar to the US (subject to state-by-state variations), where more or less any "thing-with-wheels" can become street-legal if it meets certain and often minimal criteria and has been inspected by a police officer. I think that Street-legal_vehicle misses the distinction between this level of street-legal and manufacturer homologation entirely. It its present state the article very nearly warrants deletion based on its lack of any specificity, general accuracy, or useful sources. I think another (or better titled and more comprehensive) article provides a jumping off point for somebody that who wants to describe motor vehicle regulations in a specific country can use to bolster their discussion. It would clarify how, for example, a car that's had its airbags removed by individual can be "street-legal", but that same car cannot be sold by the original manufacturer as "street-legal". I think (but am not certain) these distinctions exist in many places around the world, so would like to broadly capture a reasonable number. IPBilly (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It turns out this page exists under the title Production_vehicle. It, as expected needs some work. Any additional feedback is welcomed. IPBilly (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Having been involved in settling on a definition of eligible vehicles for Production car speed record the definition of the term Production vehicle proved a real nightmare. The speed record talk page has pages of discussion before a concensus was reached. As a starting point, I would see if the Nürburgring - Nordschleife circuit apply any rules - with any luck FIA ones.


 * The term street legal, will suffer from the same lack of a widely accepted definition as Production vehicle does. Good luck. NealeFamily (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * which is why I'm suggesting to have a page on each common definition rather than having a single page on "all" definitions, because such a page would very likely suffer from a bias towards one very common definiton, and it would also very likely omit another. Best regards, -- Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 02:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Johannes I agree with your suggestion regarding street legal - it makes sense to have an overall description as there is now, but have a list of links to various countries. NealeFamily (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Having separate pages makes it hard for the reader to contrast one definition with another. Even if there are separate pages, there should also be a common page to contrast them against each other.  Stepho  talk 23:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering the quantity of definitions, that is impossible. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 02:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The other difficulty would be the scope for the comparison - just looking at my own country, you have a wide variety of requirements to consider before a vehicle would be considered street legal along with a set of exceptions in particular circumstances, such as age of manufacture. And you also have ongoing changes to those regulations bought about by new technologies such as self drive vehicles, etc, etc. NealeFamily (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Outside opinions needed at List of fastest production cars by acceleration
The discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration#Giving_Priority_for_Decimal_numbers is stuck and outside opinions are needed. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Page
Hello, I am trying to edit and move the title of the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week page. When I looked into doing so, I was informed this article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. I work for Mercedes-Benz Fashion which owns Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week, and we are looking to create our own Wikipedia page. This can take over 3 months for review and so we would like to edit the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week page instead. Can you please let me know the steps for doing so? Thank you! :) EmmasmallwoodKO (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for politely introducing yourself instead of just jumping straight in - much appreciated. Naturally your goals are to promote your company. However, you goals may conflict with the goals of Wikipedia - which are more about showing an appropriate level of truth (both positive and negative) and with less PR spin. These details are covered in detail at WP:CONFLICT.
 * Now that you have let the project know that you are here, it is more appropriate to go into the details on the talk page of the article itself. Go to Talk:Mercedes-Benz_Fashion_Week and click on the "Add topic" button near the top. The gist is to let other editors know what you would like changed and to provide facts to back it up. Note, facts should have references in the form of links to press releases or, preferably, links to third party news or magazine websites covering the event.
 * Note that we are volunteers. We may be slow at updating if we feel we are being used as free labour. We also tend to follow our own topics of interest, so your requests might also be ignored simply because no one was interested in the topic at that moment. For instance, I tend to edit articles mainly about older Toyota vehicles, so I am unlikely to contribute much more to an MB article. Such is life among volunteers.  Stepho  talk 13:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Gross weight rating articles

 * Gross axle weight rating
 * Gross combined weight rating
 * Gross trailer weight rating

These three articles are all stubs, and the latter two especially have little content. I'm not sure there is much opportunity to expand them so I'm considering merging them, but I'd like some input.

