Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions/Archive 3

Country Flags in infobox
Hi, I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on adding the country of asssembly's flag to the infobox. VX1NG (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, Bahnfrend, pointed out that it had already been addressed. VX1NG (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments here being removed
I've tried to open a discussion here about Wikiproject Automobiles/Conventions, and it keeps getting removed -- by the same editor that has not been assuming good faith and has been, frankly surly. My question here is: what are the conventions and criteria for merging automobile related articles? Are these posted anywhere or outlined? 842U (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Taxi
Hi all,

I have a small question regarding the naming conventions used in categorisation at Wikimedia Commons;

A category for a certain automobile model (for example, Proton Prevé) may have a sub-category which lists taxi variants of that model.

My question is, should the naming convention be 'Proton Prevé as taxi ', 'Proton Prevé taxis ', 'Proton Prevé in taxi service ', or something else entirely ? The naming convention that I've been using is 'as taxi', but I'm concerned that it may not be the most appropriate naming convention to use.

Does anyone know the correct naming convention to use when categorising automobile models by their taxi variants ? Thanks in advance. Aero777 (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no current standard as far as I am aware. Just pick what you feel is most appropriate I guess. OSX (talk • contributions) 20:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi OSX, thanks for responding, I was actually considering asking you this very question on your talk page as I wasn't getting a reply here. haha


 * Since there appears to be no agreed convention, and coming from someone who has pretty much seen it all... I guess I'll just stick with 'as taxi' as it appears to be the most commonly used / de facto convention. Aero777 (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries. I don't have an opinion for a "model" standard, but if other editors do it would be good to discuss and then add to Commons:WikiProject Automobiles. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would use "in taxi service", but it is perhaps a bit cumbersome. How about "The Prevé as taxi"? We know it's a Proton already, since that's the title of the page. And, as for OSX, I reckon I trust you with whatever.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks OSX. I wouldn't mind opening up another discussion in the Commons section of WikiProject Automobiles, but I highly doubt that it'll make much headway as the Talk page on the Commons version isn't even opened yet; I'm guessing here's where the bulk of decisions are made. And besides, since my original concern has already been addressed (that there's no known standard for categorising car models by taxis), and seeing that the whole models by taxi thing isn't high priority (unlike the models themselves), I think I'll remain with the de facto 'as taxi' standard. :] Aero777 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Mr. Choppers, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the topic; I too thought of 'in taxi service' at one point, but after many days of thinking, I'm finding it hard to top 'as taxi'. I'm aware that 'in police service' sounds quite professional, but for some reason, 'in taxi service' doesn't sound quite right. Plus, 'as a taxi' or 'as taxis' aren't much better either... however, 'in taxi livery' does sound a bit better, but then again, some countries don't have a standard livery or paintjob for taxis. As for 'The Prevé as taxi', I'd have to say that removing the make (Proton) might make categorizing more cumbersome for newbies. For example, when someone uploads a photo of a car through the File Upload Wizard, they will most likely type in the make of the car first (eg. Toyota) followed by the name of the model (eg. Corolla) in the Commons category section during the uploading procedure. If there are separate categories for models with multiple generations, (eg. Toyota Corolla (first generation), Toyota Corolla (second generation) etc.), the suggestions will load them and the uploader can choose accordingly. And if there's a separate category for taxi versions of the car, (eg. Toyota Corolla (second generation) as taxi), the uploader can easily categorize to the most accurate level. This is sort of a 'level / tier / pyramid effect', whereby the car make and model is the lowest tier, the generation in the middle (if applicable), and the taxi and police car variants at the top. If we remove the car make as you've suggested, it might create extra work for us as we'd have to manually re-sort to the most accurate category. Just my 2 cents... and terribly sorry for this rather long explanation. :x Aero777 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Problamatic discussion of some conventions.
Please take a look at my talk page about a problem about a specific convention. Doorknob747 17:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you I look foward to seeing a responce Doorknob747 17:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For those who would like to weigh in, this is regarding WP:AUCL and the use of "supercar" as a classification. The editor also created Category:Super cars. I proposed a speedy delete of that category based on WP:AUCL, but the proposal was denied here. Bahooka (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The category of "Super car" is now up for discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 9. Bahooka (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Automobile articles' layout convention
Ok, let's get down to it. Trying to put together a conventional overall layout for articles on automobiles. I'd say first of all we should identify the recurring sections throughout the articles. Just a quick draft:

Proposal 1

 * History or Background, treating the birth of the car (when known) through the design brief, concepts etc.
 * Specifications section; general technical layout and mechanicals description.
 * Body and chassis. Body, frame, suspension, brakes, wheels.
 * Powertrain (including engine-transmission table when present)
 * Performance
 * Models or Variants, with subsections for body styles, trim levels, limited editions and the like.
 * Motorsport
 * Awards
 * Issues (?), dealing with prominent recalls, lawsuits or defects.
 * Issues (?), dealing with prominent recalls, lawsuits or defects.

