![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
I just started a discussion in Template:Infobox automobile about the use of the Manufacturer field. It's currently used inconsistently, so we should come to a conclusion on how it should be used. I see this has come up several times over the years, and things have been changed, but we still seem to have a consistency problem.
I think it should be the brand and parent company. Some articles do like so: "Brand (Parent company)." For example, Mini Clubman currently lists Mini ( BMW) as the Manufacturer.
Any other thoughts? Please share them at Template_talk:Infobox_automobile#Manufacturer_use. -- heat_fan1 ( talk) 21:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Recently, Fisker Automotive was moved to Fisker Inc. but these are two separate companies. Henrik Fisker left FA before it died, and its assets were bought out by Wanxiang to create Karma Automotive. So this seems to be conflating two companies together due to having the same founder. Yet Fisker Coachbuild also has the same founder, and was not conflated into this new article. Further, development of the Fisker Karma continued (as the VLF Destino) at yet another company involving Henrik Fisker, VLF Automotive, which is also not part of this "merged" article. This seems misleading, since the two companies are unrelated.
Shouldn't "Fisker Inc." be returned to "Fisker Automotive" (where the edit history is mostly about that) and "Fisker Inc." be split off into a new article instead? -- 65.94.171.217 ( talk) 13:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
It was suggested that I come here for help resolving a question of classification of the Chevrolet Bolt. The Bolt website states: "This crossover does not compromise." [1] Scroll down, select "Cargo" tab. The Bolt order guide is listed under the "Chevrolet Truck" section as a "5-Door Crossover." [2] Select "Bolt EV" from dropdown at top right. The Kia Soul is classified by Wikipedia as a Subcompact crossover. I believe the Kia Soul and Chevrolet Bolt should be classified the same way. The two are nearly identical in exterior dimensions [3] and both are front wheel drive, tall wagons. Their respective manufacturers refer to them as crossovers. What's the consensus? Please participate at Talk:Chevrolet Bolt and/or discuss here as appropriate. Many thanks. Freeinfo ( talk) 15:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Beyond that, we can classify vehicles in two distinct ways: one, based on the physical dimensions and construction, and two, how the vehicle is marketed. Much confusion disappears when you treat these two things as distinct. A third classification is legal class, which varies greatly by country, and breaks down further by tax, emissions, fuel economy, safety, drivers qualification, and insurance classes. It's a quagmire, and Wikipedia is not qualified as the authority to sort it out. But we can make sure readers are aware it is a quagmire. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the Stutz Bearcat article? When I am not logged in, the text shows several times $Error when using {{Inflation}}: NaN, check parameters for non-numeric data: |end_year={{{4}}} (parameter 4) and |r={{{r}}}. in 2015[1]). When I am logged in, it looks normal. Strange. -- Don Minestrone ( talk) 21:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I recently tried to standardize all the year commons categories for Ford Fairlanes, but an administrator rejected the cat move tags. Does anybody else want to explain the standards to this person? --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 13:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not around as much as I would like, but this is a bit of a mess, too many red links. I think we need to change to only including names that already have articles here on Wikipedia, which would exclude all red links. Red links are useful in articles to show where we need to create a new article, but no so much in lists, where they tend to just attracts spam (mainly in computer and biotech lists) or just lots of links that are unsourcable, like this one. Wanted to drop off and get input about changing that article. I think it would be better to discuss here rather than at that one list, more eyes. I will put a pointer to this discussion on the list. In short, I support changing the criteria for this list (and other auto related lists) to include only entries that have articles on wikipedia, as the red links aren't helpful in lists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
When was doors field added to this template? and is it really needed? because it should read in body-style field ? --> Typ932 T· C 18:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
|body-style=hardtop, sedan, wagon
and |doors=2,3,4,5
but how woudl we know which doors go with which body. We could list it as |body-style=hardtop, sedan, wagon
and |doors=2-door hardtop, 4-door sedan, 3-door wagon, 5-door wagon
but that's double the effort and no gain.
Stepho
talk 21:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Is grandprixhistory.org a legitimate source, or spam? The articles there appear to be original, so it's not a obvious scraper site. This seems to indicate it's a pay-to-play kind of operation, where someone commissions articles to their benefit? "If you are interested in having an article written, wish to use one of the existing articles or require research conducted on any topic having to do with the history of motorsports please do not hesitate to contact me at..." 99.25.36.225 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has added links to this site to 8 articles so far. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 46 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
BushelCandle ( talk · contribs) is inserting unreferenced nonsense into Karma Revero claiming that the Fisker Karma is a Finnish designed car and the Karma Revero is a Chinese designed car. (Both cars were designed in California by the Danish designer Henrik Fisker, as is the VLF Destino, which also uses the same design) The Revero is built in California, while the Fisker Karma was built in Finland. Both Karma Automotive and Fisker Automotive are based out of California (ie. US companies). For Karma Automotive, owned by a Chinese company, it's the same as claiming all Chrysler cars are Italian-designed cars because Fiat is in Italy (or previously German, because Daimler is in Germany) Or that the Apple iPhone is Chinese because it is built in China. The design studio is in America, and the designer is neither Chinese or Finnish (Mr. Fisker being a Dane) -- 65.94.171.217 ( talk) 11:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Can you help me edit a few of my recently edited articles to bring them up to wiki standards? And maybe the same for TG21 / Vodafone Automotive / Subaru and other vehicle manufacturers and vehicle security companies?
