Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 57

Deletion discussion for Ford Thames (car)
Hey guys!

I recently nominated this problematic article for deletion at Articles for deletion/Ford Thames (car).

Any insight would be welcome! Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was kept, but I'm not sure about the title of the article. Ford Thames is already used, Ford Thames (automobile) is deprecated due to an RFC we had some time back that says using car is better than automobile. Ford Thames (manufacturer) seems long and really, they didn't build them, Ford did.  Ford Thames is a brand, so I guess Ford Thames (brand) or Ford Thames (car brand) is ok, but it's not plussing me.  Or is it fine the way it is?  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think "automobile" is deprecated. The original RfC was poorly advertised and with just one or two more editors opposing it probably would have closed as NOCON.  The more recent one I think was also NOCON.  I think we really should reconsider this question in part because of cases like this.  While "car" is a well understood term, it is also well understood not to include trucks.  "Automobiles" can include trucks and thus is more universal.  It also would make sense in a case like this.  Even if the parent article stays Car, there isn't any reason why "automobile" can't be used as a disambiguation. Springee (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that "Thames" was the brand used by "Ford of Britain" (as it called itself at the time) for vans and trucks (aka, as it already indicates in the article "commercial vehicles"). I have no recollection of any passenger car ever having been branded as a "Thames", and googling does not identify any.   (Unless "car" carries different meanings in versions of English other than British and American English)   Though there was a Thames minibus based on the Thames 400E (a van) and a smaller "Thames" van - anachronistically called Ford Thames 300E in wikipedia - based on the Ford Anglia of the day.   And yes, the little van could be fitted with side windows and a bench seat at the back, but if that was how they delivered it from the factory it was rebranded as a Ford Squire or a Ford Escort.   Not a "Thames".   The concept of a Ford Thames (car) is something dreamt up by a wiki contributor (or someone from whom s/he copied it) many decades after the "Thames" brand was killed off.   No doubt well intentioned.   But confusing.  And for those interested in contemporary nomenclatures misleading.   And reassuringly, it already more or less explains all that in the wiki entry hiding under the misleading article title.   Not necessarily a good reason to delete the article.   But a more appropriate name is certainly called for.  Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Thames (lorry)" or "Thames (truck)"? With or without "Ford"? They sure aren't a "(car)". "(manufacturer)" wouldn't have "Thames", that would be Fordson or Ford without "Thames". They were only called "Fordson Thames" 1939-1952 (I think), I don't know if they were ever "Ford"s. I used the manufacturer's name in "Models" but that's probably wrong. Sammy D III (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As you imply, "Truck" and "Lorry" are worth avoiding because they launch us directly ito an unecessary pissing contest between North American English ("Truck") and British English ("Lorry") even if, among younger folks, "truck" seems to be becoming mainstream also in British English. So how about "Thames (commercial vehicles)" or "Ford Thames (commercial vehicles)"?   As for the choice betwen "Thames" and "Ford Thames", I agree they were never branded as "Ford Thames".   But in retrospect the term "Ford Thames" seems to have become widely used, I guess because it encourages people unfamiliar with British roads in the 1960s to know you're thinking of a road vehicle and not of a river running through London.   I think wikipedia guidelines tend to fall back on urging use of the term most likely to be in general use, but in this case that takes us right back to differences between different kinds of English.   I find it hard to be decisive on all this, but I think we all agree that "Ford Thames (car)" looks plain wrong.    So ... if only to progress the discussion, how about "Ford Thames (commercial vehicles)".   (Better ideas welcome!)  Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree. I think "(truck)" is clearest but I don't want to be US-centric (linguistically nationalist?). I just tagged this as Br English out of the blue, but it's on the TP so nobody will ever notice. "Ford Thames" looks commonname to me but, again, US POV. As you say, "(Better ideas welcome!)". Sammy D III (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What did the contemporary sources call them? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see "Ford" on any images. Sammy D III (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Q. What did the contemporary sources call them?
 * A. "Thames" - at least in Britain where they were manufactured and sold. Maybe they were sold in other parts of the British empire: but much of that was in the process of melting away at the time.   Closer to home, the European truck market was pretty fragmented, though - even more so than the European passenger car market.   French bought French trucks, Italians bought Italian trucks, Spanish bought Spanish trucks.   Germans bought German trucks, Dutch bought DAFs.   And Brits ..., but of course.  Much the same story with light vans.   So for contemporary sources, I guess Britain is the best place to keep digging.
 * Longer A. - There was something called a "Thames Trader".  I think that was a lorry version.   Today you'd say it was a small lorry / light truck, but lorries trucks got a lot bigger between 1970 and 2022 (even if the roads didn't get bigger at anything like the same rate).
 * How do I know?  I was there.   We lived, then, in England not too far from Dagenham (Essex ) which was the Ford of Britain main facility (though at some point - I think during the 1960s - the head office moved a few miles to the east to a place called Warley (Essex):  maybe managers didn't want to be distracted by the presence of a great big factory).  Contemporary sources?   I imagine googling would produce some service manuals from the period on some remote corner of ebay or somewhere equivalent.   There was a Brit magazine called "Commercial Motor" some bits of which might have found themselves online .... somehow.    But no, I'm afraid that there was no www back when the Thames van was being produced and marketed.  Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a quick Google Sammy D III (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "Ford" is wrong. They were always clearly marked "Thames". In 1962 brochures use "Ford Thames", maybe a marketing name transition before they killed off "Thames"? I looked for commonname and found a couple of long-dead ghosts but nothing real anymore (if ever). Sammy D III (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  And I think you have reluctantly accepted that using the American-English word "truck" when I'm pretty sure they would never have seen any reason to market the things in North America, could be construed - by those of a sensitive disposition - as linguistic imperialism.   And others who have triggerred and contributed to this discussion have not objected to my earlier suggestion.   And we all (seem to) agree that "Ford Thames (car)" is incorrect.   Therefore, I think we may have arrived at a consensus for Thames (commercial vehicles}.   Unless someone will disagree before you or I get around to implementing the name change for the page.   With warmish memories of the I-94.   (Yup, I just checked out your wiki-page.)  Be well. Charles01 (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yea, I think "T (cv)" looks good. I don't think that two is a consensus, though, especially if I am one of them. Just leave a little room (I doubt that anybody will object) before you do it? I have so overstepped here and just want to leave.
 * "linguistic imperialism". I love it. I glanced at your TP, she's taping my skull back together after the explosion. I thought you had to be Dutch to cover that many languages. Have a nice day/night/whatever you're in when you read this. Sammy D III (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't really participated earlier because I was busy with Lanz, but I think that "Thames (commercial vehicles)" is a reasonable article name. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no perfect answer here, they seem to be called different things by different sources. That said, I think "Thames (commercial vehicles)" is a reasonable compromise and the best of several confusing options.  I would suggest adding the usual list of alternative names in the lede, and maybe creating a couple of redirects for common terms, as well as putting a link in the disambig Ford Thames, likely as the lead link.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Knight XV
Hello again. I came across the article Knight XV and it caught my attention because the image looks very fake. I checked and it appears to be real, however I Don't think it's notable. I'd like to get another person's opinion on it before nominating it for deletion. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The Flickr page the image came from has comments which make it clear it is photoshopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, I could tell it was photoshopped. The image doesn't look remotely real (I have a bunch of reasons why but I"m not gonna detail). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks fake. Parent company isn't notable enough for an article, it is likely Knight XV isn't either.  I would support an AFD.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Geneva Motor Show
Was just moved to Geneva International Motor Show - that's gonna cause a lot of redirects, is there any policy on how car show articles are titled or is this an ok move?  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  22:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The old link Geneva Motor Show and even links like Geneva Motor Show should continue to work. Not a problem. WP:REDIRECT would be the closest policy.  Stepho  talk 00:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Rivian R1S
I see that Rivian R1S has no rating. It was created in June 2022. - - - -The Ultimate King Of Dogs- - - - (and doges) 22:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

