Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions/Archive 1

This is just a start, and is not intended as a final rule on things! Please comment, add, and modify according to concensus! --SFoskett 23:53, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi SFoskett: thanks for starting this page. I agree with your thoughts on this, e.g. on cubic inches—makes total sense to use them where it was conventional. A good example down here was the Holden Torana, which went mid-decade (1970s) to metric, so I've followed that. Stombs 00:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I broke up your comments for specific sections to make them easier to find in the future... --SFoskett 00:23, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

cc vs in&sup3;
I guess consistency is my aim, so would cm³ not be better than cc, if we are to use in³? I definitely dislike cu. in. I don't mind cc terribly, so if others prefer it I'll go with the majority decision. Stombs 00:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * At least here in the US, auto writers NEVER use cm&sup3; for engine displacement. It looks really odd to me to hear of a "1991 cm&sup3; engine".  How is it elsewhere? --SFoskett 00:23, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * It really depends on the publication down here; it's certainly cc in speech and never 'cubic centimetres'. The New Zealand Automobile Association's magazine goes with cc but ironically I picked up cm³ from the same publication (I think) as a kid. The Europeans consistently go with cm³. I have a bias toward the SI unit personally but I've spent time in Europe. I also feel we shouldn't detract from non-automotive Wikipedia pages too much. Stombs 00:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have changed a few 'cc' to 'cm&sup3;'. SFoskett recently pointed out this discussion to me. I see both 'cc' and 'cm&sup3' in Europe, at least in written text (both English and non-English). The form 'cc' looks colloquial and the form 'cm&sup3;' looks more professional to me. This seems particularly relevant when the unit is used in support of something else. For example '3 L (2995 cm&sup3;)' or '150 in&sup3; (2458 cm&sup3;)'


 * When discussing English text, people may read '1495 cm&sup3;' and say 'fifteen hundred cc'. So I think cm&sup3; is perfectly acceptable in a written medium (such as Wikipedia). The SI form is language independent whereas 'cc' is not. Thus it is easier for the non-native reader and for translation. One of the oddities of English is that the written superscript comes after the unit (cm&sup3;), whereas the spoken power comes before it ("cubic centimetres"). That may explain some of the discomfort that some people say they have. My vote is to use the SI form ('cm&sup3;') and to have similar guidance for non-SI units (thus 'in&sup3;'). Bobblewik (talk) 20:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have changed a few motorcycle articles from cc to cm&sup3; but somehow I managed to fly under the radar of those who disagree (or there is a different consensus for motorcycles). Anyhow, I also prefer the SI units. For the pages with 'cc', it would be nice to have a better page to link to than cc which is a large dab page. Maybe create cc (unit) just for this purpose? Rl 10:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Cubic centimetre, piped as cc. This is a redirect page to Cubic metre, but I think it is appropriate to link to the page with the title corresponding to the concept rather than orphaning the redirect for technical or administrative reasons.  Also, you might consider building an article on this that stands apart from the cubic metre article. I have been piping wikilinks as shown here as part of removing links to the disambiguation page CC. Courtland 01:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was just about to change a cc to a cm³ until I thought "Hang on, there must be more to this." In casual writing, sure, go for cc if that's what you like, but aren't we writing an encyclopædia here?  Ought we not write somewhat more formally than your average car mag?  This page states "We will use the standard SI units when describing automobiles, and will generally follow the SI writing style" well, let's follow it here. Jimp 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I find that "cc" is the standard abbreviation for automotive and related subjects. For example, looking at the '08 Sable spec sheet, it says: "Displacement - 213 cu. in. / 3,496 cc". Since "cc" is the most common usage, I feel it would be better. --Sable232 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Though it's not standard SI notation so consistancy throughout the encyclopædia would favour cm³. Jimp 01:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

non-breaking spaces

 * My other "problem", if you could call it that, is &amp;nbsp;. I used to use it a lot (not here, just in helping others edit stuff for the web) and then played with the fonts on my browser. On some fonts—they aren't uncommon ones, from memory—the non-breaking space is twice as big as the regular one, so the capacities began looking like 1.6 L. If I find the fonts I can post them here, and if others judge them to be uncommon, I'll go along with that. Stombs 00:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I hate that. Single non-breaking spaces improve things since it keeps the units from wrapping.  I don't know what to say about this problem.  --SFoskett 00:23, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I know that that's the reason, which is why it's so hard to take issue with the usage of the non-breaking space. Eventually on this web publication I think they went for 1.6 L (which doesn't work in Wiki), and I think I saw &lt;small&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/small&gt; a few times, which is way too much work! The non-breaking space makes total sense other than this font problem. Stombs 00:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's very weird because I have just tried a bunch of common sans serif fonts (Helvetica, Gill Sans MT and Zurich BT) in Mozilla and they all displayed correctly. But I am not making this stuff up! :) Maybe it was an old-browser thing? If I stumble on the glitch I'll holler. Stombs 01:19, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing so far, so let's go with the non-breaking spaces—have been putting them in where I can, too. :) Stombs 11:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Numbers
One more: for quantities: for capacities, 1,798 or 1798? Stombs 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been NOT using commas since they're not always used in print, and since they're not part of SI writing style, which specifies spaces instead.--SFoskett 00:23, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I'll go with the non-comma one. The spaced one will result in odd breaks. Stombs 00:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the spaced-out one is just plain ugly and odd. --SFoskett 02:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Middot
SI writing style (and User:Gene Nygaard) suggest using &middot; between multiplied units. For example, instead of "Nm" for Newton-meters, use N·m. I have never seen this before, but it is on the SI page. So do we do this or not? --SFoskett 02:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I know that Hart's Rules, which is the one that the Oxford University Press uses, specifies middle dots for decimal points, and normal periods for punctuation and, interestingly, time (9.45 a.m.). But I certainly don't recall seeing anything like this in the Rules for measurement, and they're what I go by. I don't recall it in the Chicago University manual, either. But I did just check in my encyclopædia and it's there all right, between N and m. Personally, I hate it but have no solid objection using it other than the style guides I just cited. Count me in as "undecided" for now. Anyone else? Stombs 04:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, you should use the middot, and not only with newton-meters (note capitalization of spelled out newtons, too), but with lbf&middot;ft or ft·lbf as well. I doubt that you will find any authorative modern style guides which recommend either no separation or a dot on the line.  NIST is quite clear in its style guide:  "Symbols for units formed from other units by multiplication are indicated by means of either a half-high (that is, centered) dot or a space."


 * The middot as a decimal point was generally thrown out for almost all use in the U.K. a couple of decades ago. It isn't used that way on the internet, and it isn't used that way in print any more, with no more than a couple of minor exceptions at most.  The modern standard there as well as the rest of the English-speaking world is a dot on the line for the decimal marker.  Nobody else ever did use a middot as a decimal point. (IIRC, there was some fairly significant publication which held out until quite recently&mdash;probably about 2000, but changed to the dot on the line then.)


 * I have no big problem with using a space nor with listing it here as an acceptable alternative, but it is much more important that a space used here be non-breaking than a space between the number and the unit, which is not required to be nonbreaking in general rules though somebody obviously thinks it should be required here. So while a non-breaking space is acceptable as well, a middot is better here for several reasons:
 * the middot is a clearer sign of multiplication of the units
 * the middot is nonbreaking
 * the middot is smaller than a space, and looks better
 * Gene Nygaard 20:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure I like the middot. True, it displays the mathematic purpose of the unit better, but I'm much more used to the automotive press standard, which is to have nothing at all between the "N" and the "m". --Pc13 16:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Converter
I wrote up a little JavaScript converter and wiki formatter for handling the unit conversions. check out my wikimungler and let me know what you think! --SFoskett 16:03, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, this is cool! :) Stombs 06:31, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh man, this thing rules. Major props!  If you've got a moment, can you add lb->kg and kg->lb to the list?  I've run across a couple of situations where this would be useful.  Wow, though&mdash;good work! --Milkmandan 02:31, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)


 * Done, along with another few fixes. I use it all the time!  --SFoskett 15:28, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Policy vs. case-by-case
There are two discussions above (cc vs. cm&sup3; and middot vs. not) that handle specific instances of conflicts between academically accepted style and automotive publishing standards. While there may be circumstances that warrant a specific discussion, but we currently lack policy rationale behind why we're foregoing Wikipedia standards for something else.