Kind regards INTRX009 ( talk) 22:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
and {{
cite news}}
for details) but that reference doesn't really say much except that Subaru UK likes a finance company called Subaru Finance, which is a trading style of International Motors Finance Limited. We need references about how it started in 1974 and the current relationship. All up, its a good first pass.
Stepho
talk 01:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)My list of missing topics about vehicles is updated - Skysmith ( talk) 19:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there an infobox for custom cars & movie cars? Red Baron & California Kid could both use one, & I'm (slowly...) working up a page on the Panthermobile that could, too. (Pix would be good for all, if anybody can find them...)
Second issue: any thoughts on pages for pioneering funny cars? I'm thinking of a couple of influential first-generation cars (which would be stubby pages, with the limited info I now have...), but they'd have gotten significant magazine coverage in their day, & have affected FCs as they now exist.
FYI: I'm online (very) intermittently these days, so my reply (if any) won't be soon... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine. [1] [2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors
Authors
If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
|
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Anyone know what kind of car this is? (All I can tell is that it's a Chevrolet.) Kaldari ( talk) 06:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone have a view on adding hatnotes to unrelated cars that share a name, eg Lotus Excel and Hyundai Excel. Is there a need to place notes on the tops of such pages, listing all other models with the same name? Feel free to weigh in at Talk:Nissan Caravan. Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi y'all, I've alerted admin NeilN at: User_talk:NeilN#Possible problem spanning multiple vehicle articles about some concerns with recent editing activity in vehicle articles as so:
Hi NeilN, would you (or another whose tact is backed by authority) please take a look at Reattacollector's recent, 11 February 2017, edit history? In a relatively short period of time they've unilaterally made multiple large excisions and converts of established pages to redirects without merging data to new targets and without offering either proposals or explanations on talkpages; all taking place within vehicle articles.
[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
I've reverted one instance which affects something I'm working on [12] but sorting out the remaining situation (which may require reverting a single user multiple times across multiple articles) en masse seems like more than I'm pragmatically empowered to deal with.
Thanks for your time and consideration, -- Kevjonesin ( talk) 12:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to be sure to make folks here aware of the activity I've noted and offer y'all an opportunity to help sort things out. Thanks for your time and attention, -- Kevjonesin ( talk) 13:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, maxbe you could take a look to this portal discussion? thanks! -- Max schwalbe ( talk) 15:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, WikiProject Automobiles! On behalf of NADA, I am hoping to make some improvements to the National Automobile Dealers Association article, which is outdated and missing some key details. I've posted an edit request for a few small, straightforward updates, and am hoping an editor from this project may have a few minutes to take a look at this request. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 19:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Now that cars have become tall again their ability to stay upright surely must be much reduced. Its a factor of their track (I think) and so please may we have in infobox automobile a slot for track? I have just found whoever did the original Austin-Healey 3000 infobox (not me) has had it in there all these years but its never been displayed. Sincerely, Eddaido ( talk) 11:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
An IP with a Dubai location has just (very near) tripled the above article without providing so much as one source. What should be done? Eddaido ( talk) 11:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Do Warm air intake and Heated air inlet cover the same subject? — Gorthian ( talk) 20:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I know light vans tend to fall uncomfortably down a gaping crack between trucks and automobiles. Nevertheless, if anyone is minded to improve the entry on the GAZ-2332 CityVan ... please do it. Regards Charles01 ( talk) 09:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a discussion of the source carsalesbase.com at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Carsalesbase.com. — Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
FYI, the MFD article at Multi-function display is up for deletion -- 70.51.200.162 ( talk) 04:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
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 categorised according to the prevelant classes of their production era. -- Gwafton ( talk) 17:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The ranking of Toyota and GM is being discussed at Talk:General_Motors#World.27s_largest_time_frame. Please add comments to that discussion, not here. Thanks. Stepho talk 22:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Nissan Leaf, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
Someone created Diesel emissions scandal. However, the title looks biased and may need change. Also, the article lists examples of "scandals" involving car companies, like Volkswagen. More improvement is needed. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe somebody can help? I tried posting a table to gasser, & ended up with the table at the bottom of the page. (Huh?) Can somebody have a look at the page history & see if they can find my mistake? I've got at least two more tables I hoped to post there... Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Car#RfC about including the word 'automobile' in the first sentence of the lead paragraph Yngvadottir ( talk) 18:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hot shrinking is newly created and needs help to expand....and become cool! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
An ip has just added new sections to this article: The Riley RM Facebook page and about it and Riley clubs and about them and the names of books about the Riley cars (not as citations). Is this information desirable / acceptable content? Eddaido ( talk) 14:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
So i keep seeing this change in tables over the years and it leaves me scratching my head each time. Was it correct before the change? Or are cars referred to as "born" in this situation? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 46/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Automobiles, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
It has been proposed that Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile be moved to FIA. Interested editors are invited to participate in the move discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 20:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Category:Engine cooling systems and Category:Automotive cooling systems were kind of muddled so I resorted them. Automotive cooling systems could be renamed Automotive HVAC systems for greater clarity. Engine cooling systems could refer to rocket engine cooling too, and could be renamed to specify automotive type applications only. Locomotive engines or aircraft internal combustion engines are much like automotive engines, so you might want to group some of these topics. Or just not think about it too much. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 15:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Is Supercars.net an accepted source? This is their self confidence level:
"SUPERCARS.NET DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Supercars.net and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk."