New category idea
I had an idea where me and other users could sort cars by power output. For Example: Cars with less than 100 hp, Cars with 100-250 hp, and so on. But I cannot do this by myself. - - - -T e r g y t h e  u s e r- - - - (Talk to me) 11:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't really see the benefit of it. A single article covers multiple generations and models... for example the Renault Mégane ranges from 65 PS to 300 PS. How about units, hp is not the only power unit out there, there are also PS and kW. Then there's the question of who will execute it to every car articles. Andra Febrian (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ARBITRARYCAT. I don't think it's a good idea. --Vossanova o&lt; 14:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:DS 7 Crossback
There is an ongoing discussion about a page move at Talk:DS 7 Crossback. Please feel free to participate. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Lever arm shock absorber
I've started a discussion regarding vintage 1920s/30s De Ram shock absorbers at Talk:Lever arm shock absorber. Your comments and additional sources are welcome. Prova MO  (talk)  18:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Use of alleged "series" (VIN code) instead of generation in GM car articles
Take a look at Buick Century and Buick LeSabre as examples. An editor has gone through numerous GM car articles and replaced the "____ generation" infobox header with a usually-unsourced "Series ____" which in most cases appears to be a partial VIN code. It's been done to the lead infobox as well on articles like Cadillac Cimarron.

I think this would be supremely confusing to the average reader. I can recognize that "4H" is the third and fourth characters of the VIN in a 1981+ car, but most people wouldn't, and it's a duplication when multiple generations used the same platform code.

Furthermore, I have never seen this terminology applied to GM cars before. I can't verify the sources in the instances they're used, so if the cars really are referred to in this way it would seem to be esoteric - too much so to be encyclopedic.

I don't think these changes are at all helpful and would be inclined to revert them, but given the scope of the changes and other aspects of the situation, a discussion and consensus would be preferable. --Sable232 (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that you both reverted a couple of these. Do you have any input here? --Sable232 (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with you. It's common for enthusiasts to put model codes (whether part of a VIN or something internal) in the section titles or infoboxes for car generations.  Unfortunately, they often fail to consider two things.  First, context for the average reader who may be unfamiliar with these codes.  They should be mentioned in prose in the paragraph if they're going to be repeatedly used (e.g. The Something Somecar was given model code X1 during internal development.) Second, verifiability.  We need a source for these codes or otherwise we could assume you're making them up.  An enthusiast forum/site shouldn't be used as a source, either.
 * So, we don't have to stop the use of model codes altogether. But we need to make sure it's clear what they are and that other sources confirm they are notable enough to be used by the general public.
 * There is mention of generations vs. model codes vs. years at WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. We can look through that and decide if we want to change anything there. --Vossanova o&lt; 14:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As long as the code used is commonly known in the industry then I have no problem. Some companies use these codes a lot in parts manuals (eg BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota) while some do not (eg most US cars do not, Corvette C1/C2/... being a standout). My most recent beef was the confusion between the model code and the platform code. Three separate Chevy generations with the same "1J" model code is not right but those same three generations with same "1J" platform code is fine - although still requiring some unique name ("third generation", "Series II", etc) and/or code (XU30, S235, etc).
 * For a vehicle that is sold mostly in one market (like most US vehicles), it's fine to say first/second/third/etc generation because there is no confusion. Other cars in international markets had a staggered release across different markets, so that the home market called a particular model a second gen while other markets called it a first gen (ie, they never saw the true first gen). If in doubt, use both generations and codes.  Stepho  talk 01:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That's part of my logic - European automakers are far more likely to have a widely-disseminated code that's far more likely to be in common use. "Mercedes W123" or "BMW E30" for example are very common (probably in no small part due to the ease of use compared to the wide range of alphanumeric model names). For nearly all American cars, any such codes are esoteric trivia at best (a figment of a writer's imagination at worst), the Corvette being a notable exception. Possibly worth a mention somewhere if accurate, but not in the infobox header. --Sable232 (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I was given this link as it appears I'm being given an invitation to comment on this topic. My past dealings with the WikiProject Automobiles, being a long time contributor has been contentious due to a difference in opinion to the Central Committee for various topics over the years, but I'll wander out from behind the shadows and my American Automobile reference books and comment. Just this once.