I certainly agree that it's odd to see Wikipedia-style markup in an automotive publication. I'm sure that all of our magazine-accustomed eyes have a bit of trouble walking around unfamiliar punctuation.

Automotive publishers have adopted the formats they use because they're a bit more compact, printer-friendly, and reader-friendly than the alternative. But, they can get away with this because it's ridiculously rare to see anything besides time, speed, length, volume, torque, power (and I few I've missed, I'm sure) expressed in an auto article. Academic publications use standardized versions because accurate comprehension is much more important than printed size and compactness. It's much more common, for example, to see obscure measurements in a scientific article; and, although shorthand notation would make it a bit more digestable, there's a good chance that a reader will be mislead.

So what's the right rationale? If we're going to depart from the Wikipedia style, I think we need to make a very strong case.

At the risk of getting pounced upon, I'd like to recommend moving towards the existing Wikipedia standards. I can't find an obvious answer to the question, cater to people already familiar with automotive publications, or cater to people who aren't? Which group is more important? I don't really know&mdash;because there's no obvious case, I say we fall back on the Wikipedia style. --Milkmandan 22:58, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)


 * It sounds crazy, but I'm really opposed to dumping the standard "cc" and adding middots just because it looks "weird" to me. I don't really care about the latter, actually - I quickly became adjusted to "ft.lbf" instead of "lb/ft" or the other ridiculious things you see in the rags.  I guess it's 'cause they never standardized on the torque unit!  But expressing engine size in "cm&sup3;" will take a real adjustment for me!  --SFoskett 00:35, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * What looks weird to one reader looks normal to the next. What's crazier than an encyclopædia that ignors it's own style guide? Jɪmp 14:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

kW/hp conversion (or hp vs. PS)
I feel the need to point this out. For European/Japanese/Australian/South American markets, the value usually recognized as hp is actually the German PS. For most models, it gets translated to hp in press-releases and news articles without actually converting to bhp/hp net SAE. (I've seen a few corrections in Car and Autocar, though.)

The correct way to convert hp into kW for Euro-models is 1 hp = 0.735 kW or 1.36 hp = 1 kW. It's advisable to keep this even for British cars. For American models, the current conversion values should be retained. --Pc13 11:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should just use PS instead of hp (converted or otherwise) for JDM cars, as that is the unit they use in their brochures, as well as being the unit specified under JIS standard. Btw, if u look at German magazines or German-language brochures, power is stated as PS instead of non-converted hp. EEC directives state that power should be measured in kW, so it's up to individual manufacturers to choose between hp or ps Senna60_94


 * Shouldn't we only use kW? All US, European, Asian and Australian car manufacturers design there vehicles to metric specifications. During testing, GM measure the work the engine can do in kW and the force in Nm. The only company that still designs to imperial specifications is Harley Davidson, well probably the main reason to this is because their lead designer died in the 1930's so the development and design has gone no where..


 * Since this is English Wikipedia, I feel that we should always include the most widely recognized units in English-speaking countries - hp (SAE) and kW. I would like to propose that we never use PS in articles and that we always convert these numbers to hp and kW.


 * One special case would allow PS to be included - if the PS measurement is significant in and of itself. I can think of two examples: First, the 1001 ps engine in the Bugatti Veyron is worth noting since this number is "special".  Second, the 280 ps "gentlemen's agreement" in Japanese output.  Apart from that, I would not include PS.  --SFoskett 14:46, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, in order to keep bhp/hp (SAE), we'd have to, 1), reconvert the hp value for every European, Japanese and Australian car in the database (your wikimungler doesn't work if you try to reconvert values that were originally in PS, and you usually write the wrong kW values for European market cars - I have to correct them), which render the numbers unfamiliar to most people who remember those cars; 2), take into account very few brands apply that conversion to the UK market, where PS are usually retained for commercial use (exceptions are Peugeot, Ford and Vauxhall); 3), point out that Audi, Volkswagen, Saab, Subaru, Ferrari and Porsche don't convert their power values from PS to hp when on their American market versions; 4, remember kW are still not the official measurement in the USA, and have only been official in Europe since 1992. So, you see, your proposal isn't very practical. --Pc13 15:59, 2005 May 31 (UTC)


 * So what's your proposal? How about this one:  Always use "PS" when referring to metric horsepower and hp when referring to US horsepower?  See, for example, Mercedes-Benz R-Class.  And if there is a problem with my converter, please do let me know!  I certainly never heard mention of any problems, and would be more than happy to fix them!  One thing we simply cannot do is continue to use hp to mean either metric or USA with no indication of what were are talking about.  So please propose a solution.  --SFoskett 16:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * My proposal was to use PS for Euro/Japan models and hp for US models, yes. The problem with your converter is that you have been using it on Euro-only models, where the hp given in the article is actually PS, and the numbers didn't match up, there would be an excess of kW. That's why I keep adding hp (DIN) and hp (JIS) to a lot of articles, to point out it's actually the PS value that's being used, and I correct the kW value whenever I find it as well. Your solution for the Mercedes-Benz R-Class actually seems the most rational, but I think it would be unnecessary to add hp (SAE) for models that aren't available in North America. You'd like to know I pointed out a couple of inconsitencies we need to be on the lookout for in Talk:Horsepower. --Pc13 17:13, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

I've updated my number mungler to take this discussion into account. I've also repaired a problem with rounding (or lack thereof). Now, if you put a unit in as PS, you get both hp and kW back. Eg: 1001 PS (987 hp/736 kW). Note the links, too. You can optional linkify the units to explain them (for example, as the first use in an article) or not (eg, for every other use). --SFoskett 20:57, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * PS, the mungler don't work in Firefox, as far as I can tell. Works fine for me in IE. &mdash;Morven 21:53, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Funny, I only use it in Firefox and wrote it for that platform... --SFoskett 02:32, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe something's odd about my Firefox install at home, then; it seems to work fine here at work today. &mdash;Morven 19:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * SFoskett and I discussed this on my talk page back in January. It didn't work on Firefox for me then and it doesn't work on Firefox for me now. Initially I thought the problem was that a button labelled Convert or something had failed to download.


 * If I switch to IE, it works. Perhaps it is something to do with the settings in Firefox. Bobblewik (talk) 22:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS, Horsepower, kW, Reliable sources and Original research
Having read these guidelines on PS, HP and kW units and Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and original research, I am concerned about what is proposed here. If we are to claim that the original horsepower data from a certain car maker, in any given year, is in PS rather than HP, we should be able to show reliable sources to support that claim. Otherwise we should not make that claim.

If we take a figure of e.g. 80 bhp from a source and decide that since some European car horsepower figures are in PS, these numbers must also have been in PS, and then if we conclude that we should display this as 80 PS (78.9 hp/58.8 kW), or 79 hp/59 kW or something like that, then I believe we have carried out original research, which is something we should not do in Wikipedia.

If we have data quoted in HP or BHP and have sources that show that the original dyno readings or published HP figures were in PS, and that we wish to display it as PS or convert to some other figure, then we should provide the source to support our choice of units or at the very least, use a footnote to explain that the original 1986 (or whenever) data from manufacturer X was in PS. Otherwise we should leave it in the same format as the original source.

Example of what I mean about using a footnote: when I was editing the Ferrari 246 F1 page I used a footnote to explain the use of the term mid-engined to describe the Ferrari 246 P, even though some references called the car rear-engined.