Merging all three to Gross vehicle weight rating is the most obvious option, but does anyone have other suggestions? --Sable232 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely be bold and merge away. I’d go further and also merge in short the short curb weight because each requires explaining its counterpart, not unlike flammability and inflammability. Cover dry weight and wet weight there too: call it Vehicle weight. Truck scale should probably be upmerged into the broader topic of vehicle scales and how we weigh vehicles, who weighs them and why. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. Thinking on it, I believe the average reader would be well-served by having all of that information in a single article. --Sable232 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Article need rename
Hi, te name of this chinese vehicle is incorrect, can we rename this article:


 * Fengguang ix5 > Dongfeng Fengon ix5 (correct name, Fengon is the sub-brand)
 * DFSK Fengon ix7 > Dongfeng Fengon ix7 (same reason)
 * Refine S4 > JAC Refine S4 (JAC is the carmaker, Refine isnt a carmaker)
 * DFSK (Sokon) > DFSK Motor (correct name according to official site)
 * Exeed TX > Chery Exeed TX (Exeed isnt a carmaker but only the name of a upscale line of Chery product)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.183.97.193 (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it is clear that your suggestion is based on the Chinese vehicle product labeling system of Manufacturer-Brand-Name which often causes confusion to the public. However, the manufacturer that produces the vehicles could always change at some point, see JAC-NIO, Dongfeng Yueda Kia-HiPhi, and the recent Chery-Qoros changing to Baoneng-Qoros. The actual developer and distributor is often still the brand itself. Fengon (Fengguang) is definitely a brand under Dongfeng just like all the other brands including Venucia (Qichen), Aeolus (Fengshen), Forthing (Fengxing), and DFSK. The only problem is that they wear the same badge. Refine is in more of an awkward position right now as it is not clear whether Refine is only a series or an actual brand while JAC just badged one of the Refine vehicles with an actual Refine badge recently. Exeed on the other hand is undoubtedly a brand owned and created by Chery, same idea with Lexus being owned by Toyota, Infiniti by Nissan, and Acura by Honda. The following are the more appropriate ones: Thanks
 * Fengguang ix5 > Fengon ix5 (updated brand name)
 * DFSK Fengon ix7 > Fengon ix7 (same reason)
 * DFSK (Sokon) > DFSK Motor (correct name according to official site)