General Motors (GM) has been using platforms, A, B, and C "body/platform" since the 1920s and has been identifying the vehicles sharing these platforms within the divisions with the terminology "Model", "Type" and then "Series" since the beginning. The 1926 Cadillac Series 314. The 1921 Buick Series 40. The 1924 Chevrolet Series F and so on. I've included citations to the published books where I found this information on dozens of articles, but probably not with the pinpoint accuracy to which sentence, paragraph and page I found it, but nonetheless, it's there for the curious. GM would sometimes change the series designation yearly, then when that became tedious and expensive, with platform updates as they deemed necessary, or not at all. It's up to them. GM had a famous habit of changing the appearance yearly just to "one-up" Henry Ford, then when Walter Chrysler left Buick and started his own company, Walt got into the yearly updates too. It's a long story, and the articles are there too.

Sometime after World War II, probably due to the concept car displays, GM and Detroit started giving their products names; Coupe deVille, Galaxie, New Yorker, but still used series designations. Oldsmobile stuck to series names until almost the end. The Oldsmobile Series 80 with a V8 engine, or Oldsmobile 88, for example. The Cadillac Series 60 and the Sixty Special. That this information is not currently known is one of the reasons we write these articles, or so I assumed, but I might be missing the point, I guess. Too esoteric.

My reference books document in 1977, when GM decided to downsize everything and switch to front wheel drive, they revamped their series designations with some refer to as a VIN designation, but every article shows the same identification, and also show they assigned body codes too. Chevrolet was at the bottom of the hierarchy, so they were "1" up to Buick which was "5", and for some reason Cadillac was "6", followed by which platform the car was built on, A,B,X,K,H. The "J-body" cars included. They changed the sheetmetal, because they can, but the series designation didn't change, because they didn't want to. Its up to them. I'm just adding what I'm finding in the books. I'll also show that Ford and Chrysler did the same thing at some point. Maybe.Regushee (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I did a web search on  and also on   . I didn't find anything that is suitable as a reliable source for Wikipedia - implying that "series 1J" and "series 2J" are not commonly use terms. Can you provide some online links? Eg, website, Google books, scans of books or anything that helps us to understand this. Unfortunately, paper copies are useless for most of us because we can't double check them from another country. If need be, you can send scans or camera pics of book pages to me and I will put them on my website for others to see. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  01:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I own some of these works and cannot find any direct quotes supporting these codes. It is a bit hard to check since Regushee cites pp. 43–134" of the work, eschewing citing actual pages. This looks to be a case of WP:SYNTHESIS; a merger of the Division and Platform into a designation which never existed.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * For Buick Regushee (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Online sources please (direct, not via multiple link hops with multiple choices where each choice may or may not lead us to the right place).
 * And single page numbers (or at least a small set of single page numbers) so that we don't have to spend an hour reading to find a single mention.
 * Also remember to indent your replies.  Stepho  talk 03:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been meaning to buy those two books for years (I already have all of the brand-specific books by Gunnell and Kowalke), so I just ordered them. Now all we need is the specific page numbers. Thanks.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

, any luck on finding some online references or making scans of paper references? Without these I have no way of confirming your view of things.  Stepho  talk 08:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, the books arrived and they do indeed refer to these series. I still believe it is made up by those editors as I have never seen it referenced anywhere else, and their formatting requires series numbers. However, it is cited and it is very hard to prove the nonexistence of something.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The question remains, are these "codes" worthwhile for inclusion? --Sable232 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, and I think they were mostly invented by Gunnell and Flammang - I don't remember seeing anyone else use them.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Steel Swallow
This article (stub?) appears to be part of this project, but lacks the project banner on the talk page 76.14.122.5 (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅  Stepho  talk 10:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Cars by country
In a market where cars of a single brand can be produced in multiple countries, it doesn't always seem appropriate to put a Category:Vehicles by brand category inside a Category:Cars by country category. For example, Category:Cars of the United States contains Category:Ford vehicles. Clearly, not every Ford vehicle is built in the United States. On the other hand, it does make sense that its subcategory Category:Ford Australia vehicles goes in Category:Cars of Australia. There's no ambiguity there. It also makes sense that Category:Car manufacturers of the United States contains Category:Ford Motor Company, because the company as a whole is based in the United States.

So, is it worth the effort to go through Cars by country and remove Vehicles by brand subcategories where the brand builds cars outside the country? In the example case above, the fix would be either to assign the Cars of the United States category to the individual Ford vehicle pages as appropriate, or, make a Ford vehicles of the United States subcategory, which may be a little more awkward than Ford Australia vehicles or Ford of Europe vehicles since we'd now have a full vehicles by brand and country category intersection. --Vossanova o&lt; 15:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say, in a global world this entire track of thinking has lost much of its meaning. I console myself with the fact that I never use the categories in Wikipedia for anything whatsoever, unlike in the Commons where they are the alpha and omega of everything.
 * Subcategories sit best with me at the current WP technology. The optimal solution would be to use Wikidata to create various categories, and then users could select intersecting categories - an actual useful improvement which WP ought to have been working on for decades already instead of making pointless changes to how the page looks.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * How is a car's country defined? There's cars where answering this question is not necessary; the BMW E28 for example is a car made in Dingolfing by a German car manufacturer; it is a German car. But what about cars that weren't made in the manufacturer's home country? For instance, the Audi TT 8N was made in Győr, but Audi is a German car brand. Is the TT 8N a Hungarian or a German car? One could possibly find a solution for this, but I'm wondering whether we'd have to answer this question, i. e. is a cars by country category actually reasonable, or could we propose it for deletion? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for both your replies. You've raised more questions but made good points.  Do we go by the country where the car was designed and produced?  By the country/-ies where it was assembled?  Or by the country/-ies where it was sold?
 * We could just do away with Cars by country altogether, and leave just Category:Car manufacturers by country, with one subcategory per manufacturer to show where it originated. If the car is built by a subsidiary from a different country, we can create a subcategory under "Car manufacturers of (country)" for the subsidiary, and subcategories down to the car. For example: Ford / Car manufacturers of India -> Ford India -> Ford India vehicles -> Ford Figo, etc. Otherwise, if the article says the car is manufactured or sold by a country-specific subsidiary of a global company, for example "The Ford Falcon is a car produced by Ford Australia", then we can apply the Cars by country category to it.  --Vossanova o&lt; 19:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Cars introduced in 2022
Recently, an IP editor decided to remove these from non-production non-road legal vehicles, stating that the category (all associated years) was for production cars only. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing in WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions that says this explicitly, or otherwise. They have also removed it from concept car articles.