Conclusion: While it is nice to have consistent looking power figures for car articles in Wikipeda, it is vital that we only use data from reliable sources, that we cite those sources and resist the temptation to carry out original research. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 00:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh? 1 hp = 1.0139 PS = 0.7457 kW is verifiable. In fact, as per WP:DATE (part of the MoS), "conversions should generally be included and not be removed." Original research has nothing to do with this unless you start proposing a new, unpublished power figure, e.g. the Alfa Romeo Giulietta had a 1.3 L engine with 53–100 horsepower (2650–5000 snailpower). --DeLarge 20:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you did not read what I wrote above - nobody is suggesting new units.
 * 1 hp = 1.0139 PS = 0.7457 kW is verifiable - but we must take care when applying this. For example, the Wilhelm Maybach page mentions an engine of 1 hp at 600 rpm, output.


 * Will you edit that page to show 1 hp (1.0139 PS/0.7457 kW)? Or will you perhaps assume (as has been done in a number of Automotive pages) that since Wilhelm Maybach was German, it was really 1 PS (rather than horsepower) and change the article to state 1 PS (0.986 hp/0.735 kW)?


 * I wonder what degree of accuracy hp (or kw) could be measured in Wilhelm Maybach's time.... perhaps not to three or four decimal places?


 * I'm sure that when WP:DATE stated "conversions should generally be included and not be removed", it did not mean that every possible conversion must be carried out... in fact it states "put the source value first and the converted value second" and it also states "Following footnotes or citing sources conventions, add a reference for numbers that identifies not only the source, but also the source's original units".


 * In other words if the original source is in hp/bhp then that should be used first (then conversions can be done if needed). In many cases, editors are not showing the "source value" and have been carrying out conversions without showing the sources of the data they are converting. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 14:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Order of components of torque units
There is a long-standing, but not universally followed, convention of expressing torque in English units with the force unit first, followed by the distance unit, as in lbf·ft. This is preferred by many to distinguish torque units from the units of work or energy, a different quantity whose units are dimensionally equivalent, where the conventional order is almost universally length times force (e.g., ft·lbf). 

Here is one of the earliest expressions of this idea which I have found, from A.M. Worthington, Dynamics of Rotation: An Elementary Introduction of Rigid Dynamics, 1920:
 * "British Absolute Unit of Torque. . . . This we shall call a poundal-foot, thereby distinguishing it from the foot-poundal, which is the British absolute unit of work.
 * "Gravitation or Engineer’s British Unit of Torque . . . This may be called the ‘pound-foot.’"

This was also the most common order in the obsolete metric units such as "meter-kilograms" and "centimeter-kilograms".

However, many do use the opposite convention, using the same units as are used for work or energy, foot-pounds force (ft·lbf). Here's a discussion related to the use of torque wrenches, rather than a measurement of engine torque: "Torque wrenches are designed to permit an operator to determine applied torque on bolts, nuts and other fasteners. They measure torque in ounce-inches, pound- inches and pound-feet, as well as metric measure. However, many manufacturers express torque in foot-pounds (rather than pound-feet) since this nomenclature is more familiar to the average tool user." 

Both conventions are in widespread actual use. If one is to be preferred, it should be lbf·ft. But I see no reason for us to prefer one or the other in this case.

The conventional order for the SI units is force first, newton-meter (N·m). This is almost universally followed. In SI, the units of work and energy are distinguished not by changing the order, but rather by giving the unit a special name: joule. Torque by convention has not been expressed in joules even after this name was adopted for the SI unit of energy, though it has the same dimensions, a different way to maintain the distinction. Torque also was not expressed in ergs in cgs units.

The increasing use of SI units may be one factor in decreasing insistence on distinguishing units of torque from units of energy. Some people doing the conversions cannot handle the apparently more-difficult-than-it-would-seem task of at the same time rearranging the order of the units. Gene Nygaard 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Two reasons to use ft·lbf instead of lbf·ft: 1) because it's usually "foot pounds" or "ft-lbs" in print, not "pound feet"; 2) because lbf·ft has two "f"s in a row.  :-)  One more - I've been using "ft·lbf" in every article I've edited for the last six months...  --SFoskett 02:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * And there are many of them which you have changed from a proper pound-feet (lbf·ft), haven't you? So you know quite well that that order is indeed used, including by several different contributors to Wikipedia. I know this because in a couple of cases I changed inconsistent preexisting usage to consistent lbf·ft, which you came along and changed to ft·lbf.
 * Good thing you put a smiley on that second reason. Gene Nygaard 02:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've just had a look through a few workshop manuals and on both my torque wrenches and they all agree - it's lbf·ft. That also agrees with what I was taught, so where does this strange idea that it is ft·lbf come from? Malcolma 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Production dates
I propose that with listings of automobile "production dates" the month of start of production should be provided where known to avoid ambiguity as to wether the year is an actual calendar year or a Model year. As of now there seems to be some confusion as to whether calendar years or model years are used in many articles, especially in the case of European and Japanese cars.

Also, I think in the context of internationally-sold cars, the end dates of production/sale should be avoided in tables and titles, due to different model changeover dates in different regions, e.g. it often occurs that a new model of a Japanese car is not released in Europe until around a year its release in Japan, and during this time the previous generation is still sold in Europe. The Toyota Corolla article almost does what I'm proposing - it says the production starting dates (and not ending) in the titles, and then the starting dates in the titles of the subsequent generations. I think this should also be done for tables like on the Mazda Familia and Honda Civic pages - it will also make tables look less cluttered among other things.

Please say if you agree with this or not or have any comments, etc. --Zilog Jones 22:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the articles should mention start of production and not first model year. The end dates of production do not need to mesh perfectly with the following generation's. Even in the same market, a model from the previous generation may be sold alongside the new generation - as an example, the E46 Coupé and Cabriolet BMW 3-Series are still sold alongside the more recent E90 Saloon and Touring, so they could finish a year after the introduction of the new model. Usually, a car only remains available for sale over two years after its demise because it's still sold in developing markets, for example, the Renault 5 was replaced by the Clio in 1991, but it was still assembled in Iran until 2004. Those are exceptional circumstances that can be covered in the main text, and not in the production boxes. Pc13 23:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree with this. I makes good sense.


 * I have edited the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic pages as an example of what I propose should be done where possible. I don't mind the use of model years in the main text (preferably noted as a model year), but I think they should be avoided with production dates. --Zilog Jones 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. In the UK, a "1998 car" refers to its date of first registration. When selling an old car, one gives this date and the year letter (or numbers) of the registration plate. If this is not enough to determine the type of car, such as for "a 1991 J-reg Mercedes S-class", the seller would typically write "new shape" or "old shape", or use a type number (e.g. W126 or W140) to indicate which model it is. Advancing the year for marketing new cars is not unheard of, but those dates are hardly ever used again as a way of identifying the car. -- Hotlorp 01:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes to "Names of variants and other models"
I am opposed to the stated guideline of embedding links in names as suggested in the first guideline in this section. Why? A few reasons, but primarily because it looks bad and secondarily because it makes the manufacturer or division thereof stand out better. For example, I think this:
 * The Chevrolet Camaro was introduced in North America by the Chevrolet Motor Division of General Motors [...]

looks much better than this:
 * The Chevrolet Camaro was introduced in North America by General Motors [...]

Consequently, I am going to change the stated guideline to read as follows:
 * We may not embed links in these names, such as Ford Mondeo. We will instead link to the appropriate manufacturer or division in the opening sentence of the article: The Ford Mondeo is an automobile manufactured by the Ford Motor Company.

I see absolutely no good reason to allow, let alone encourage, linking within the name of the article subject. I'm being bold in making this change. If anyone is opposed, I'm more than open to discussion on the subject.