BMW 5 Series talkpage
Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. Talk:BMW 5 Series (G30) --Vauxford (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Audi e-tron & Audi A3 8Y
Image proposal for the article. Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. Talk:Audi_e-tron_(2018) & Talk:Audi_A3 --Vauxford (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dan Ammann
Hi! Sharing in case this is of interest to anyone here: a draft article about Dan Ammann, CEO of Cruise, is currently under review in the AfC queue. I have a COI here – Cruise is a client of my employer. Happy to answer any questions, and appreciate any feedback. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Cruise (autonomous vehicle)
Hi! COI editor for Cruise here again. I've posted some edit requests to the talk page for that article. If anyone here has time to take a look, I'd appreciate it! Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Quick question regarding body styles
Quick question, if a vehicle got a regular rear hatch (be it a hatchback or SUV), should its door be included in the "body_style" parameter (e.g. as "3- or 5-door hatchback/SUV") or not ("2- or 4-door hatchback/SUV")? I see some inconsistencies between the Jeep Compass article and most other SUVs articles. Should the officially-named Mini 5-door be counted as "4-door hatchback" as well? As far as I see, there are no established conventions for this matter. 182.30.143.27 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * says that wagons, liftbacks, etc count the rear hatch as a door (ie 3-door, 5-door vehicles). This traces back to a discussion from 2008 (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 18). In general, if it's not mentioned in WP:AUTOCONV then it is mentioned in .  Stepho  talk 04:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Most American websites that I saw (e.g. IIHS) listed all 3/5-door vehicles as a 2/4-door. The Veloster is even classified as a 2-door vehicle by IIHS. Things are getting more confusing I guess. Should a reputable source override all conventions? 182.30.143.27 (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * By "all conventions" I take it you mean US conventions. European manufacturers often use 3-door and 5-door. But neither side is particularly consistent. The original discussion from 2008 mentioned that there was no universal convention, that the manufacturers and media were very inconsistent, that neither format was better than the other but that inconsistency within Wikipedia was confusing. So we metaphorically tossed a coin and now most articles are consistent.  Stepho  talk 06:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that the Infobox guidelines are inconsistent with the way the typical body styles are marketed, commonly described by automotive journalists, categorized by used car valuation guides, and also registered by jurisdictions in the United States. That is why I provided three references for the Jeep Compass article that describe this vehicle as having 4 passenger doors. Organizations like the IIHS describe SUV models with rear cargo access as having 4 doors. In other words, the cargo area hatchback is not considered by them as a door to add up for a total of "5-door" classification. This is also true in the official description on the car's US state registration and title (ownership) certificates. Contributor Andra Febrian mentioned that "9999 other SUVs and hatchbacks, which are labeled as a 5-door" in WP. However, I have yet to see a Jeep Cherokee XJ, Zj, etc. to be registered as a 5-door vehicle. Another example is the Jeep Wrangler that is only available in two- or 4-door body styles - it is never described as a 3- or 5-door model even with its rear cargo area hatchback. Furthermore, the early minivans typically had two front passenger entry doors, a rear hatchback for cargo, and then only one sliding door on the side for rear-seat row(s) passenger entry. Using the current "European" description, that would make them "4-door" versions. Such a classification is confusing when compared to modern minivans that have four passenger doors on the sides and a rear hatch for cargo. Moreover, some vans were available with double swing-opening passenger doors on the sides (instead of sliding doors) for rear-row passengers. Taken together with their front driver and passenger doors and their rear cargo space hatch, then would these be counted as 7-door vehicles? Interestingly, there is no consistency as to the door numbering even within a WP article. An example is the Mini Clubman (2007) that is described in one infobox as a 5-door and in the second infobox as a 6-door body style ... even though the basic design is the same in both generations. In the Clubman case, the vehicles have four passenger-entry doors and then feature two side-opening rear cargo doors. Perhaps this is the "flip-of-the-coin" approach to describing the number of "doors" on a vehicle. On the other hand, the Saturn Ion is correctly described as available as conventionally hinged "4-door sedan" or as a "4-door quad coupe" since the "coupe" model featured half-sized rear clamshell-type doors on both sides. The Ion coupe's hatchback opening for the rear cargo area is NOT counted as a door! Some automotive publications now provide a distinction between doors that are used for passengers and other openings for cargo access that may be variously described by manufacturers as a hatchback, liftback, sportback, tailgate, door, etc. in their marketing materials. Calling everything a "door" is not very helpful. I think for purposes of an authoritative encyclopedia, the number of doors should be counted as those that are primarily for passenger use and then have the infobox provide the description of any additional cargo access openings. I believe that most people would logically consider using doors for passenger use and then have information about anything else for cargo access. Perhaps it is shorthand to add the number of all openings as "doors" on a car's design, but that is not informative. Most hatchback openings are not designed for passenger entry and exit. Moreover, simply stating that "thousands" of WP articles have infoboxes with 5-doors for SUV models is not very informative for readers. Cheers, CZmarlin (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, the Saturn Ion "coupe" has a rear hatch? I never noticed; mainly because I do my best to avert my eyes from most Spring Hill products. I feel like this ought to be made much more clear in the article, although I agree that calling it a "five-door quad coupe" would look really odd.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There are different definitions in several different markets. For instance, in German-speaking countries, any openable piece of bodywork is considered a single(!) door, no matter how it's hinged, or how many actual "pieces of door" there may be. So, for example, both the VW Caddy 9K and Smart W 450 are three-door vehicles. However, I am convinced that, in other parts of the world, things are different – so we'd have to find a consensus about what to consider a door. There is no "only option" here. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yep, as I mentioned, different markets do it differently. If we follow the US then we are inconsistent compared to much of the European market. If we do it consistently with the European market then we are inconsistent with the US market. Every argument saying that the US calls them 4-door can be countered by an argument that European manufacturers call them 5-door and vice-versa. The real world is inconsistent, therefore there is no way that WP can be consistent with the real world. So we just choose a way to be consistent within WP.  Stepho  talk 21:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We should follow what reliable sources use. If they are inconsistent for different cars (eg from different countries) that may be unfortunate, but there is no policy based reason for consistency between Wikipedia articles, especially not in violation of WP:OR. A7V2 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem with that approach is that there will be different reliable sources saying different things about the same vehicle – American sources may consider the Mini Clubman a six-door vehicle, whereas German sources call it a five-door vehicle. This can be expressed in prose, but not in infoboxes. Many readers (and bots) typically only read the infoboxes, so we need to decide which system to use. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a classic example of the different starting point for people who grew up in rules-based rules-acccepting societies - Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland Scandinavia, Italy(?...some bits of it, anyhow...) - and people who grew up in societies where rules are seen as things to be minimized and/or avoided/ignored - especially England, but also to a considerable extent any country where recent (or not) experience of being colonised is still a powerful component in the national consciousness - USA, Australia, India, Belgium.  I was born in England, and though I lived many years in the Netherlands and Germany, I never completely got used to the idea that rules - almost any rules- are a good thing by definition.