My personal opinion: A car is defined as having four enclosed wheels (or sometimes three). Regardless of series production, road legality, actual existence, does not particularly faze me. Otherwise, we have to introduce new categories to Category:Vehicles by year of introduction. The only reasoning for this would be WP:DIFFUSE. Your thoughts? Do sports cars, concepts, and the like, belong in Cars introduced by year categories? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 00:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To extend this question, there was also disagreements with the definition of introduced. Should it include cars that have been announced but not designed, built or entered series production? IMO as Introduced offers Product launch, which includes the entire process, the answer is yes.
 * IMO a car is defined by its article. If you argue for production cars only, you would still have to define the number and source a reason, then source a figure from the manufacturer to prove eligibility. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've thought about this too. There's been a tendency to add the "Cars introduced in" category by the year that the car was announced and shown to the public.  In some cases though (like with recent EVs), that can be a full year or two before the car actually enters production.  For historical reference, I prefer the category use the year the car went into production, because the "X introduced in Y" category group generally applies to products.  But then, what about concept cars that never enter production?  Well, I'm not sure those should use the category, but if they do, the year they were shown to the public has more historical significance. --Vossanova o&lt; 19:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I too thought about this and came to the same conclusion. I could go even further to nitpick what even qualifies as an "introduction" by recent standards. With automaker's tendency to carefully meter the release of public information to hold people's attention from releasing a concept that is vaguely similar to a future production vehicle (often only to gauge public interest); teasing a launch event; hosting the "launch event" but only confirming active development, showing renders, and without releasing any specifications; later trickling out the relevant specifications; revealing a "production ready" model at a major auto show; hosting a media event where all the specifications (including price) are confirmed; etc. The tesla pickup is a good example. Most people would say it was "introduced" when Musk stood on stage and threw rocks at it, but what was introduced may or not bear any resemblance to what ultimately (maybe) goes on sale. Furthermore, how should multi-generational cars that might not have individual articles for each generation be categorized? Personally, and given the ambiguity, I don't think the category adds much value. IPBilly (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've always interpreted "introduced" to be when the car is introduced to the market, not when it's announced, or leaked, or spy shots appear, or when the concept is first shown. I think the year it goes into production is what most readers would be looking for and is the only consistent way to apply it. Concepts shouldn't be included. --Sable232 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I would take "introduced" to mean "start of production" (or start of sales if the start of production date is not available). Anything else is just a media event. I also question the merit of the category but I'm not overly against it.  Stepho  talk 23:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should WP:DIFFUSE, cars like you all have mentioned can be quite finicky in terms of marketing, introduction, etc etc. What do we suggest the new category be named? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 07:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm actually the person that created most of the "Cars introduced in..." categories, as I moved them from the "Vehicles introduced in..." categories. I understand the definition might not be that clear to car enthusiasts, but when I created the categories I decided for the definition of a "car" being a vehicle which is mainly used for the transport of people but is lots of the time a private property (because otherwise you could argue a bus is also a vehicle used for the transport of people. So to be clear with examples: "Cars introduced in" categories include: Production consumer cars, concept cars, etc. "Vehicles introduced in" categories include: buses, trucks, (ships as a subcategory), flying vehicles, other experimental vehicles or concepts. I don't think we should diffuse the category. That would only create more confusion. A possibility is creating subcategories "Concept vehicles..." but still I don't think that a good idea because those would be very small categories by year and is not necessary. Maybe we can define what a car is by writing it out in the categories themselves. "When adding articles to the category, only include cars that are... [definition]" Coldbolt (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we're clear that the definition of "car" is, at least on Wikipedia, a synonym for "automobile", and a subset of "vehicle". It's the "introduced" part that's unclear.  As I mentioned in my reply above, since it's a subcategory of "products", that implies that cars and vehicles should be in production for these categories to apply. --Vossanova o&lt; 00:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Coldbolt, sort of off-topic, but why did you use "cars" instead of "automobiles"? Just asking, no position. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I used "Cars" because I just thought it's the more common term, it's also frequently used on the car article and according to the information in that article, automobile is more of a classical term. But to be honest I didn't really think that deep about it and I just used the most common term (in my opinion). Coldbolt (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering. I wondered if "car" leaned US and put it out there, but I see You are Dutch and probably very NPOV English. Have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, "automobile" or "auto" leans more American English and "car" leans more British English. In American English, "car" usually refers only to the sedan/coupe/hatch/wagon body types, and not SUVs, crossovers, vans, or pickup trucks.  Whereas in British English, "car" includes all of those.  At least that's my understanding.  Anyway I'm fine with using "car" the British English way; it's at least easier to write that way. --Vossanova o&lt; 17:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Certain Wikipedia moderator reverting edits and keeping others to better suit their agenda
Wiki got a clown claiming a Cadillac CT5 is actually a full-size (yes, FULL-SIZE) luxury car competing with the Audi A8, BMW 7 Series and Mercedes S-Class on Wikipedia and I'm the only one having to revert the edits and I'm not even a Wikipedia moderator. Cadillac has marketed the CT5 as either compact or midsize, along with peer-reviewed sources.

