Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge of Blue Car

This is to invite any interested editors in the merge discussion of the Pininfarina B0 article as a section of the Bolloré Blue Car. See the structure of the French Wikipedia article here.--Mariordo (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Countess Mouldings

Hi all - I'm working on this New Zealand based replica car maker of a high quality Lamborghini Countach, but have run out of sources and information. This leaves the article in state that can't be added. The cars are mentioned on various global talk sites and were, I believe, sold primarily to Japanese buyers. Can anyone assist, edit or add any useful referenced material. NealeFamily (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have sources but I have a tip. Create a page in your user area (say, User:NealeFamily/Countess) and edit it to the best of ability. Once there is some data then hopefully someone else can add some more to it. Once it is good enough, then you can copy it to its proper place as a normal article. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  09:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.car-cat.com/firm-841.html here is one more source -->Typ932 T·C 17:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions - I did put in an entry, slightly prematurely as it turned out. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Countess Mouldings. On Friday I saw a new book on the local (New Zealand) kit car industry which in Countess Mouldings, which I will add to the references. What I really need is more information in the article. If anyone has access to information from Japan, that could be useful. NealeFamily (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Crankshaft position sensor

Can we rename Crankshaft position sensor to engine position sensor, and then include both the crankshaft and camshaft position sensors. Dave2208 (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Automotive Packages

Wow; do all these warrant individual articles, all unreferenced: Convenience package, Handling package, Navigation package, Performance package, Safety package, Sports package, Trim package. I couldn't find a reference to use to even warrant the main article Automotive package. I would propose all these could warrant deletion, and add relevant information to the existing general overall view on Car model though that too could do with some editing and references. Warren (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves: Audi RS models

Please note there is a requested move discussion taking place here. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

bugatti veyron 8.0L 16 cylinders and 4 turbochargers and ... equal bore and stroke Shott92 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

hi there hopefully somebody can help me comprehend why VW have used a "square engine" in such a high performance car it was my under standing that for a high revving high powered engine a under-square engine is most practical with a short stroke... any help in an explanation to this would be greatly appreciated. thanks Shott92 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC) shott

The Veyron's 16 cylinder engine is not high revving, producing maximum power at 6000 rpm. I imagine that space is part of the concern. Oversquare cylinders take up more horizontal space, like wise undersquare configurations use more vertical space. When you are trying to make 16 cylinders as compact as possible, a square or nearly square arrangement is probably best. --Daniel 17:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

German study of fatal traffic accidents

Hi! I found out about German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS), a study about fatal traffic accidents http://www.gidas.org/en/home

It might have useful information that could help improve articles about automobile safety WhisperToMe (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Hiriko

This is to invite any interested editors in the merge discussion of the Hiriko article as a section of the CityCar article.--Mariordo (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What constitutes a new generation?

One of our favorite edit warriors is at it again. See here for an example, Ford LTD (Americas) is also being hit, and no doubt more I haven't seen.