 * In the case of the English language, versions of which are used by different countries all round the world either as a first language (England, USA, Australia) or else as a standard second language for use between groups who are not so comfortable communicating in their respective first languages (India, much of Europe and Africa and, and ....) there is sometimes - often, even - a strong wiki-case for NOT trying to impose one-size fits all solutions for counting the number of doors on a Mini Clubman.  (And are you thinking of a Mni Clubman from 1971 or a Mini Clubman from 2021?)   But if you have been driven by your standardisation gene into a corner where you have to arbitrate, then I suppose you have to choose the usage accepted by the country where the article in question is likely to have the largest number of readers.   For the Mini Clubman, I would suspect that's still the (semi-)United Kingdom: here I think that I for one would leave the relevant infobox field blank.


 * Be well.  Charles01 (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As long as we don't have some sort of "rule", people will write whatever they think fits best, and we will end up with articles that list different numbers of doors for the same vehicle (if this wasn't a problem, we would not be discussing the matter here). Not telling the the reader about the number of doors is hard to justify, isn't it? And guessing where the readers are, and how they like the article to be is not feasible – articles should easily be understood by anyone (at least anybody able to decipher English words…). Be well and stay healthy! --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If what is said in infoboxes, leads etc are the issue, can we not just recognise that reliable sources disagree on this and list both numbers, giving citations to where its coming from? A7V2 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But how would we do that? As I have mentioned above, prose allows explaining that. However, infoboxes are short and concise. I personally don't have any preference, and, if things are as described by Charles, maybe we don't need a strict rule? I have not spent much of my childhood in England, and it has been a while, so I can only speak for somebody who was raised in a rules-based rules-accepting society, where lack of precisely defined, obeyable rules causes agonal respiration symptoms. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW I vote 3/5 door as nearly the entire world does use this and there has already been a discussion (or two) on the topic. However, if a bunch of editors prefer calling the Jeep Cherokee a "four-door", then that is not a hill I'm particularly willing to die on. Also, it does feel weird to call split tailgates "doors."  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Japanese design rules
Does anybody know of the Japanese equivalent to Australian Design Rules (ie laws that every car registered in Japan must obey)? Doesn't matter which language.  Stepho  talk 23:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * JASIC i think is the umbrella organisation. Greglocock (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I should have asked that I am looking for information from the 1970s. JASIC started in 1987 but it's a good place to start.  Stepho  talk 03:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Vauxford
People may have thoughts to share about this. Regards Charles01 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, been on holiday. Eddaido (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce
A new article on W. A. Robotham, involved in Rolls-Royce cars and with the Rolls-Royce Meteor tank engine. Date of death not known as no obituary or death notice found in the British newspapers I can access. Is he in the book "Hives’ Turbulent Barons": ? Probably born 26 November 1899, and died in 1980, but there is another William Arthur Robotham born 24 June 1902. Hugo999 (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A fascinating read. Bit worrying that it relies on a single source. Sadly, I have nothing to contribute.  Stepho  talk 12:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Automotive industry rankings table
Greetings. I'll propose a change to the automotive industry article. I know, this should be there, but that article doesn't get a lot of antention. My proposal is to either remove or compliment the ranking of top manufacturer by production volume by adding a list of car manufacturers by sales volume. In any case, the OICA list in the article generates a lot of IP editing against it, mostly from Western editors that try to "fix" it to match the sales list published by the media. Another advantage of listing by sales is that they're published by all car manufacturers (at least the bigger, publicly-traded ones), while production numbers aren't reported by the American and some European ones. A third point in favour of using sales is that those rankings are updated and easy to find, while OICA doesn't update its production ranking list for years now. Major changes have been ocurring in the industry, and we'll soon have a new major player, so trying to continue with a patched list is no longer viable, and it'll be worser and worser with every passing year.

Of course, I also see various disadvantages on using sales rankings:

a) Most of the lists are just media outlets taking regulated info published by the publicly-listed manufacturers, without any fact-checking, and using it to create their rankings. We can mitigate the problem by clarifying it's the list "according to X".

b) Most of the car manufacturers include sales of any minor company of which they have more than a token shareholding (GM being the worst offender, but all of them do it at some level).

c) The lists include, in some cases, strategic alliances as Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi and ignore others like the ones of Toyota with Subaru, Suzuki, and Mazda. It is what it is.