Wiki mods (like a certain person I won't name) apparently took literally no time to read the references I added to a Mercury Grand Marquis or Buick Roadmaster being actually full-size luxury cars. Sure they don't wear a Lincoln or Cadillac badge, but aren't the Volkswagen Phaeton and Kia K900 luxury also? And both have F-segment labeled next to their class sizes.

I did a "Cadillac Seville" (that someone else did) on the Ford Crown Victoria page stating that the Crown Vic was also sold in Russia and therefore deserved the E- and F-segment labels. My older edits referring to the Seville and 1990s Lincoln Continental as full-size were unreasonably reverted. 2600:1012:B028:202E:4C02:37B0:C66E:A366 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Calling someone a clown in the first sentence does not particularly entice other editors to engage in discussion with you, just a heads up. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 07:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to delete many engine and transmission articles
There is a proposal at Village_pump_(policy) to delete many engine and transmission articles. The same editor has already successfully deleted Articles for deletion/Toyota C transmission.  Stepho  talk 00:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Gutting articles
Carburetor and Straight-eight engine have been pruned most severely by User:MrsSnoozyTurtle. I would prefer to avoid dealing with them directly, but I think that many babies have been thrown out with the bathwater in these cases. Carburetor went from 52K to 27K, while as an example I will paste the original versus the pruned section (without pictures) on American straight-eight engines below:

Now, I absolutely agree that the text on the left could be condensed (we don't need a potted history of Cord), but it is still better than a mere list of inline-eight producers. Also, see MOS:USEPROSE where a similar example is given of what not to do. Thank you,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree - formatting that as a list is much worse than the prose that was there. Typically, Wikipedia tries to avoid using lists where the information could be written as prose, and this case is no exception. --Sable232 (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Either way the straight-eight engine leaves much to be desired – while some may consider it useful to include everything related to the history/use of these engines, I don't. A good article should include key points of a design's history and some notable uses, as described in reliable sources. Including a certain engine/manufacturer just because of its "straight-eightness" is unreasonable – a 50 kB article that describes each and every vehicle with such an engine without explaining the design is of limited use. The reasons why one wouldn't want to use a straight-8 engine in a car are the overall dimensions (length) of such an engine, the design and manufacturing costs, high BMEP of modern engines which renders anything but three- and four-cylinder engines unnecessary, and the crankshaft torsion that makes straight-8 engines unnecessarily unreliable (possibly a design/manufacturing/costs question). In large watercraft however, a modern marine straight-8 two-stroke Diesel engine might be economical and thus reasonable. In its current state, the article doesn't really discuss these points but there should be good sources that do (I suppose so at least). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * - I restored straight-eight engine to its previous state per this discussion, but I hesitate to do so for carburetor due to several intervening edits. --Sable232 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, there is so much stuff happening that it is hard to keep track of it all. Johannes' answers are long and rambling but never address the concerns raised, so I don't think we can expect any enlightenment from him. I guess no one is going to use WP to learn about carburetors or fuel injection systems anyhow.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  17:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted MSTs revert of your restore to straight-eight engine per WP:BRD. ResonantDistortion 12:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Help with source reliability
I am fairly new to Wikipedia and needed help with source reliability. I added a sizable amount of new information to the Ford Explorer Wikipedia page that was redacted recently. I have used sources from the websites https://www.auto-brochures.com/ and https://xr793.com/, which contain old official literature from the automobile manufacture. From what I've been told, the websites may not be reliable sources but the brochures within them are from Ford and provide precise information. Do these websites still count as reliable sources? SuperMarioA9H5 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there - Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia. The problem is probably not the websites where you got the brochures, I suspect it's that the brochures are generally considered primary source material. See WP:PST and WP:USEPRIMARY for more information. Hope this helps.Mighty Antar (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Like was said above, there's some understandable reluctance to count product brochures as reliable sources, since they are promoting the product and not reporting about it. However, I think they're okay as a source for objective facts, such as car dimensions, trim levels, and features available. I just wouldn't use them to provide more subjective information such as what a feature is good for or how it compares to other cars in the class. --Vossanova o&lt; 20:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for clearing that up.--SuperMarioA9H5 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Vossanova. Uncontroversial facts like body dimensions are fine. But power, mileage and emissions figures tend to be biased in the manufacturer's favour. Figures from magazine reports and government reports (eg EPA in the US) tend to be less biased. And of course avoid any hyperbole (eg, "America's favourite car!" can be proved for cars from multiple manufactures simultaneously by the use/misuse/abuse of statistics).  Stepho  talk 01:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Product brochures are passable to verify clear facts (such as trim levels, body style availability, powertrain combinations, dimensions, etc.). One just needs to keep in mind that the purpose of the brochure is to promote the product, not be objective. --Sable232 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Comparison images
There's an interesting discussion about whether a vehicle sold by 2 separate companies should have comparison images or whether this is just clutter. See Talk:Toyota_bZ4X. Editors are invited to answer on that page.  Stepho  talk 22:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Inane amounts of info on certain supercar pages
See Lamborghini Huracán. We have a massive table of information that serves no use to people who aren't total car geeks. Is it really worthwhile including this? I think it is useless, and much of it should be supplemented by the infobox. For variants, I believe it is better to explain changes from the base model in prose, rather than have it in some sort of table. What are your thoughts? This is also true for the Gallardo, Murcielago, Aventador etc. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 08:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * In the case of the Huracan page, I think the issue is less about the information in the table than it is a confusing and poorly formatted table. I could be wrong, but I tend to observe tables formatted with each each model variant on a separate row with the corresponding data arranged in columns, i.e., a transpose of the Huracan table. In this case I think the amount of info in this table is, in general, appropriate and much easier to compare between variants rather than parse from the prose or clutter the infobox. For an expensive sports car, I think "total car geek" is the appropriate audience, and performance related specifications are relevant.
 * That said, certain model pages do have too much information that does not serve a purpose. See, for example, the wheels and tire sizes in Porsche 997. I don't have a good rubric for which info should or shouldn't be included for a certain model, or how many model variants are appropriate to list, but it may be worth further discussion. IPBilly (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the table formatting is the biggest issue with the Huracán article. Each of those individual rows of information is relevant data to someone wishing to compare the engineering and performance of the individual submodels. There is certainly a line to be drawn somewhere, but none of the figures in that table seem that obscure. In aggregate it is an overwhelming collection of data but in a sense that is Lamborghini's "fault" and not Wikipedia's, as Lamborghini has made the Huracán line enormously complex by introducing various submodels/editions. For cars with this many submodels, I think table presentation is appropriate and much clearer than prose or infobox presentation, but some work could be done to make this particular table better. Prova MO   (talk)  17:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're definitely correct on that point, the various special editions and whatnot have made it a rather tedious job for us to accurately document in a readable manner. So, moving forward, is it better we find some better way of formatting the table? What do you think if we employ a solution akin to what's been done at General Motors LS-based small-block engine? ￼ X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 19:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I support IPBilly's suggestion to transpose the rows and columns, putting submodels on rows and the various performance data in columns. The GM LS engine article you linked to provides a good example of that. I think it would also improve readability to remove (instead of transposing) the cell with the engine description (the one starting "5,204 cc...") and the cell that just says "performance". The engine info is the same for all submodels and better explained in prose. The "Performance" cell is pure clutter. I'm also not a big fan of merging cells with the same values in a table, as it undermines the reader's natural method of navigating the table by counting rows and columns. IMO this merging makes the overall readability of the table suffer, but I'm not sure if there is some wikipedia/wikiproject table style guide that contravenes my opinion about that. Overall I basically agree with your suggestion to use the tables in the LS engine article as an example. As an aside, what's with all larger tables breaking the new wikipedia layout by overflowing to the right? Is that just the new status quo? Prova MO   (talk)  16:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * IPBilly, I think you should boldly remove the tire data. Generally, I only tend to include tyre data in rare circumstances, and only if secondary sources mention it. I also tend to do it only for limited-production automobiles such as the Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR, where tyre data is readily available and has been mentioned by secondary sources. Not so much for a serial production sports car lkke the 997. We should also remove the prices too, prices should only be mentioned if it is notable in skme way shape or form..
 * t X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 19:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Better to have no table than the existing table. Way too much verbiage, information.  This is getting into minutia, and while a degree of detail is fine, our goal is to summarize the facts, not exhaust them.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Car-specific source list
Hello! Is there a source quality reference list for this project such as at WikiProject Video games/Sources or WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources?