In addition, I believe we need a guideline to discourage editors from emphasizing trim levels, option packages, and other vehicles mentioned in the body of the article beyond the first sentence or two (if that). I find it very distracting, unnecessary, and pointless to be reading an article and come across an italicized or bolded trim level, variant, or whatever:
 * The Wangdoodle had various trim levels available, including the GT, WD and TZ. Another car from Manufacturer XYZ, the Flotsam Bugaboo, also had a TZ variant.

I have come across that type of thing in many articles, where the editor has used bold, italics, or both to unnecessarily emphasize something. Bolding should be relegated to the first instance of the article subject and that's about it. IMHO, of course. So, speaking of bold, I'm boldly making a guideline addition with regard to this as well. Disagreement? &rArr; BRossow T/C 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Standards
I agree with most of the guidelines above, but we should specify to which pictures in the article apply, for example Image quality tip number 1 should only apply to the infobox picture, since sometimes pictures from other perpectives are needed to decribe a redesign or point out important pictures. On the Lincoln Town Car article I have taken many pictures from different prespectives in order to show the differences I described in the text. Also, in regards to guideline number 5 (Images of complete cars in good original condition should be used whenever possible) we can delete the whenever possible part. In some cases no picture is better than one that shows a rusted car wreck. Otherwise they are great guidelines! Regards,  Signature brendel  20:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that these guidelines nail everything right on the head, with some very minor tweaking as issues arise. They are clear, easy to understand and accomplish the task of outlining the basics of what makes a good picture, and what the project hopes to achieve by finding a baseline for quality. Two thumbs up! Stude62 20:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The guideline: "Pictures of private cars should be avoided", rules out taking a photograph of any car in existence beside your own; since I've not yet known anyone that has committed a car to the public domain, all cars are private property. Perhaps this could be clarified a little. Collard 06:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I (and I assume "we") mean that we should generally avoid taking photos of cars owned and operated by people who haven't given permission.  Yes, it's legal to take a photo of anything from public property, but we don't want people coming after our contributors with accusations (or weapons!) because they snapped a photo of the Dodge Dart in their driveway.  --SFoskett 14:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wheelbase
The example of 980 mm for wheelbase seems rather tiny for a car. &minus;Woodstone 15:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Conventions not being applied
There seems to be a number of articles where these conversions are not being applied, especially units. Is there any tags we can use for articles/uses of templates that need to have this cleaned up? If a editor has used inches for a car that should have S.I. measurements first should the original units (inches) be placed in parenthesis with the converted units (mm) first, or should we attempt to find a source for the proper units (this can be hard)?--Clawed 09:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What the heck do we want with a tag? For such trivial problems, you can fix the article in about the same amount of time it takes to find the right tag and stick it in there!  I deeply detest the way people prefer to dump some ugly tag onto an article when in a matter of a couple of minutes they could fix it properly.  Why is it hard to find a source for units?  You can convert inches to meters and vice-versa with a calculator in no time flat. SteveBaker 04:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I want a new tag saying "This article contains pointless tags". Malcolma 11:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you add that, you know that I'm going to have to create a "This article contains one or more pointless 'pointless tags' tags" tag (but then I guess you'd argue it was pointless which would get us into a world of recursion which could bring down the entire WikiEmpire). SteveBaker 15:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mean a tag on the article itself, only something that is on the talk page with a link to the conventions--Clawed 02:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

External dimensions
This naming convention project says external dimensions should go in milimetres. But I find it much clearer in metres with two digits after the comma; this is 4,13 m instead of 4125 mm. With four digits without any separation, to understand the text I must think "read the first two, then the third one" (my problem, of course, but maybe also other's). I don't think the milimetres are relevant when measuring length, width, height and wheelbase, they are very confusing. Centimetres and inches are better in this case than milimetres because you can see them (and therefore imagine them better). Besides, 5 mm is the difference of a car before and after hitting a car when parking :)

Smaller dimensions, like comparisons to rivals, other body styles or other generations should be in cm. It's true that mixing units is not that great, but 20 cm is always better that 0,200 m.

My suggeston is to write ''The hatchback version of the fifth-generation Betoti is 4,38 m long, or 15 cm more than the fourth generation. The sedan has a length of 4,65 m, 8 cm more than the previous model instead of The hatchback version of the fifth-generation Betoti is 4375 mm long, or 150 mm more than the fourth generation. The sedan has a length of 4650 mm, 75 mm more than the previous model''.

Any other ideas? -- NaBUru38 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking about this, and I was actually going to say pretty much the same thing. I think that they should be in either centimeters or meters, both as standard on European cars and as auxilliary on the American cars that require it. Using millimeters is pretty useless, because I doubt that it is possible or necessary to measure a car's general dimensions with that much precision. --Sable232 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The 'scientific' or 'SI Units' way of things is to try to use the base unit (which for distances is meters) and only resort to one of the prefix scales (like 'centi-' or 'milli-') when you get so many insignificant digits (eg 0.0000000123 or 123000000) that it would be easy to lose count - or if you would have to switch to scientific notation (eg 1.23x108). So for things that are a few meters long/wide/high, meters would be preferred to millimeters.  There is also a strong move away from the prefixes that are not powers of 1000 or 0.001 - so 'deci-', 'deca-' and 'centi-' are dropping from common use in favor of 'milli-', 'micro-', 'kilo-' and 'mega-'...so centimeters is really not appropriate (when did you last hear someone use centigram or decimeter?  We say milligrams and millliter, kilograms and kilometers - )  So I suppose millimeters might be OK for lengths that are less than a meter or so.  Personally, I can more easily think of 2.3 m than 2300 mm. There is a similar issue with non-metric measurements too - should we use (for example) 123 inch or 10 feet 3 inches ? SteveBaker 23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Car measurements in specification tables are announced in mm, anyway, not cm. So the point is moot. We do have the correct information, so why don't we use that? --Pc13 23:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The prefixes used depend on context (eg in building millimetres are always used even when describing lengths of houses) and since the auto industry uses mm we should follow suit, same to using inches without feet.--Clawed 02:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My gift
OK, I made a gift for all of you: Category:Automobile conversion templates --SFoskett 18:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Date ranges
This is something that's been bugging me for some time. There seems to be no consistency on how to present date ranges in automotive articles. I've seen 2005–present (sometimes 2005–Present) or 2005– or just 2005 or even 2005+. This is particularly true when there's a list of models. WP:DATE doesn't provide much guidance on this apart from date of births. So, what should the convention be? VectorD 02:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think 2005–present should be the standard. At any rate, that's what I've been finding on most articles. I think "2005+" looks a little unprofessional. --Sable232 02:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that 2005+ doesn't look really nice. I am happy for 2005–present to be the standard. If there are no objections, I think it should be added to the conventions list. VectorD 03:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nasty templates violate national varieties of English rules
User:DeLarge removed this statement: "We will violate the guidelines of Manual of Style and create templates which impose spellings such as curb weight in articles which use kerb weight."

If it isn't true, then somebody who knows such esoterica better fix the templates. Gene Nygaard 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming you're referring to Infobox Automobile and/or Infobox Automobile generation, I'd have thought the respective talk pages of those templates would be the most effective place to comment. Membership of WP:CARS is no indication of parsing skills.
 * You might also try WP:INFOBOX, or the talk pages of individual members of that project (e.g. User:Visviva or User:Cremepuff222, who profess some technical expertise). --DeLarge 20:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is, I don't care enough about this particular one to jump through all those hoops. I'd just as soon achieve uniformity by throwing out "kerb weight" and "petrol" and "metres" and the like.  But some editors tend to go overboard in their exuberance for templates, and the WikiProject participants ought to be aware that achieving satisfactory results isn't always as simple as it might seem at first blush.  Gene Nygaard 19:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not too hard to do. Take a look at what they did at Infobox Ship Characteristics.  See in particular   vs   and   vs  . Jɪmp 13:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Vehicle age in lead infobox images
Despite being acrimonious and puppet — riddled, the consensus-building process yielded effective consensus to state explicitly that vehicle production date is not a factor when determining image quality and suitability for main infobox. Specifically, the consensus is that a better-quality image of an older version of the subject vehicle is to be preferred over a poorer-quality image of a newer (or newest/latest/last) version of the subject vehicle. Per, , and others, I propose that we pick one of the following options:

• Adopt a new provision under Minimum Image Standards reading Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox. A higher-quality image is to be preferred over a lower-quality image, regardless of the ages of the vehicles shown.