While the criteria have always been loose, the general rule is a sufficient redesign of a car's bodywork. This user thinks that chassis measurements are the one and only factor. Using that logic, the Ford Taurus from 1986-2007 would be a single generation, which is preposterous. For the case in question, the 1973 fullsize Ford and Mercury had completely new bodies on the same or similar chassis. From a real-world standpoint, that is the primary differentiating factor. The average person, the one that Wikipedia is ideally supposed to cater to, doesn't care how much underneath is the same, it's the exterior design that gets noticed. --Sable232 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, mostly. It is also obviously often a judgement question as to what makes a new generation - the various versions of the European Ford Escort are for instance open to interpretation, with different front and rear panels as well as a profusion of engines.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Intuitively, if you can transform a vehicle of one year into a clone of another year by swapping bolt-on parts then they are the same generation. But I think this will be a losing battle to define a set of physical criteria for generation changes. To give examples of the two extremes: the Camry gets a new grill and tail lights nearly every year but that doesn't change its generation. But any 1970's Ford Falcon (Australia) XA/XB/XC could be transformed from one generation to another by swapping bolt-on bits (similar for Holden HQ/HX/HZ Kingswoods). Seems like the only way to go is by whether the manufacturer declares it as a new generation or not - usually by changing a code (eg Falcon XA/XB/XC, BMW E34, etc).  Stepho  talk  04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I like the door test. If the doors are the same then they are of the same generation. I can't think of any cases where this would not apply, but maybe one or two examples exists. Therefore, using the Ford Taurus example above, the 1986 and 1992 updates are the first generation and the 1996 and 2000 updates are the second generation, and so on. Currently, the Taurus article treats facelifts as a new generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sady, the Ford Falcon XR/XT/XW/XY fail that test. The XA/XB/XC also fail - at least for the front doors, memory says the XC rear doors were slightly longer. And the XD/XE/XF/XG/XH fail too. Likewise for the Holdens of the same eras. A good effect of this was to allow a race car to start as say an XA, then magically change into an XB and then XC over the next few years (eg Moffat's Bathurst winning 1977 XC was first raced as an XB). Ford got PR value from the "current" model being in front of audiences while the racer didn't have to change the complete car every year. Australian manufacturers up to the 1990s treated facelifts as a generation. But at least we didn't do facelifts every year like the American do :)  Stepho  talk  09:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
First we need to define the difference between facelift and generation as that isn't perhaps totally clear. Perhaps the definition is of sorts already in Facelift (automotive) and this could form the basis of generation if the idea of an extensive facelift was clearly defined over a minor facelift (the Camry grille example above versus the Mercedes SL shown on the facelift article)?
The obvious change is when a car is physically different with the launch of new model (Jaguar XK (X100) vs Jaguar XK (X150)) or it could be a significant change of an existing model which could be a combination of revised or new engines, new front and rear treatments, might even be a new name which signifies such a set of changes (such as Austin Metro to Rover 100). There is no single answer; the definition will be a driven very much by the manufacturer's marketing when a car has a significant number of alterations, such as described be Stepho, and a judgement by the author (as suggested by Mr Choppers) using relevant references. The European model of model generations is perhaps a little clearer as we do not really have the annual minor tweaks still quite prevalent in North America where there is still the concept of model years which can blur generation change (which is not a good article at all). Warren (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Stepho, the model code is an excellent method where it's available, but it usually isn't in North America. Obviously the manufacturer or another reliable source is ideal, but there often isn't one and when there is, it won't necessarily align with what one thinks. OSX brings up the Taurus, which, it could be argued is in its fourth generation; however, both Edmunds and J.D. Power (I didn't bother looking very long but there's sure to be more) say the current model is the sixth. The way things seem to work out there is no consistency in the definition between model lines, and perhaps that's just the nature of it. Personally, I would rather err on the side of more separation rather than less. --Sable232 (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
As long as the manufacturer provides a new model code (X1, X2, X3 etc) then those can provide section headers, thereby making it unnecessary to determine whether a particular change was a facelift or a new generation. When things aren't so clear cut, or when a local distributor has its own model codes (I'm thinking here of Aussie market Mitsubishis and similar situations) then things become more thorny - but I must say that usually the delineations become quite clear after a tiny conversation, and once established they are harder to move around at will. And as Warren says, the older US cars are very hard for this, especially as model names would be used indiscriminately across the board (see Chevy Bel Air/150/Impala and so on...). Sometimes, editors will have to actually make a clear decision - and then to stick to such a decision until it is no longer useful.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion of shock absorber to dashpot

Discussion about replacing shock absorber with dashpot. See Talk:Dashpot#Discussion_for_merging_shock_absorber_to_here

Not one of the best merge ideas I've ever seen. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Split Chevrolet Volt

This is to invite any interested editors to participate in the ongoing discussion to split the Opel Ampera into a stand alone article branching from the Chevrolet Volt (which is too long). The experience of editors from this project in past discussions of this type of split is welcome.--Mariordo (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Depreciation

Audi A4 average UK depreciation (retail value lost per annum in Pounds Sterling) over three years:

Year £ Average retail price £ Drop % Depreciation
New RRP £30,274.50 - -
1 year old £26,024.00 £4,250.50 14.04%
2 year old £23,379.00 £4,250.50 10.16%
3 year old £17,625.00 £5,754.00 24.61%

The depreciation is based on analysis of UK retail prices over 3 years by Used CarExpert.co.uk, starting with the new brochure prices and comparing them to the used car market using a sample of 948 Audi A4 cars first registered in 2011, 987 Audi A4 cars first registered in 2010, and 3246 Audi A4 cars first registered in 2009.

[1]


I don't have any European or USA data yet, but thought if I get things moving using UK data, this would be easier to get later? Carmatt (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Car Depreciation

Because cars are the second or third (after houses and sometimes weddings!) most expensive item most people buy, when they need to sell them they are often shocked at how much money they have lost. I think that it is really important to get some information into Wikipedia's car pages that helps people learn about this very predictable shift in their asset's value. I would apprecaite feedback on this idea please.

Here's some important background research that I have already done.

Manufacturers work very hard to control the depreciation of their vehicles in years 1 to 3, through various measures that I can go into if people are interested?

As a result, barring exceptional events, the depreciation trend for 1 - 3 year old cars, remains controlled to within a few percent for the life of a vehicle.