If not, I think there should be and I’d want to help if I could. BhamBoi (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I see where you are coming from but it's probably not necessary. We already know to avoid user forums (unless they are reproducing pages from old magazines or similar) and single person fan sites (unless they are reproducing pages from old magazines or similar) and to not trust the manufacturers on anything that could be a sales advantage (especially fuel economy and power figures). The sensationalist newspapers and magazines (Woman gives birth to baby car - pictures inside!) rarely print anything that concerns us. Most existing magazines give reliable data about existing cars and we know to avoid the "SEE NEXT YEAR'S CARS TODAY!" crystal ball gazing. There's not much other stuff left to avoid.  Stepho  talk 07:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

More mass deletions
A discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard means that all references to Allpar.com are being deleted and replaced with  tags. It feels as if every week, another group of people sets out to gut all automobile articles and I feel that there is no one here who cares any longer. I recommend weighing in at the conversation over there. It seems that allpar.com changed hands and went to more of a wiki-type format, but that doesn't change the dependability of older, archived content when the original editors wrote and signed the articles.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  00:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * My impression of that discussion was Allpar content that was sourced to their old articles should be retained. Springee (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce 20/25 infobox (and possible self-advertising)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rolls-Royce_20/25#Infobox_and_gallery_dispute

I know you guys hate me doing these but please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Another mass deletions, this time car images
A user has proposed a mass deletion of Renault Megane R.S. images in Commons, citing copyright laws in France, which i thought needs attention from this WikiProject. Andra Febrian (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That person seems to have it as their sole mission to delete every single picture in Commons. Completely out of line and utterly lacking in understanding.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is now a broader discussion at the Village Pump on Commons. --Sable232 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The dude is a hack, he takes these copyright laws so literally. Thankfully there still common sense and people on here who knows what they are talking about and debunk everything he say. Hopefully he won't be making any future mass deletion because to his logic, almost every car photos on the Commons has to be deleted and that's pretty concerning. Plus he said he doesn't care much about the legal ramification of car designs, then why is he making a deletion request on a very specific make and model and trim in the first place! To make a point?? --Vauxford (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * He freely admits that he's only doing it because he believes that automobile articles shouldn't be illustrated at all: my main issue here is with vanity shots of automobiles that are clearly created just to display their designs. As if an encyclopedia article shouldn't depict its subject. --Sable232 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Commons needs to be a little bit better in recognizing these type of people. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * He's an expert on "hoods" now. If he wasn't smart I'd swear he was 12. We got ugly yesterday, he snuck back to hide it, and screwed up the collapse box. I had to fix him going behind my back. Sammy D III (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The deletion request was closed with Kept and someone clearly isn't happy with the conclusion. He thinks of us as gaslighting cry bullies none contributors who are the lowest common denominator who derail the discussion spewing lies and personal insults. I think this person spends too much time on Twitter with how he speaks. --Vauxford (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change to assembly fields in infobox
See here if you're interested. --Sable232 (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

When the US vehicle class differs from that of the home country
There is a talk at Talk:Lexus GX about whether the Lexus GX should be classified according to it's home country definition or the US definition. Comments are welcome at that page.  Stepho  talk 01:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Model timeline navboxes under consideration
You know those timeline navboxes at the bottom of every model, like Oldsmobile timeline, etc.? They're currently under discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2023 April 26. Thank you! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I forgot to thank you for bringing attention to this here. If any other editors would care to protect the ability to navigate between automobile articles comment, I suggest you weigh in. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be necessary given the direction of that discussion, and car[ing] to protect the templates sounds a bit like non-neutral canvassing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Adjusted.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Lists of factories
(I'm adding this here rather than your user talk page in case other editors have any feedback or suggestions):

I see that you've made a huge number of edits to List of General Motors factories and List of Ford factories over the past year, and I think these pages are getting way too large for lists. Your edits have caused the GM list to quadruple in size and the Ford list to triple in size. Having so much text in list pages makes them harder to navigate, and can be a strain on browsers, particularly mobile. Please note that these pages are first and foremost lists. Anything more than a line or two of information should go in a separate page about the factory. If one doesn't exist, feel free to create one! Just remember you will need to add reliable sources, and check for verifiability and notability.