• Amend provision #5 to read The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation — e.g., the newest, the last, the first, the best-selling, etc. — of the subject vehicle. Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox. A higher-quality image is preferred over a lower-quality image, regardless of the ages of the vehicles shown. Low-volume, unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image.

Should this wording be amended? Should we include explicit reference to cluttered backgrounds, flash-bounce glare, etc.? Let the consensus-building begin! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I support adding a few clarifying points on how to understand/apply the image quality guidelines, i.e.:
 * That a vehicle in the photo is of newer generation should never be a factor in determining if the image is fit for the head infobox
 * That a picture with glare or distracting background is always inferior to one without it
 * That the head infobox may not contain a picture at all if the lead is so short that adding an image to the head infobox causes the other infoboxes to go out of line with their respective sections in popular full-screen resolutions (perhaps a more succint wording is desirable, see Buick Park Avenue to see what I mean should not happen)
 * Hugz & kisses, PrinceGloria (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your last two points. There are other aspects of image quality besides glare and background that could make the quality difference. Angle, for example, or low resolution/graininess.
 * And I think when possible all infoboxes should have a photo, especially the first one seen in an article. We can't cater to every screen resolution, and a simple "clear" tag prevents any alignment issues from affecting more than one generation.
 * Other than that, I agree with everything that's been said here. IFCAR (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with IFCAR that there are other important aspects of image quality besides the ones PrinceGloria mentions. Nevertheless, I also agree with PrinceGloria that certain particular aspects of quality need to be mentioned explicitly to stave off endless case-by-case quibbles and revert wars. In particular, we have a (very) small cadre of editors — an army of one or two, made to appear as many through smoke, mirrors, and sockpuppets — who've declared their intent to disregard consensus and select photos according to the non-consensus view that an image of the newest model with flash glare and distracting indoor background is equivalent to an older-model image without flash glare and with a contrasting, simple outdoor background. It wouldn't be practical to insert an exhaustive list of image quality factors here, but I think that to preserve and enhance the quality of articles within this project (not to mention the quality of the encyclopædia as a whole), we should probably try to anticipate and address the most likely points of friction, and leave the rest for a separate section (current or to be developed) dealing comprehensively with image quality.


 * So, how about compromise language, along the lines of

The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation — e.g., the newest, the last, the first, the best-selling, etc. — of the subject vehicle. Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox. Regardless of the ages of the vehicle shown, pick a clear, high-quality image according to the image quality guidelines; one that clearly shows a vehicle relevant to the article without photoflash glare or other photographic faults, against a simple and contrasting background. Such an image is always to be preferred over a lower-quality image, such as one that shows photoflash glare or a distracting background. Low-volume, unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image.


 * It occurs to me this text is growing rather long. Perhaps it ought to be split into two or more provisions. Please discuss.


 * Regarding the proposal regarding no lead infobox image if it'll throw off the other infoboxes' alignment with their relevant sections, I'm inclined to agree with IFCAR. Everyone's got a different screen and a different browser and a different browser window width and a different default font, etc. We can't predict or cater for all of them. Not only that, but as articles evolve and change, the various sectional lengths will vary. Infobox misalignment with relevant submodel text is an unfortunate fact, but one that I don't think can be meaningfully addressed by a provision prohibiting lead-infobox images in certain cases. I am open to being persuaded otherwise. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead infobox usually isn't an issue with throwing off the alignment. I think your proposed guideline, although a bit long, should work. --Sable232 (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the $192,000 question (inflation, don'tchyaknow) is: Do we have consensus to add this to the convension? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like we have consensus; I've gone ahead and revised convention #5. If anyone feels this consensus was perceived erroneously and has a bona fide objection, please voice it and we can figure out how to get it worked out. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles open
Informal mediation has been opened at ==Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles at the request of Dddike. The dispute is over the adoption of this process page without adequate consensus and other tangential issues. Named parties to the dispute are: user:IFCAR, user:Scheinwerfermann, User:Daniel J. Leivick, user:PrinceGloria, User:842U. Anyone else who is interested in the mediation is welcome to join. Please use the mediation page for discussion of this topic so we do not become disjointed in our discussion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Market of origin naming
I am going to open the Pandora's box here and perhaps will regret shooting myself in the foot here, but I would like to discuss the paragraph added by OSX (unspoken amounts of praise and gratitude due) on our long-unwritten guideline of using original-market names for article titles.

While, as mentioned above, I believe it is about time we added that as a formal guideline, since we all have been accepting it as community consensus, perhaps following reason rather than our hearts here, I am not sure if the wording used precisely reflects practice. I actually believe that an article on "a car designed in Japan primarily for sale in the United States" would probably be more accurately titled with the USDM name. I am not quite sure (and I guess in many cases it is hard to discover) where i.e. various Lexus ES models were designed, but the model in question has certainly been designed mainly for the US market and thus the naming of article as Lexus ES rather than Toyota Windom seems appropriate to me (regardless of the fact that JDM models recently switched to Lexus branding too).

Comments? Thoughts? PrinceGloria (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The best-known name certainly makes the most sense to me, particularly if the other name is used nowhere in the English-speaking world this encyclopedia is targeted at. The most ridiculous example in my mind is the Toyota Camry article, where an entire generation of the car was moved to a separate article because it was sold in Japan under another name. IFCAR (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * IFCAR, we've been there before - how do you determine which name is "best-known"? I do not want to discuss the rule in general, just the specific application. Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. I was actually thinking of using this as an example, but didn't want to go all negative. For the widebody Camry, North America is certainly the home market rather than Japan, and thus according to the consensus as I remember it, the content should stay with Camry - which does not preclude a split into generational articles of course.

I added the policy after realising it never existed after constantly referring to it in various disputes. I knew it was a generally accepted policy so I added it in so it was more or less "official". As for the Camry-Scepter saga, it makes more sense than what it seems. Also, please move away from the universal American motto "what goes in America takes precedence and stuff the rest of the world". The car is Japanese, despite the United States housing a population close to 2.5 times that of Japan, with sales even greater again. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So...h'mm. Did you add the policy based on assumed or achieved consensus...? I ask mostly for curiosity, not to relight the fire; I, like PrinceGloria, want to avoid a fight. We're dealing with difficult-to-pin-down factors here. All of the candidate criteria have some merits and some drawbacks. Do we go by sales volume (gives the most common name worldwide, but difficult to ascertain quickly and reliably)? By market of origin (has a logical appeal, but tough to determine when a car is released in multiple markets simultaneously)? By market of maker's home headquarters (logical appeal, but tough to reconcile with sales volume when the home headquarters market is dwarfed by the markets of greater sales volume)? Cars like the Lexus ES stubbornly refuse to fall neatly into one category; I don't have a good answer for how to handle it systematically. In this case, I agree with PrinceGloria that Lexus ES is probably the best pick for the article in question.