Other often occurring subsections that should go somewhere: Design (styling), Production (figures, manufacturing plant wtc.), Marketing, Concept cars. What do you think? – Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Thanks for starting this. It will be very helpful to have an agreed basic structure to help edit some existing articles, and for new articles. I would include Production (to include sales if relevant?) in the main list, ad I've suggested a design section. I would urge restraint with limited editions as this seems to take over some articles! See WP:CRITS re issues! My suggestions to add to the mix below. Warren (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * History or Background, treating the birth of the car (when known) through the design brief, concepts, key dates, predecessor/successor.
 * Specifications section; general technical layout and mechanicals description.
 * Design overview of notable design and styling features (internal and external) and body types, designer
 * Chassis Platform, frame, suspension, brakes, wheels
 * Powertrain (including engine-transmission table when present)
 * Performance (including speed/acceleration/fuel economy table when present)
 * Safety if the NCAP and associated tables are needed...
 * Models or Derivatives, with subsections for body styles, trim levels and the like, including international variants (for some models this might need to be its own Markets section?)
 * Production and sales, including manufacturing locations, production and sales numbers where relevant, and could include a
 * Marketing subsection where needed?
 * Motorsport
 * Reception
 * Awards
 * Controversies where relevant, dealing with prominent recalls, lawsuits or defects.


 * I go along with all that. Another issue: how to deal with model years and mid-cycle refreshes? Something like:
 * 2011 facelift - as a main section?
 * – Cloverleaf II (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Sorry it took me a few days to respond, I've been working on this for a couple of days, tweaking it, and trying to test to see if it works in different articles. I do get the feeling that this is going to be very difficult, but for a page outlining a single generation model, something like this below is how I would do things:


 * History, treating the birth of the car (when known) through the design brief, concepts, production locations, key dates, predecessor/successor. Overview of notable design and styling features
 * 2006–2009 (Series I), or other relevant descriptor
 * 2009–2012 (Series II)
 * OR
 * Updates, for cars with more incremental yearly changes


 * Body styles, only if relevant, otherwise combine with history (i.e. model with a single body style)
 * Specifications section; general technical layout and mechanicals description.
 * Chassis Platform, frame, suspension, brakes, wheels
 * Powertrain, including speed/acceleration
 * Safety
 * Market, including fuel economy for key markets
 * Africa
 * Asia
 * Australasia
 * Europe
 * North America
 * South America
 * Variants, for special versions, like the Camry Hybrid, Impreza WRX, Golf GTI. Supplemented with the Market section for ordinary trims
 * Sales and reception, i.e. for sales and production figures, marketing (if relevant), awards and criticism, etc
 * Motorsport

Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 02:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The section heads are all good ones and this can certainly act as a check-list of the central things we know or at least that we'd love to know and / or that readers are entitled to know.  However, for all but the best documented cars, what you can actually write is a function of your sources which have no reason to conform to any wiki guidelines, and we should not become so committed to a standard lay-out that we are excluding bits of information that are relevant and interesting - maybe even important - simply because we cannot decide about the section in which they belong!   In other words - and it's a more general point - anything which purports to be style guide is a tool to enhance understanding rather than a stick to enforce one set of thought structures.  Regards Charles01 (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, and if a proposal gets approval for admission to the conventions page, it would probably need to go with a disclaimer stating that is is a good template to follow. So, yes the template should be kept to its original form as much as possible, unless it detracts from the quality of the article. Therefore, if there was a controversy surrounding the model along the lines of Firestone and Ford tire controversy or some other breakthrough engineering issue, then there is room to maneuver to include it.