Another option is to replace the production list with a list by revenue, like this.

So, in brief, I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it's the only one I can think of, at least if we'll continue adding rankings. Thoughts? --Urbanoc (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The main problem is to do with consistency. b) and c) are basically the same problem. Some lists choose to include figures for subsidiaries/alliances and others don't - making them useless for comparing. OICA was a great leveller but, as you say, they no longer publish the latest rankings. We could choose one of the big magazines - and hope that they update the list yearly and do it consistently (not always a given). We also need to beware of the magazines trying to bias it towards companies from their own country. Eg, they might do up a list based on including subsidiaries and another based on the badge that goes on the car. Whichever makes their own country's manufacturers look better is the one they publish. After all, a list that makes the local guys look better is likely to sell more copies. Without an unbiased body like OICA, it becomes a hard problem.  Stepho  talk 23:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yep, you're absolutely correct on your comments. I wasn't just WP:BOLD and updated the article because I anticipated it'd be problematic, and you gave more reasons to confirm my decision was right. As you say, the OICA was good because it clearly hadn't an agenda, and other bias-free, relatively clear-cut criteria sources probably don't exist.  I'll continue researching the subject and see if I can find something. I won't make any changes before reporting them here and make sure there is a consensus. Maybe someone comments on alternative valid sources or presents an alternative solution in the meantime. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If there is no opposition, I'll go ahead and add a revenues ranking to complement the OICA one because, as I feared, people is already "fixing" it. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Now that Stellantis is now a thing, what we're going to do with this listing? 20chances (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If there is no opposition in the next few days, my plan is to do the following:


 * 1) Clarifying the list under the sub-section "By manufacturer" is outdated (as OICA dropped it, it will be kept that way for a long time...).


 * 2) Adding an "Other rankings" section to include other up-to-date metrics. After much thought on it, I dropped the idea of using either sales or revenue rankings and I went for market cap. While market cap isn't a perfect metric, it says a lot on how much potential the different car manufacturers are perceived to have at any given time and, as it is regulated by market forces/speculation, it doesn't openly spin a narrative. Another advantage is that it constantly changes, so we don't get stuck with lists mentioning defunct players. See here how it'll look. Other editors may add different rankings if they want.


 * 3) Removing the "Top vehicle manufacturing groups by volume" section. It just repeats the OICA ranking while adding original research and information that has no place in an overview article. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's quite a shift. The old way was based on the number of vehicles sold. The new way is based on profitability. I guess that allows small volume, high cost companies (eg Rolls-Royce) to be compared to high volume, economy car companies (eg Hyundai). I'm not against it but I'll let it rattle around in my head for a while before I comment further.
 * I do agree that while OICA used to be perfect for our needs, it no longer is.  Stepho  talk 00:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I admit it isn't perfect but, as OICA's is increasingly outdated, I felt searching for alternatives is at least a good excersise. To clarify, my plan is to name the new section as "Other rankings" to let editors expand it, so the market cap ranking wouldn't be the only one allowed. Maybe some editors disagree and think sales volume and/or revenue are better for ranking manufacturers, maybe they prefer to use the "Fortune 500" revenue ranking and think it's better, as it's from a reputable publication. The idea is people can add wathever ranking they like if it's sourced, not imposing an official one.