 * On a related note, I would like to suggest we take care to use market terminology correctly to avoid making an already-complex discussion even more so. "USDM" is not a synonym for "US market" or for "North American market" or for "NAFTA market". The D in terms USDM, JDM, ADM, and EDM stands for domestic. A Chevrolet Impala sold in Illinois can rightly be called a US-market or USDM vehicle; it was made by an American company for sale in the US market. A Mercedes S500L sold in Illinois is a US-market vehicle, but it is not a USDM vehicle, because it is not a D-for-domestic product. A Mazda Axela is a JDM vehicle, but a Toyota Cavalier is a Japanese-market vehicle. The matter is blurred by the odd colloquial usage of "JDM" to refer to a whole whackload of vehicle restyling products, many of which have nothing to do with Japan (compare "Euro style" accessories), and things get a little sticky when trying to figure out where to place the demarcation line; is a Mexican-built Dodge a USDM vehicle? How about an Indiana-built Subaru? It's probably best for us to try and reserve the "D" terms for those situations in which they're genuinely needed for clarity. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The North American Camry was developed primarily for North America because Honda did the same thing with the Accord. The North American Accord is different from the JDM and European-spec Accord, which eventually came to North America as the Acura TSX. The North American Camry was sold in Japan as the Scepter because the Camry name was alread in use in Japan. So all names are correct and the separation of the Scepter makes the most sense. The naming convention, if my opinion matters for anything, is inline with PrinceGloria, as long as the article mentions all names used internationally in the article, and if a particluar article starts Toyota Altezza, for example, instead of Lexus IS, America doesn't need to be the center of the universe. The Lexus ES was developed for the USA market first, as a warmed over Camry with frameless side windows, then sold elsewhere as the ES, using North American Camry DNA, a practice still being used for the current ES. Toyota is trying to sell Lexus products to the Japanese in Japan, but the Japanese aren't falling for it, realizing that Lexus is just rebranded Toyota products they were already familar with, and jacked up prices. Even the much worshipped Lexus LS/Celsior pales in comparison to the JDM Toyota Crown and JDM Toyota Century, which the Emperor of Japan has four of, in Japan. Toyota even sells a reduced equipment Crown variant in America as the Lexus GS. (Dddike (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

Trivia/Pop-Culture sections
I've added a section explaining our current guidelines on this subject - it's been discussed many times on the main Wikiproject talk page and the consensus is always the same, so this should not be too controversial. I'm particularly pleased to have found an article that exemplifies the way to handle this stuff. SteveBaker (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And me, I've created a shortcut directly to this what you've added, so we can easily point to WP:WPACT in edit summaries when we delete trivia/pop culture sections. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cubic inches
Lately I've seen cubic inches abbreviated as "CID" instead of "in³" which is what I thought the previous consensus was. Do we want to revisit this? All things considered I'd prefer "cid" as having it in all caps looks a little less professional (and I'm not certain it's even correct). I see that cubic centimeters is now abbreviated as "cc" now instead of cm³, is it time to change the US one now? --Sable232 (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The in³ convention annoyed me when I first encountered it. I have come to terms with it, though inserting the ³ remains a minor nuisance. This what we're talking about is at a clash point between theoretical scientific or technical rectitude on the one hand, and practical longstanding convention on the other. By convention, "CID" was/is used — in all caps — to refer to an engine's Cubic Inch Displacement in reliable print sources such as factory service, sales, and parts literature, government regulations, etc. I can't say I've seen "cid" (lowercase) very often, though "cu. in." was a rather awkward alternative that nevertheless made frequent appearance particularly in the automotive press. I would be amenable to maintaining what I understand to be the present consensus for in³, or to a convention shift to CID, or to a permissive convention shift to allow in³ or CID (but not both in any one article, compare engvar). I would hesitate to support cid.


 * (Another such clash is "lb·ft", which is very demonstrably correct by longstanding convention, and "ft·lbf", which may be more scientifically precise but has essentially never been used outside of Wikipedia to refer to automotive torque.) —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't know there was a in³ convention. I've rarely seen it used in automotive literature before and CID is used quite often (like here).  So it would be logical to have the convention shift to CID.  I would hesitate to support cid also because I just haven't seen it as often as CID and cu in, but I've seen more than in³.  —WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Both cid and in³ are wrong as per WP:MOS. If people are using the convert template properly, it create the correct formatting for all units of measurement. For cubic inch, it's cu in using a non-breaking space in between. Roguegeek (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, unit conventions that are considered correct for non-automotive discussions aren't always the right choice for automotive discussions. A one-convention-fits-all doctrine is not helpful. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Image convention #8
While grammatically and syntactically tidying up the image conventions just now, it occurred to me that convention 8 is problematic: Don't photograph private cars, it says. Um...huh? Whyever not? What cars, then, are we supposed to photograph? This convention as written makes no sense. Either it is poorly written and doesn't clearly express the underlying intent, in which case it should be rewritten, or it is spurious and should be withdrawn. Which is it? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ten days later, no discussion. Does nobody care if I will tidy up convention #8, then...? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I somewhat understand the rationale, but the intent isn't really explained. It should be about simply protecting people's privacy and photographing privately owned vehicles (which is terrible wording) should be avoided. Privately owned vehicles should be changed to say "consumer owned vehicles" or something to that effect, though. Press vehicles are always preferred to be shot IMO. Roguegeek (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, but this issue is not as simple as it would seem. As a matter of law in most countries, if my car is parked in public, I have no valid grounds for objection to it being photographed, even without my permission, and I am not entitled to compensation. If my car is parked in my driveway or elsewhere on my property, it may legally be photographed without my permission and without compensation as long as the photographer does not physically trespass on my property to do so. Given that, I see no sound legal basis for prohibition or discouragement against photographing privately-owned vehicles. And that doesn't even get into the logistical issues: There are almost no half-decent Plymouth Duster photos on Commons, for example, and there hasn't been a Duster press car in many, many years. With the possible exception of a small handful of Dusters in museums, the only Dusters available for photography are private cars.


 * Changing "privately owned" to "consumer owned" won't improve or fix anything. The language in convention #8 just does not square with reality; we need to reworkk it fundamentally or scrap it and fold its valid remnants into the other conventions.


 * The licence plate issue is a valid matter of privacy, and I would strongly support a convention calling for any valid licence plate be removed or digitally obscured, except at the option of a vehicle owner posting pictures of his or her own vehicle. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing with your rationale. It makes perfect sense to me. I'm thinking the whole thing was meant to be a preference other than bible. I'd like to see other editors chime in on this. Ultimately, the best image needs to go into an infobox of a vehicle with as little personalization possible. This would include things like license plates or any customization. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * there should be rules (in law) how to handle the license plates, here you can show those on pictures..its probably not so big issue anywhere... --&mdash; Typ932 T  20:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Automotive conversion templates
These templates are duplicates of each other and should either be deleted, or, if the various naming formats have value, should all be redirected to a single one, for ease of code maintenance. Wanted to run this past the WikiProject before tagging things, as there may have been previous discussions of this issue. Thanks. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 04:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Auto ft.lbf
 * Auto ft·lb
 * Auto lb.ft
 * Auto lbft
 * Auto lb·ft

And here are several more which have automotive versions that perform the same as those in &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 04:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Auto in = in to mm
 * Auto mm = mm to in
 * Auto kg = kg to lb
 * Auto lb = lb to kg
 * Auto mpg = mpg


 * Please use extreme caution when considering deletion or consolidation of the templates Auto ft·lb, Auto lb.ft,Auto lbft, Auto lb·ft, and Auto ft.lbf. Four of these five apparent duplicates were in fact deliberately created to address certain issues common in automotive articles; namely, reversed ordering of the component units and/or mispunctuation.


 * There will likely always be philosophical debate over whether to be restrictive and require editors to search until they find the one and only template that will handle the units in question, or to be permissive and accommodate common stumbles with several templates, but the amount of cleanup work required is reduced by having templates that convert the most common improper formats of this unit to the correct format.