 * Also, if it is a car sold in only one market (e.g. Holden), then Market ought to be replaced with Trim levels or the like. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think it would be better to have a "Background" section than a "History" section. The evolution of an automobile model over its time in production should be recorded in other sections.  The key issue is how to record that evolution.  I've been looking at some of the embarrassingly few "featured articles" and "good articles" about automobile models.  I think the solution to the key issue I have just identified is to develop two sets of layout conventions, namely one set for articles about a single generation of a particular model (eg Ford Falcon (BA)) (such articles would include articles about model generations that were facelifted during their lifetimes, eg Citroën C3 Picasso), and another set for articles about several generations of such a model (eg Lexus LS).  (Although I have linked here some examples that are rated as "good articles", I think all of these examples could be improved significantly if their formats were revised.)  What I will do in the near future is put together below a "Proposal 5" that will set out two suggested layouts, one for each of these two types of articles. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 4
Add the following sections below the ones suggested in the existing proposals:
 * See also
 * References
 * Footnotes, if there are any
 * Notes ie inline citations
 * Bibliography
 * General a list of general printed and/or online bibliographical sources (ie cited works and/or further reading), arranged alphabetically by author (or title if no author is identified) - this can include foreign language sources if appropriate (eg for automobiles made in continental Europe or Japan)
 * Workshop manuals a list of workshop manuals, arranged alphabetically by author (or title if no author is identified) - again, this can include foreign language sources if appropriate
 * External links, including a link to the most appropriate commons category

An example of an article in this suggested format is Mercedes-Benz W201.

Regards, Bahnfrend (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is covered in the guideline: MOS:FOOTER. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 5
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Concept: the initial ideas behind the car.
 * Design: styling, ergonomics, convenience features
 * Engineering: engines, transmissions, suspension, braking, safety features, etc.
 * Reception: the market's reaction to the car; would also include awards or issues
 * Development: changes in design, engineering or marketing with time and consumer/marketing/regulatory input
 * Models or Variants, with subsections for body styles, trim levels, limited editions and the like.
 * Motorsport
 * Legacy for old or discontinued models; this would include any trends started or ended by the car either industry-wide or within the marque. Especially important for influential cars, like the Edsel (make sure there's something worthwhile behind the hype), the Ford Mustang (an entirely new niche), or the Ford Pinto (callous decisions regarding known defects created the concept of punitive damages in lawsuits).
 * MOS:FOOTER stuff as stated in Proposal 4.
 * Car articles are a mess; there is little consistency of structure among them. Whichever proposal is selected, it should include a Specification/Performance section, such as the Aircraft templates widely used in Wikipedia Aircraft articles for good consistency. A good example could be Audi_R8. The WikiProject Automobiles/Templates seem inadequate. TGCP (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Indifferent images of cars
This is not a bad picture, but nor is it a particularly good one. At least in my judgement.


 * It highlights the difficulty with photographing clean white cars on bright days.  The white of the car body becomes over exposed and you loose depth / perspective / sufficient sharpness regarding the panel gaps.


 * It highlights the difficulty of standing very close and zooming your lens to maximum wide angle.  Sometimes the photographer must do that to avoid standing in the middle of the road and getting run over.   Or where cars are packed close together.   But where it can be avoided, I think you get a more "realistic" idea of how the thing looks by stepping back just a bit.   In this example, at least to my eye, the bit of the Land Rover in the centre of the image is unnaturally enlarged and the rear part of the car, towards the edge of the frame, is correspondingly unnaturally diminished.   And the overall shape is distorted.  Is that how the car actually looked?

I realise this may simply lead to the conclusion that we all see things differently. None of us will ever take a perfect picture of a car or of anything else. No one expects you to.

But if you are holding this out as a "how to do it" example, I respectfully submit you could do a whole lot better. Same thought applies, for quite different reasons, to the Toyota picture you've put above it.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Facelift section title
There is some inconsistency in the section names for facelifts. Title styles I have seen are: Is there any preference for a house style? I prefer #2 'Facelift (2016)'. I don't like putting 'present' in the title because one day 'present' will be changed to an actual year and links will be broken. Using #3 implies 'present' will be required on the current facelift, so I don't like that either. Also, #4 and #6 (with ndash) are harder to type links for (editors tend to type an ordinary '-' hyphen straight from the keyboard). To me, this pushes us towards #1 or #2. Thoughts?  Stepho  talk 05:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) 2016 facelift
 * 2) Facelift (2016)
 * 3) Facelift (2013-2015)
 * 4) Facelift (2013–2015) Note ndash
 * 5) Facelift (2013-present)
 * 6) Facelift (2013–present) Note ndash