 * If you have any reasons to disagree with the proposal, just let me know. As I promised, I won't introduce changes if there isn't a consensus to do so. --Urbanoc (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, in the next few hours I'll proceed to make the changes (points 1, 2, and 3 above) I announced. Some outside Wikipedia have pointed me out the market cap has some pitfalls, as recent events have proven. However, I still think that, as I said, it at least is updated regularly and combines the consensus of multiple entities, while sales and revenues are based on info reported by just the. There's no perfect, equivalent solution to replace OICA as I see it. So, I would add the ranking, and sales and revenues rankings may also be added by other editors that prefer them. If no-one does it, I'll do it myself as soon as I get updated rankings (i.e. including Stellantis). --Urbanoc (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Icon for your user page
I've created. Add it anywhere on your user page to put an automobile icon at the top of your user page, signifying that you are part of this project.  Stepho  talk 05:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Fiat Panda infobox
Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It would be useful if you gave us a short summary or some other clue about what the dispute is about. In this case, it's yet another dust-up about images.  Stepho  talk 21:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Honda Civic update
Hi, is adding this information to the main Honda Civic article - I assume this belongs on the 10th gen article and I'm also not entirely sure how this can be incorporated so posting here for further discussion and or help, Thanks  – Davey 2010 Talk 23:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi I believe this information is relevant for that article as it provides updated info on the vehicle, which further improves the quality of the article. Though this part I added is specifically about the european lineup because I'm European so that's the information I can easily find sources for. This info is all backed up by news articles and Honda Websites. – Cláudio T. 2003 Talk 15:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That level of detail is UNDUE for the primary Civic article. It's probably DUE in the sub-article on that generation Civic.  Springee (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agreeing with Springee. That article has a 1 paragraph summary of each generation and then suddenly a ton of technical detail for 2020. Very much out of place there but it would be perfectly at home on the eleventh generation page. The eleventh page doesn't seem to exist yet, so create that page and shift that info from the summary page to the new eleventh generation page.
 * Secondly, there is confusion over what years are being used. The 2020 European release is what Americans call the 2021 model year (which for them is the production period that includes 1 January 2021 and usually covers late 2020 to late 2021). Therefore, the information placed in the 'Updated 2020 model (Europe)' section belongs where the technical details of the eleventh generation go. According to WP:MODELYEARS, all the generation section titles should be renamed according to internationally understood calendar years instead of US specific model years.  Stepho  talk 22:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The information might be too specific for this article but it definitely does not belong on the eleventh generation section since it's not about that generation. It's about an updated version of the tenth generation Civic that came out in 2020. I seen no confusion since I didn't use model years and it's alll in an European context. – Cláudio T. 2003 Talk 2:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, it looks like I made mistake. A casual reading looked like the eleventh generation was already in production but it is only a prototype that was revealed. Please disregard my previous comments about the eleventh generation. The detailed information therefore belongs in the detailed tenth generation.  Stepho  talk  06:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Guess I could add this info to the main tenth generation article right? As long as I'm not repeating any information already in the article of course. – Cláudio T. 2003 Talk 18:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Correct.  Stepho  talk 20:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to say thank you Stepho-wrs and Springee for your help here, It really is greatly appreciated. Apologies for sort of dumping this here but admittedly I didn't really know the best way of dealing with this and thought it would be best to leave the issue with those more knowledgeable/competent in this area so again thank you for your help it's greatly appreciated, Take care, – Davey 2010 Talk 22:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem, glad to help.  Stepho  talk 10:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Mazda MX-30
Talkpage discussion on the Mazda MX-30. Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Just a thought. If you drive on the same side of the road as those around you you'll have fewer head-on collisions. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you guys give us a clue what the discussion is about instead of making us go there ourselves and only then find out it's something we necessarily don't care about. In this case it's yet another image discussion.  Stepho  talk 22:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Basically some person from the German Wikipedia disputed a photograph I taken of a Mazda MX-30 over his because I thought it was an improvement. Sorry for the barrage of talkpage discussions but I much rather not have another topic ban on my back. --Vauxford (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I recommend that you stop trying to replace perfectly good pictures. Look, unless your picture is undisputably an improvement over what is already there, leave things alone. If you take a photo that has a better angle but more shadows, leave it be. It is never worth anyone's time to argue between two perfectly servicable images.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Constant usage of industry jargon
A large number of car related articles on Wikipedia are written in a manner which is not really appropriate for a general encyclopaedia. A car may most commonly be referred to as a "multi purpose vehicle" in sources, but that isn't a good guide as to how to describe it if all of those sources are written by and for people involved or interested in the motor industry. Most people don't know what a "multi purpose vehicle" is; it's far more helpful to say it's "a seven-seater car" or something which is actually descriptive in WP:PLAINENGLISH. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If a term is unclear, it should be wikilinked. Multi purpose vehicle is not particularly obscure jargon, rather it's a regionalism. It also does not translate directly to seven-seater car, which is why the link is there - the correct definition is much too long to use comfortably in the article. I agree that we all ought to avoid using jargon when possible, but writing swage line or F-head (with Wikilinks) is the most respectful way I can think of to communicate such information.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The phrase "multi purpose vehicle" is self-explanatory, even for people who never heard it before. It is also hard to replace. You're proposing to change it to "a seven-seater car", but not all MPVs are seven-seater, could have been somewhere between 5-12, could be two, three, or four rows. Seven-seater cars might not be an MPV, it could have been an SUV, for example. There are many other jargons that needs to be avoided, but in my opinion, "multi purpose vehicle" is not one of them. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Industry jargon changes from country to country, from year to year and, even more starkly, from decade to decade, generation to generation, century to century.  And sources come from many ages and places.   That's not just the case with the "auto industry"   (urgh ... and ... sorry!).  It's the case with the way we use our own - and other folks' - languages across the piece.   When I hear the kids on the telephone or see their messages, there are some very odd usages.   And you should see what they say about me.   If "mpv" get your goat, then feel free to go through the articles using it with insufficient context-based clarity as to intended meaning, and link it here or here or here.   (Or use a better link if, applying reasonable case by case insights, you are on an entry for which some "better link" would be more appropriate.   There may indeed be cases where "seven-seater car" fits the bill better, but not as a "one size fits all RULE" every time you hit on an mpv.)   And thank you, especially in the name of the people you will help with this slightly tedious but nonetheless helpful task, and  especially for non-native speakers of English who haven't had so much exposure to different versions of English as mother tongue speakers such as - and here I speculate - you.   But if your point is simply that we all use different versions of English differently, then .... um ... yes.   Thus wikipedia.   Thus language.   But presumably you spotted that already.