 * As for the fifth apparent duplicate, Auto ft.lbf, please keep in mind that unit conventions considered correct for non-automotive discussions aren't always the right choice for automotive discussions.This template was created because while ft·lbf is generally held as correct scientific & technical usage, in the automotive context this unit is unknown and not used. Rather, lb·ft has long been very demonstrably correct in the automotive context per numerous reliable sources. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I understand the need for the various input names of the templates to be similar, reversed, with mid-dots, with dashes, etc, as all of those combinations will help wikipedia editors find a template to format information on an article in a consistent manner. Since the name of the templates themselves are not shown in the final article content, the debate over which naming convention is the correct one can be left to the wikiproject.


 * My reason for raising the issue is that the output of those templates is all the same, and as such, means that any template formatting change must be made in 5 templates' wikicode. This defeats the purpose of having a template.  :)
 * &rarr; 123 lbft
 * &rarr; 123 lbft
 * &rarr; 123 lbft
 * &rarr; 123 lbft
 * &rarr; 123 lbft
 * &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 18:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying. I'm inclined to reply that articles are edited much oftener than templates, but even though that's so, there's probably a way to minimise both aspects of the potential problem. I envision a single, unitised "In-Sink-Erator" style template that'll take in whatever garbage someone might feed it — wrong punctuation, wrong order of unit components, etc. — and produce uniform, correctly-formatted output. I'm not sure if it's possible to create such a template, though I've seen automated cleaners-up that do exactly this what I'm talking about, using text like


 * Could something like this be incorporated into a template, or would that make an even bigger hash of things? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ill suggest we use Template:Convert... --&mdash; Typ932 T  07:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Examples of convert &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 09:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * &rarr; 123 ftlbf
 * &rarr; 123 ftlb-f


 * Perhaps, but it looks as though we'd need to create a new convert template to produce results containing lb·ft, with no f of any sort after the lb. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Torque unit: lb·ft or ft·lbf
We need to find the original discussion about this, seems that some IP editor has removed the old convention which says: --&mdash; Typ932 T  15:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Torque: 100 ft·lbf (136 N·m)
 * Note 1: Although there are a wide variety of alternate names for the English torque unit, we will use "ft·lbf" for consistency. There has been many changes to this convention page, without any discussion on this page or project page...


 * Oog. Looks as if you're right. But, as Julia Child liked to say after a kitchen disaster of one sort or another, "Y'know, in a way I'm glad this happened...". The convention you point to was enacted by, acting alone and without consensus. This does not mean it's necessarily wrong, nor do I mean to suggest that sfoskett was acting maliciously in any way; immediately after putting up this convention, s/he was very careful to state on the talk page (now archived) "This is just a start, and is not intended as a final rule on things! Please comment, add, and modify according to concensus!." So it looks as though the discussion has never properly happened and the matter will need to be talked over so we can develop consensus. Let's carefully keep in mind that consistency is the primary goal of the conventions; whatever unit conversion(s) we settle on and codify in the conventions will result in consistency throughout all articles in the project.


 * So, the present question is which unit to use. While ft·lbf is generally held as correct scientific & technical usage, in the automotive context this unit is unknown and not used. Rather, lb·ft has long been very demonstrably correct in the automotive domain, which is where this present project dwells. I favour lb·ft, and I believe the preponderance of reliable automotive evidence weighs in favour of lb·ft, rather than any variant that contains lbf. I have a very extensive library of automotive engineering and service literature, ranging from consumer-grade "do it yourself" guides clear on up through automakers' internal engineering development records and vehicle assembly protocols (and quite a lot in between those extremes), and wherever English torque units are used, it is always some variant of lb·ft (lb-ft, ft-lb, lb. ft., ft. lb., etc.), and never any variant containing lbf. The same goes for the automotive press, which never uses any variant containing lbf. Nevertheless, my library isn't exhaustive, so it's entirely possible that reliable automotive sources using ft·lbf (or some other variant containing lbf) exist.


 * Unfortunately, I am leaving tomorrow morning for a work-related trip to a part of the world where internet access is mostly nonexistent, so it will be at least a week before I can formally participate in the process of building consensus (for example by actually citing references). I wouldn't presume to ask that this discussion be delayed until I'm back, but I do ask that we not close the discussion before I've had the opportunity to post support for lb·ft as this project's uniform, consistent English unit of torque. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I cant say much about this, because we use Nm here, but we should use the one which is most used with automobiles, is the same used in UK and US? --&mdash; Typ932 T  19:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent research and comments above. Based casual searches, I would say that the output of the template should contain an abbreviation of some flavor which can be pronounced "pound feet" or "foot pounds" and "Newton meters".  An AutoWeek eBrochure of Engine Performance shows uses "Maximum torque ft lb" and "Maximum torque Nm".  Even the wikipedia article on Foot-pound_force says it could be "pound foot" or "foot pound".  But I think we are on the right track by using two words instead of three, as in lbf.  &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 09:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

MrDolomite, just as a point of clarification, the ft·lbf unit abbreviation expands to foot-pound force, not "foot-pound-foot". Typ932, I'm back from Elbonia and am jetlaggedly looking into your very good question about whether UK and US usage are the same. So far, it looks like the answer is yes, both use some variant of lb·ft (lb-ft, ft-lb, ft/lb, lb/ft, lb. ft., ft. lb., etc.). I've checked half a dozen Australian publications (prior to that country's adoption of SI Metric) and four UK publications, and still have yet to encounter any variant of ft·lbf. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do a *lot* of unit conversions using the convert template as follows:
 * 9 ft.lbf --> 9 ft.lbf
 * The template has an option for the other direction (I have never used that option):
 * 9 lbf.ft --> 9 lbf.ft
 * It hardly matters to me whether the 'ft' comes first or second. If all stakeholders agree that the order needs reversing, I would be happy for my bot to assist with reversing it. As Scheinwerfermann says, lbf is generally held as correct scientific & technical usage rather than automotive domain usage. Wikipedia frequently has to make a such choices between universal and local conventions. For example, specialists often argue that Wikipedia should use 'fps' because they are acceptable within the boundaries of a specialist publication. However, the forms 'frame/s' and 'ft/s' are better for Wikipedia specifically because they are not specialist. In this case I also prefer to see lbf <--> N and lb <--> kg. I would prefer not to migrate to a situation where lb is paired with N. Lightmouse (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion, Lightmouse. The order of units is actually a relatively minor point in this question; the major question is whether lbf is appropriate in automotive articles, and I continue to find high-quality support for the answer being no. I definitely agree with you regarding lb·ft <--> N·m and lb <--> kg, though AFAIA that's not under debate at the moment. Your point about specialist publications is well made and well taken, but we're not talking about an obscure, arcane, backwater, or rarefied little sub-area of specialisation here. Rather, we're talking about units appropriate to an entire (and very wide and deep) domain of article topics. I wonder if you might consider using in automotive-related articles rather than ft·lbf undefined. I should point out that while I've been referring to the automotive domain, there are other domains in which lb·ft is appropriate and any variant containing lbf is not. Electric motors, steam engines, and suchlike spring to mind offhand, and there are probably others.—Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is true that I thought this was about 'ft' first or 'ft' second. If the issue is about 'lb' versus 'lbf' then you are correct that the scope increases to the places you mention and all places where force is used (aviation and trains). It is possible to use although I would prefer it if we all accepted 'lbf' for its universality and clarity (if not for familiarity). Perhaps this needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Lightmouse (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