 * If you don't like 2016 facelift what is wrong with Facelift 2016 (no brackets)? Eddaido (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Partly because I haven't seen it in the articles that I follow and partly because brackets are more consistent with other titles like 'Toyota Corolla (E70)'.  Stepho  talk 08:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I see. I'd have seen Toyota Corolla and E70 as kind of alternative names for the same thing where 2016 is just a plain adjective (grammar?) for the facelift. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I prefer the first one. This distinguishes it best from the generation section titles, e.g. "Second generation (2010-2015)".  Honestly, I prefer the term "refresh", "update", or "mid-cycle update".  "Facelift" is a somewhat pejorative term suggesting all they did was change the front of the car, when often they will change other parts as well, such as the interior, engine, or the rear.  But it's so commonly used, I can't really suggest we change every page. --Vossanova o&lt; 15:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the word 'update' instead of 'facelift'. We still need to choose the date placement. Personally, I prefer to harmonise the style with the generation section titles. The update titles are much shorter than the generation titles, so they standout anyway. But I'm not married to any particular style and just want to settle on a uniform style. Note: my preferences are only for comment, not dogma :)  Stepho  talk 23:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Supercar vs Sports Car
I noticed the Aventador page labeled the car as a sports car, as opposed to a supercar. Anyone who knows anything about cars should know that this is completely unfair. I made the appropriate corrections. My change, however, was undone and I was told to come here to talk about it.

The simple fact that it is a V12 lambo should be enough to convince anyone that the Aventador is a supercar. Lamborghinis often define the class. But just look at the performance of the thing. There should be no doubt that the Aventador is not just a sports car.

So this isn't just me whining about my edit being reverted (something I hate about wikis because edit wars are just waiting to happen, but that is another discussion), I think there is a kind of uncertainty about the difference between a sports car and a supercar. I was always lead to believe that it was actually very mathematical. But according to the user who undid my edit and the supercar page, it is apparently almost entirely subjective.

So what do we think, both about the Aventador, and the usage of the term "supercar?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.58.31 (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Lamborghini Aventador certainly does fulfil all the requirements of a sports car. It also fulfils the more specific requirements of a supercar. From the supercar article:
 * "During the late 20th century, the term supercar was used to describe 'a very expensive, fast or powerful car with a centrally located engine', and stated in more general terms: 'it must be very fast, with sporting handling to match', 'it should be sleek and eye-catching' and its price should be 'one in a rarefied atmosphere of its own'."
 * I prefer to use "sports cars" to describe the low to mid part of the range (eg Lotus Elan for the mid-range and maybe the Celica and Mustang for the low-end) while using "supercar" for the top end Lambos, Bugatti's, etc.  Stepho  talk 01:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To help your discussion here is a summary of past discussions compiled by another editor awhile back. The consensus may have changed since then. 72Dino (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm struggling to raise much enthusiasm for yet another rehash of the Countach theme, built by a tractor manufacturer currently owned by a commodities manaufacturer. But if you want to label it as a supercar, go for it. Greglocock (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. No reason for it to be labeled a sports car. SunLife2k1 (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

SUPERCAR CLASSIFICATION
We should be allowed to label cars as supercars if they're supercars. Sports Cars and Supercars aren't the same. SunLife2k1 (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify, SunLife edited Pagani Zonda, Lexus LFA, Lamborghini Aventador and Lamborghini Murciélago to change where they said sportscar to supercar. Each of the articles had a comment next to the classification in the infobox that said 'per WP:CARCLASS, this should not be changed to "supercar or hypercar" '. I changed the articles back and recommended he raise the topic here if he doesn't agree with WP:CARCLASS.  Stepho  talk 07:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Trivia
From time to time we get editors saying that WP:CARTRIVIA is only a guideline and can therefore be ignored. They also say that other WP projects don't have this prohibition. Perhaps we should provide a link to WP:MILPOP and WikiProject_Firearms (and others if you know of them) to show that there is more consensus.  Stepho  talk 02:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

More about classification
In some cases even quite old cars are categorised according to the car classification defined by the European Commission. I don't know when it was taken into use, but I am quite sure that production of Fiat 600 was ceased before the concept of A-segment was defined.

The segmentation has been established for contemporary marketing research and statistic purposes and I find it not applicable on such models which were not produced any more when this sort of categorisation was taken into use.

Therefore I suggest a such practice in car model articles that the models shall be only categorised according to the prevelant classes of their production era. --Gwafton (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)