I have used data from the publishers of a former magazine called Used Car Expert that I used to buy from WH Smith, and who now have a big website - I recently saw their Editor interviewed on BBC TV and articles from them appear in my local newspaper offering car advice every few weeks. They have one of the largest samples of car data in the industry and rank second in Google for 'used car prices,' and make available the information I am using on their web pages. e.g. http://www.usedcarexpert.co.uk/buy/audi/a4/ & http://www.usedcarexpert.co.uk/cars/audi/a4/price-guide/.

And from that I have created this as my suggestion for information that should be used:

I think we dont need this kind of data to the wikipedia, as this is not consumer guide, and those depreciation values are very different in every countries. -->Typ932 T·C 16:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOPRICES says we don't give prices for items, so it would follow that depreciation is unnecessary. As Typ932 rightly says, Wikipedia is not a consumer guide, and as a global encyclopaedia we need to consider topics from that perspective, not just on the market conditions in one country. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Typ932 and Biker Biker - doesn't sound like the kind of information that belongs in Wikipedia to me. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC).
Cataloging depreciation values wouldn’t fit within Wikipedia’s purview, but the the topic of depreciation, the considerations that play into the depreciation trajectory, how manufacturers control for depreciation, the part depreciation plays in purchasing decisions, and the economic impact of depreciation on the consumer: These are all encyclopædic (and important) topics. Some of the subtopics are addressed in scattered articles around Wikipedia, but the part manufacturers play in controlling depreciation (for example) doesn’t seem to be explained anywhere. I agree the topic merits more of a role in the main articles about automobiles, given its huge but often ignored impact on consumers. Strebe (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Depreciation relating to cars is not straightforward and varies globally. In New Zealand, for instance, up until the late 1980's early 1990's cars appreciated in value for their first few years because of the impact of Government controls. I also recall that when Mazda MX3's first hit the market in the US second hand ones cost more the new ones because demand exceeded supply. Then you have appreciating values for collectable models. Personally I don't think the topic is of much use other than in a discussion of it within the context of depreciation on all items rather than just cars. NealeFamily (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Strebe: "how manufacturers control for depreciation, the part depreciation plays in purchasing decisions, and the economic impact of depreciation on the consumer: These are all encyclopædic (and important) topics". That kind of information is relevant for certain articles, but not for articles on models. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an article on Depreciation and one on Used cars where a brief discussion on depreciation might sit. NealeFamily (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Engine downsizing

Hello, everyone! I wanted to add some facts to the article, but I searched downsizing and I found something else. I think this concept is relevant, but didn't find anyone already. Would you help me create the article? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I give in. What is engine downsizing? --Biker Biker (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The concept is well and truly in progress. Wired magazine and Car and Driver amongst many others have reported this. I've made a start on the page... Warren (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
As a US phenomenon it probably is happening, but us Europeans have been running with smaller engines for years. That Wired article made me piss myself laughing - the current VW Fox has had a three cylinder engine since launch yet Wired are reporting that it is a new thing. The article should reflect this global perspective. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It's happening here in Europe too - Audi are replacing V8s with V6 engines (Audi S4 & S5 being obvious examples), Ford just launched a 1.0L Ford Focus... Not to mention Fiat's 875cc TwinAir. I concur the Wired article is rather blinkered, but the references I have located in the actual article are more international. Warren (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It started in Europe couple of years ago, mostly bigger eg. V6 engines (even 2 litre NA engines) have disappeared and are replaced with smaller turboengines, VW/Fiat has 1.4L turbos, Peugeot 1.6L and so on. If you want bigger engine you have to pay more emission pays or there are not any bigger engines available. -->Typ932 T·C 05:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This is entirely absurd. Delete the article in its entirety. Cars with small engines are not exactly new - this would be as if I authored an article on the "recent phenomenon" of some people being shorter than others. As a side note, my car is a 993cc three-cylinder and turns twenty-five this year.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Yea Im not sure if we need this article, yes there have been small engines always, but the downsizing means nowadays is less bigger engines available, same power figures are no taken with smaller turbo engines, even top car manufacturers have changed to these lately, traditonally NA engines are used because they are turbo lag free. -->Typ932 T·C 10:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It may appear absurd, and I am quite happy with my V8 so not an issue close to me at all, but engines have grown hugely over the last twenty years, and hence this downsizing is in action. I recall Ford Escorts being available in 1.1L models and a Ford Cortina and Sierra with a 1.3, but this hasn't been the case for some time. Indeed I learnt to drive in a Fiesta 950! However, you can't deny that a wide range of sources are referring to this, from the UK Evo and Car to the American mags, and thus an article is appropriate. Warren (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a trend, look at Fiat Mefistofele and Fiat 500. Like the debate on depreciation, it may offer lots of scope as a magazine article, but downsizing really belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia because (in our field at least) there are no agreed boundaries on what you're comparing. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Buckle 2.5 Litre merge proposal