But that's just it: lbf is not universal (as we seem to agree) and in this domain and context, it is not clear. I stop just short of saying that ft·lbf is not an applicable unit here; it may be arguably acceptable on purely technical grounds, but it's just not used in this domain except in Wikipedia. That is a problem, for in building an encyclopædia, our mission is to describe the world as it is, not to prescribe the world as we think it ought to be. That's why original research is not allowed, it's why articles are required to be written from a neutral point of view...and it's why a "one size fits all" approach to picking units makes problems when it calls for using a unit other than the accepted and standard one in any given domain. The idea to discuss this at MoS is a fine one, though I'm not sure how sensitive or aware participants at that location will be to the conventions and customs of particular topical domains. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My use of the term 'universal' meant that it had the same meaning in all domains. My use of the term 'clear' meant that if I asked a reasonable reader what it meant, they would be able to answer correctly. I am contrasting that to terms like 'bps', 'fps', 'sft', 'ft/lb' that lose clarity outside their domains and are why domain usage is not the only useful measure for a multi-domain publication. I hope that clarifies what I meant. Lightmouse (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I understand now what you meant. Here again, I agree most emphatically that we need to use standard, accepted, clear units and not arcane or vernacular ones. Your examples 'bps', 'fps', and 'sft' are all illustrative of units inappropriate because they are arcane and/or vernacular, but your final example 'ft/lb' is different. It's inappropriate because it's inappropriately formatted. It looks like "feet per pound" (compare km/h). It is a common misexpression of lb·ft (or ft·lb), but the improper punctuation is the only thing that makes it wrong. lbf does not meet your criterion of being intuitively or immediately understandable to any reasonable reader. Reactions along the lines of "Why are we saying 'foot-pound-foot?' are common; that f after the lb is neither intuitive nor recognised in this domain. I bounce this ball back to your half of the field: lb·ft is intuitive and immediately comprehensible to anyone in any domain, while ft·lbf is not. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple names in a title
I thought there was a consensus on this but it's not here. I was under the impression that one and only one name would be used for the title of an article that covers more than one vehicle, as opposed to, say, Ford Freestar/Mercury Monterey. How do we want to do this? --Sable232 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The convention clearly says "one name". This is very wrong. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

One more image convention (don't worry, it's obvious)
I intend to add another convention: Images that contain a date stamp or other such mark are not permitted.

I wouldn't think this should have to be stated, but apparently I was wrong in that assessment. --Sable232 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that general Wikipedia conventions and regulations covers that already. Excuse me for not linking to anything in particular, but I perceived it as pretty obious and seen it in action (image either removed or edited, by uploader or other user). PrinceGloria (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

convert
I'm seeing a couple of places in the conventions where it's completely discouraged to use convert or not even mentioned when it very much can do the conversions properly and, going through the archives, I don't see a discussion about this. Is it an oversight or was an executive decision made without discussion?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 06:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been no discussion about this, I prefer using convert template, if possible, and we can always ask them make it suit better to our needs if needed --&mdash;  Typ932 T  07:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I, too, prefer to use convert, but am definitely starting to see the value to the auto templates. I think both should be represented. Editing should be easy enough the recreational editor with more advanced options available to the more advanced Wikipedian. The combination of both convert and auto templates provides this flexibility. Thoughts?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 05:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. For me, the auto templates are easier to use.--Flash176 (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreement here, too. Can you point out the language that discourages use of convert? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

English: 215 lb·ft (not ft·lbf — use Template:Auto lbft rather than Template:convert)  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah...that one's my fault. I should've looked before I leapt; it seems convert can in fact do lb·ft. The last time I checked, which was admittedly too long ago on which to have based convention language, convert did only ft·lbf. Please stand by for a repair to the convention text.—Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So if undefined undefined does the same job as an auto-specific template, and does it better (can auto templates do American/international spelling?), why do so many auto templates exist? Aint it simpler to standardize so that editing a car article doesnt mean learning a whole new set of code. I didnt know undefined undefined could handle "lb·ft" so I thought was a great idea, but what is the point of, ,  or  ? The other advantage of standardization is that you will get more input at talk pages (like Category talk:Conversion templates) because more people will use them. We shouldnt be trying to ringfence ourselves as a clique of our own. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed User:MrDolomite said pretty much exactly what I was thinking in the section above (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions). Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The auto templates are easier (shorter) to type, and they get their respective jobs done fine. Deleting these templates will create an enormous amount of makework in articles that currently display correctly; Someone'll have to go back into each and every one of those articles and replace each and every one of those template instances. The articles won't display any differently, so all that work will have been generated for zero net benefit. Presently, the conventions allow either type of template to be used. That doesn't constitute ringfencing ourselves or behaving like a clique; the problem/crisis Chryslerforever1988 seems worried about does not exist. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Chryslerforever, that was my thinking for a while and still kind of is, but I'm starting to see the value of auto specific templates. The auto templates are easier to use, although my preference in any of my edits is always convert. Even so, editors deserve that ease, especially if they're bringing newly introduced knowledge to any article. My only concern with them is the MUST be maintained as much as convert is.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start working on a section within units for conversions to follow under the conventions. The subject seems important enough to detail out some sort of documentation. Thoughts?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 21:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Started section with examples. I only put some more widely used and automotive-specific examples up (i.e. keeping length and weight example off). Not too sure if I like the structure, but the info is good. Maybe this can be worked in smoother. I don't know. Definitely looking for feedback. Thoughts?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

bhp
I'm seeing an inconsistency between the way auto bhp and the way convert uses bhp. Conventions say auto bhp should only be used to represent British horsepower I understand bhp could be used for British horsepower, but it seems to be bhp is far more used in articles for brake horsepower due to manufacturer rating meaning such. This being the case, I suggest we: Thoughts?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 00:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) use auto bhp exclusively for brake horsepower to match the usage of convert
 * 2) create another template such as auto British hp for ''British horsepower
 * 3) change the wording in conventions to explain the difference in usage


 * The standard definition of BHP is brake horsepower, the brake being the device that measures horsepower. I can't understand why there's a convention for British horsepower since it's the same thing as regular horsepower. We already use Hp, kW, and PS, I see no reason to have a 4th unit.


 * I vote for the first choice of matching the templates for brake horsepower. I've never heard of British horsepower, but I admit that's likely due to the fact that I live in America.--Flash176 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I though bhp are same in both meanings see User_talk:Scheinwerfermann, so there is no difference in conversions? One thing I dont understand is also why is PS chosen to represent metric horsepower? Is it for reason the original measurement is from Germany or some other reason? --&mdash;  Typ932 T  07:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * PS isn't chosen to represent metric horsepower. kW is the one listed in WP:AUN, or are you talking about somewhere else?--Flash176 (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Its on the convention same way as most of others (somebody has changed the convention page, but it was there earlier),

"Note 1: If metric horsepower is the original unit (as for many European vehicles), we will use the unambiguous PS instead of the ambiguous "bhp" or "hp" and will translate as per above."


 * not all of these are "chosen", kW is official standard in EU nowadays, but most magazines etc. still uses hp (DIN), as older people and so on are not familiar with this new system --&mdash; Typ932 T  09:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * bhp would have the same conversion formula under both brake horsepower and British horsepower, but they represent different meanings. The ways it's written in WP:AUN is say that it should only mean British horsepower. I'm saying it should not and that bhp is more commonly referred to brake horsepower. I'm saying let's, at the very least, take out the restriction on the meaning of bhp meaning British horsepower. Thoughts?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL
I have had a lot of occurrences in the last year where I'd have to nominate an article for deletion because it was about a vehicle that did not exist. Editors would make pages for vehicles that were speculated by the media as coming soon. Sometimes they would. Sometimes they wouldn't. Whatever the case is, I think it's important that we enforce WP:CRYSTALBALL. I'm going to throw the following statement somewhere into the conventions page about creating articles that have not been officially announced.

"In accordance with WP:CRYSTALBALL, articles about future or speculative vehicles that have not been officially announced by their manufacturer should not be created. If an article is created about a speculative vehicle, it is to be either deleted or redirected to an article whose subject is most relevant to the redirect's subject."

This shouldn't be news to anyone, but a reminder is definitely in order and it would be nice to point automobile editors to wording that relates the automotive industry and Wikipedia's policies. roguegeek (talk·cont) 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)