Given the thousands of edits you've made, I'd also suggest creating a user account. This will make it easier to track your edits and communicate with other editors. --Vossanova o&lt; 23:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Splitting the "Former production facilities" section into its own article would help a lot.
 * Possibly splitting into separate articles by region would help (eg Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa). Although it is nice to be able to search on a single page for who makes a particular vehicle.  Stepho  talk 00:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree - those articles have become nearly un-navigable with how much ancillary information is in them. There is no reason whatsoever to list out every model ever built in a particular factory, especially when that information is better presented in the article on the factory itself.
 * I don't like the idea of splitting the articles up by active and former, since that's ever changing and it's often helpful to be able to see both, but splitting them by region might be workable if culling the excess doesn't bring them to a more manageable size. --Sable232 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: another editor just made the same criticism at Talk:List of Ford factories.
 * I thought of another option for organizing the lists: separating vehicle assembly plants from engine and other component plants. I think assembly plants are what most readers are looking for, so that's another possibility.
 * you've also changed assembly locations/years on dozens if not hundreds of articles but have never once provided a source. Where are you getting this information? --Sable232 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In most cases, either from the vehicle's VIN or from automaker created information. I don't only mean standardized VIN's of post-1980 either. Sometimes, when it's an older vehicle from a different part of the world, then from information produced by people in that region. But, I always try to find some type of corroboration in that case. It isn't always possible to provide a source. But, I wouldn't post it if I didn't think it was accurate. And, if I find out differently later, then I go back and change it. I can't speak for anyone else but that's how I operate. 108.6.237.202 (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, without a reference we have no way of knowing whether you have been extremely diligent, or have found a naïve interpretation (that might be wrong) or are flat out lying. And this applies to all editors. References must always be provided so that the claims can be verified. See WP:FACT, WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE.  Stepho  talk 21:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal
I suggest the following changes to the above two lists:
 * 1) Remove the Comments column in all sections.  If the factory has its own article, move/merge any noteworthy info here into it, with references.  As I wrote above, we can create an article for the factory if there is enough info here.
 * 2) Consider adding an "Ownership" column with related info from the previous Comments column, such as joint ventures.
 * 3) For former factories, in the Products column, limit the models to either the most significant or the last models produced before the factory closed.  Listing 20+ models here is excessive.  If the former factory has its own article, consider moving the complete list there if it's noteworthy.
 * 4) For List of Ford factories, change the Status column in the current section to Year opened like the GM factories list, or remove it.
 * 5) Consider removing the Employees column from List of Ford factories, moving that info into the factory articles.  Or, at the very least, add some references. --Vossanova o&lt; 19:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I believe the column can stay, but needs to be drastically pared down.
 * In line with the above, I'd rather have that information in the Comments column instead of creating an additional one that won't be applicable in most cases.
 * Agreed.
 * Agreed; given that the Ford list is already split into sections based on status, that column is pointless and the year opened (and closed, where applicable) is far more useful.
 * Agreed; it isn't as useful in the list as most other data, and since this number is going to change with some regularity it's better to have it in only one place where it can be :more readily referenced. --Sable232 (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My main argument for removing the Comments column, versus cleaning it up, would be to deter people from adding more comments back in. Lists of this length can be difficult to maintain.  If we leave it, we may want to define what should or shouldn't go in the comments to avoid edit wars. --Vossanova o&lt; 14:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