Eddaido (
talk) 03:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
If I'm just myopic and someone finds evidence that the site does check off the boxes given above, then that would be reason to call it a reliable source in a more general sense, not limited to opinions. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of who he is, the thing about a reliable source is that it speaks for itself when readers see it. We shouldn't have to talk anyone into trusting it. Any source that raises questions every time it is cited is usually more trouble than it's worth. The footnotes are supposed to inspire confidence, not doubt. What fact are we trying to cite here? Why not just replace supercars.net with some other source? Given their lack of original research, it seems likely that any fact that is found only on this site, not published elsewhere, is untrustworthy. And it it is published elsewhere, cite the other source instead, so we don't have to fret over it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I saw that someone added owner's manual links to Lincoln Town Car and Lincoln Continental. Are these acceptable? -- Vossanova o< 13:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
An apparently inexperienced User:Githek has swapped Infobox brand for an infobox company - this is not a company. Or is it? The same editor made many other changes in the contents of the infobox. I've never had any interest in the article knowing nothing about the product. I just thought there might be other lurkers prepared to disagree with Githek. Thanks, Eddaido ( talk) 02:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Lepo1862 has just been on an editing spree and removed General Motors from a whole slew of Opel articles - around 40 or so.
This isn't my area of expertise (if indeed any area is,) but is this correct behaviour - there are no edit summaries to accompany the removal.
I've not discussed it with Lepo1862 either yet, but as I've tagged him here he should be made aware of the topic. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 11:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
First, GM is no longer the owner of Opel. Second, Opel is the manufacturer (See VIN-numbers of Astra, Zafira and Co.). I haven´t seen Skoda, Seat, Audi,... articles saying "Skoda Auto (Volkswagen)" or "Audi (Volkswagen)".-- Lepo1862 ( talk) 11:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The What Wikipeida is not policy says under WP:NOTSALES "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention... Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products". We aren't supposed to always give readers the kind of information you'd find in Consumer Reports or What Car?, "like model 1 costs $$$$ and model 2 costs $$$, but model 1 has xyz features." We routinely quote fuel economy, but not costs per mile. It's one thing to quote a reviewer who justifies why a given price is extraordinary and worth highlighting, but it's something else to give comprehensive dollar values broken down by model and trim level, locality, usage, etc.
At Tesla Model S and Nissan Leaf, we have detailed tables of each model year, each battery option, city, highway and combined energy consumption, and quotes of dollar costs per mile and annually. Not every electric car article has this, but Tesla Model 3, Tesla Roadster, Tesla Model X, BMW i3, and Chevrolet Bolt all quote dollar values for operating costs, based on some number assigned for the price of electricity and gasoline. These street prices are mostly US-centric (naturally...) and only refer to a particular year.
Obviously prospective electric car buyers are eager to know whether they will save money or not compared to a gasoline car. But that is why price comparison and shopping guides exist. Wikipedia is not a price comparison or shopping guide. Given that we don't have tables of operating costs for petroleum vehicles, you can't actually compare the electric car costs to anything. And you can't convert the US dollar prices to Euros or other currency to see what you would pay in other countries, because the price of electricity and fuel is drastically different, due to different taxes, subsidies, supply and demand balances, etc. This is why that kind of detail is unencyclopedic: we have no hope of giving an objective and comprehensive assessment for each model of car.
It makes sense that broader articles about electric vehicles in general would discuss the economics of the cars, particularly tracking the changing costs of operation and ownership over time as technology and supply changes, because that's not a shopping guide. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
See discussion about the notability of the car. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. There are several requests by editors with a conflict of interest over at Talk:Carvana that could use a review. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 23:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)