 * On the other hand, I do not agree that "multi purpose vehicle" is self-explanatory.  Which range of purposes is one intented to infer?   I have a pretty multi-purpose bicycle.   But it still doesn't take a passenger or a crate full of groceries ....


 * Be well. Charles01 (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * One must also not confuse industry jargon with terms used in a more scientific context. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that does not only describe things everybody already knows about. If, for instance, a transverse control arm (an important part of a vehicle's suspension system) is called a "Panhard rod", then we can use this term and describe it in its own article. Paraphrasing this would unnecessarily blow up articles. The same is true for "Multi-purpose vehicle": It literally means that a vehicle has multiple purposes – we don't necessarily have to describe all of these purposes; imagine I would describe what one could use an Unimog 416 (a multi-purpose vehicle) for; it would fill an entire section in that vehicle's (currently nonexisting) article. There's so many options: Tram tractor, motorhome, fire engine… Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There are, however, obscure marketing buzzwords which I suggest everyone to avoid in order to keep the text encyclopaedic. One of them is facelift. --Gwafton (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As with many auto-industry segments, there are no rules that guide how a vehicle should be classified; the designations are but one step removed from completely arbitrary. I once tried to define a sport utility vehicle (SUV) and a crossover utility vehicle (CUV) using objective criteria such as size, shared platform (car vs pickup), chassis type (unibody vs body-on-frame), drivetrain layout (longitudinal vs transverse), drivetrain variants (RWD based vs FWD based, part time 4wd vs full time 4wd, available low-range) etc. and found that no single rule could be used to classify something as one or the other. The industry has similarly decided that MPVs are vehicles that generally have certain characteristics and might otherwise fit into multiple segments. For example, the same MPVs may be sold in various configurations with 7 seats, 5 seats, or only 2 seats for use as a trade-van. While the name MPV, on its face, is not particularly helpful, it's equally unhelpful to group and describe vehicles based on only the number of seats that may or may not have been equipped on any particular variant. IPBilly (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I can see the issue the OP has. I'm honestly not thrilled with the use of the term "car" when we often mean "light passenger vehicle" or simply automobile.  A good practice might be to always define the term (ideally with a hyperlink if an article exists) the first time it's used in an article.  While I suspect most readers are familiar with an "SUV" and in North America the minivan, terms like "crossover", "MPV", "CUV" etc are likely less familiar to many readers.  Would it be helpful to have an automotive terms article so we could always link "MPV" to a standard definition (in cases where a primary article doesn't exist)? Springee (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Talbot Tagora Featured article review
I have nominated Talbot Tagora for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

B-segment
I'm proposing for my edits in the B-segment article to be restored. I started a discussion at Talk:B-segment. Any opinions and suggestions are welcome. Thanks. Andra Febrian (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Rename of 'Electric vehicle network' article
Hi all - I chickened out of being bold because I realised I hadn't notified any wider audiences. I'm planning on moving Electric vehicle network to Electric vehicle charging network for the reasons outlined at Talk:Electric vehicle network. Any input welcomed. -- Chuq (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)