To the pinged IP and JustTheFacts33 (same editor), I ask one more time that you read the first paragraph above one more time, look at my Proposal above, and respond. The edit wars and heated discussion will just get worse unless we as a WikiProject can come to an agreement on this. I stand by my proposal of removing the Comments column in both List of General Motors factories and List of Ford factories, as a simple, brute-force way to encourage any additional notes and details to be added to the individual factory articles themselves. If we can't resolve this here, the next step will be WP:DRN or WP:ANI. --Vossanova o&lt; 15:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like JustTheFacts33 has provided plenty of WP:ROPE; if they are blocked then perhaps the column can stay without any more drama. If it starts swelling again we can always come back later and remove it entirely.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like Mr.choppers and Sable232 have both violated WP:OWN and WP:Harassment. Sable232 also keeps claiming he has consensus when he doesn't and keeps claiming he has a mandate for specifically what to change and how to change it here when he doesn't. If anyone should be blocked, the 2 of them should be blocked. That's assuming they're not the same user, which I think they are. Before these 2 started interfering, there was no drama. There was peace and quiet and tranquility. But these 2 just can't resist stirring up trouble. They will only tolerate things their way and refuse to countenance dissent in their midst. They seem to think that wikipedia is a dictatorship with them at the helm. They can't stand that I won't abide by that incorrect viewpoint. So they continue to harass me no matter what I do and pursue me no matter where I go. The fact that Mr.choppers brought up blocking here only serves to prove my point. These 2 users have a vendetta against me and they ultimately don't want me here because they don't think I'm entitled to be here. They just don't want to understand that they are not in charge here. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Enough of the projection and gaslighting, please. If you have multiple accusers, the problem may be with you and not everybody else. Vossanova o&lt; 15:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Vossanova: One issue is not all factories have a page of their own. And there may not be enough information available to warrant creation of a whole page unless you don't mind having stub pages. I think it also bears mentioning that this "discussion" started off seeming to be about not listing every model ever made by each assembly plant. However, and you can see this for yourself, when sable232 took it upon themselves to make unauthorized edits, what was removed was not only lists of models. It was other details and information as well. So the scope of what to remove seems to have expanded under the radar in the hopes that nobody would notice. Well, I did notice. So, if the complaint is that long lists of models is taking up too much space, that's one thing. But, how do you explain all the other things that were removed. And, by the way, in some cases, a very small amount was removed such as one sentence or a part of a sentence. Are you really telling me that such a small amount of text can't be tolerated? This is part of how we can see how sable232 wants what he wants and nothing else will be tolerated. So, you say you want to remove the Comments column to remove the problem altogether. I can understand the sentiment. But, isn't that rewarding the bad behavior of sable232? After all, isn't what they want anyway? But perhaps even more importantly, won't the quality of the page suffer? I'm not saying every happening and every detail of every factory's entire history has to be included but at a certain point, once you remove so much information, there isn't much point left to the page because it's essentially an empty shell. Maybe it also bears pointing out that expecting a list of factories of huge, global corporations well over a century old to be short and compact isn't really realistic. By the very nature of the topic at hand, it is going to be long. There's no getting around that. Let's remember that for a long time, GM and Ford were the 2 largest corporations in the world. Not automakers but corporations of any kind. So perhaps there are some of us that need to take a minute (or two) and adjust some unrealistic expectations regarding this page. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I know this is rather moot since you have been blocked, but I at least appreciate your reply to the actual edit suggestions. I still recommend moving details from lists to the articles (factories) linked from the list, and if one doesn't exist, yes, you can start one!  If you don't feel there is enough info (to be precise, enough notable and verifiable info) to start a new factory article, then a list is not a workaround for that.  Read WP:STANDALONE and WP:COPO for more. Vossanova o&lt; 15:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As a broader followup, you have ambitions in adding content, and that's great, but Wikipedia has guidelines in place for nearly two decades, and many editors who have years of experience and have adhered to those guidelines. If you're conflicting with them, it will take some effort to justify your editing choices.  If it doesn't work out, you'll have to try something (or someplace) else. --Vossanova o&lt; 15:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Dutton Cars article missing some information post-revitalisation of name by original owner
The article says the company ceased making cars in 1989, which, while technically true, does not paint an accurate picture in my opinion.

The name has since been re-used by the original owner (for quite some time) for another company currently making exclusively amphibious kit cars, and this is not reflected in the article.

My thinking is that adding to/adjusting this article would make more sense than creating an additional article just for the new company, considering it now has an almost identical name.

I'd like to hear your thoughts about this and possibly a name change to Dutton Cars Ltd. with redirects from Dutton Cars and Tim Dutton Amphibious Cars; any help would be appreciated.

His website [Https://www.timdutton.com/ https://www.timdutton.com/] might be used as a primary source, and secondary sources can be found if you search for their current models "Dutton Reef"/"Dutton Surf" by name. Zazzfasd (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Quantum Motors, Bolivian electric car company
I recently created a draft for the Bolivian electric car company Quantum Motors. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Plenty added, but really need a photo of the E2, E3, or E4 models just to improve it visually. NealeWellington (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thriley do you intend to submit this for publishing? NealeWellington (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I do. I think the models section needs citation first. Is there a reliable source for all of them? Thriley (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ghia Microsport aka Ford Microsport
Hi, is this an appropriate place to ask for people to help look at and improve the Ghia Microsport article? Consider taking it under the scope of the WikiProject, give it a fair quality/importance analysis? I tried to do a good job on it but I'm not even sure if it is notable myself anymore... seemed like it to me, but I am probably biased. I'm a former Ford employee, member of the SAE Vehicle Cybersecurity Systems Engineering Committee and ISO/SAE Cybersecurity Assurance Level JWG on revisions to ISO/SAE 21434. I would be interested in contributing to other areas where I can help, try to distance myself from Talk:Ghia Microsport a little bit and let other people have an unbiased view. Chadnibal (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Engine infoboxes
Combustion engines are used in many applications - Aerospace, automotive, marine and industrial. Some articles on them have infobox templates; infobox aircraft engine (aviation), Infobox engine (automotive) and Infobox rocket engine (spaceflight). Wikipedia's wider community has a consensus to merge infobox templates where possible. Various aircraft infobox templates are being merged, and the question has arisen, should the aero engine infobox be merged in with them, or would it be better to merge and extend the existing engine infoboxes? There is an ongoing discussion here, which you are invited to join. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Mazda B platform for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mazda B platform is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mazda B platform until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andra Febrian (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Škoda or Skoda?
I notice that most of the Skoda articles use "Škoda" in both article title and article content, (although not consistently - most Skoda articles have a mix of both spellings,) but this seems to go against MOS:TRADEMARK which states (Se7en, Alien3, Toys Я Us being examples) and clarifies it with  - which doesn't seem to be the case. There are plenty of instances that use "Škoda", and also the capitalised "ŠKODA", but not a significant majority of reliable sources which is the criteria.

I searched both Talk:Škoda Auto and the archives here, but there doesn't seem to have been any discussion around it.

Does anybody know what rationale - if any - has been provided to use "Škoda" over the MOS:TRADEMARK compliant "Skoda"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Please put a comment at Talk:Škoda Auto so that Skoda fans know that we are talking about changing their topic spelling.
 * The official guideline to follow is WP:TRANSLITERATE. This says to follow whatever the reliable English sources use. All of the company's websites for different countries consistently use "Škoda". However, doing a web search on "Skoda car review", practically everybody in the English speaking world else uses "Skoda".
 * WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS says that characters not commonly found on a keyboard either should not be used or a redirect should be added for the pure Anglicised version (ie English letters only). Bearing in mind that our reader's keyboard could be anything from Chinese to Polish to US, some having "Š" but most not.
 * My personal preference is that English Wikipedia should use only the letters in the English alphabet but that's not a hard and fast rule on WP.  Stepho  talk 23:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)