After creating the article Buckle 2.5 Litre, I came across the article Buckle GT Tourer, which is about the same vehicle. I have created a merge proposal here if anyone's interested.--Pineapple Fez 06:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks uncontentious. This page [1] seems to show a GT prototype version (BB-818). Mighty Antar (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Need Advice on Userfy Article - Vivid Racing

I revised an article which is now a userfy page: Betty Merm/Vivid Racing. Before I submit it, I would appreciate it if someone could tell me if they think it is notable, if it reads well according to Wiki guidelines, and how to cite the Performance Business reference that is still in red. The problem with that is the article is no longer on their website because it is from 2005, so I actually retrieved it from the Vivid Racing website. ThanksBetty Merm (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is currently at User:Betty Merm/Vivid Racing. It's quite well written. A lot of the references were formatted wrong - I fixed one for you as an example. Look up {{cite web}} and its siblings for more details. The dead link can be found with the help of archive.org ({{cite web}} has 'archiveurl' for that too). As for its notability, almost any car magazine can list dozens of similar businesses and there must be thousands of them across the world - I guess it depends on how famous they are.  Stepho  talk  04:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I have found that articles by car magazines don't tend to be online before 2010, so I had to take out the sentence and reference. Archive.org had none of them, and I find that site could be a little more user friendly! I will look up how to write the references correctly, but I wasn't sure what the large red Cite error message at the bottom meant. Where is the

  1. ^ "Audi A4 Buying Advice Guide". Used Audi A4. Used Car Expert.

tag supposed to be found? (Hey, I'm lucky I've gotten this far maneuvering through Wikipedia!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Merm (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to sign my messageBetty Merm (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Can one of the US performance cars experts take a look at this. A quick review of the internet shows a number of sites with extremely negative commentary about this company. The article reads like an advertisement and maybe dubious NealeFamily (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a terrible article - nothing more than a corporate puff piece about a non-notable company. But that's not surprising because the company was founded by Dan Mermelstein, and the article was writing by "Betty Merm" who I'm guessing is Betty Mermelstein (who just happens to be a press release and publicity writer for Vivid Racing - check Linkedin) If it makes it to article space I will be surprised if it survives more than a few minutes before being taken to AfD. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The article has been moved to AfC NealeFamily (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Chevrolet Volt monthly sales

I would be interested in project members' views on the monthly sales chart in the Chevrolet Volt article. See Talk:Chevrolet_Volt#Monthly_sales.3F for the discussion. Thanks Warren (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinions at AfD

I've started an AfD for LED_Headliner if anyone would like to comment. it's attracted no comments beyond the article creator who is also the author in most of the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

BMW M20

Could someone look at the BMW M20 article , what do you think about it? is Wikipedia tuning guide? also those forum references are not suitable references in my opinion -->Typ932 T·C 08:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTMANUAL says WP is not a manual or how-to guide. WP:SELFPUBLISH says forums are not reliable sources.  Stepho  talk  22:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC
I agree - the tuning section in the article is a "how to guide" and outside the range of Wiki. A tighter rewrite about the possible modifications might be a work around, but the sources would need to be more mainstream. NealeFamily (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, although I did add some info on Alpina's "C2" engines. Sort of tuned, but at a whole different level.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox automobile engine

Was just playing around with Template:Infobox automobile engine, and found myself wanting a "related" field (BMW M20 and M21). Could anyone add that, please?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"XXXX in motoring"

Hi everyone. I ran across 1991 in motoring while looking through {{wikify}} tags. There are many of these sorts of pages ("XXXX in motoring"), and as far as I can tell, they need a lot of work. They are filled with ad-speak, lack intro sections, and it'd be nice to have a navigation template. They're not tagged with {{WikiProject Automobiles}}. Maybe y'all could give these pages some love? --Fang Aili talk 17:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The 1991 article is pretty hopeless: littered with opinion and no references for the various claims in sales and performance. Also very British in outlook too. I don't see a need for these in their current format. Warren (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I looked at it, and it has received almost no new content since it was originally written in late 2006. Actually, after the latest prunings, the article is even smaller now! Also, the original uploader has been inactive for over three years. If you'd delete it, no one would miss it.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
There are quite many of these year articles, I dont know if we really need these, should we propose deletion of these all? -->Typ932 T·C 20:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
An alternative, which would be easier to maintain, should people want to classify automobiles and automotive events by year could be to have a Category such as Automobiles in 1900, 1901, etc or similar NealeFamily (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I say delete all 25 of them. Nothing here that categories can't do better. Listing every vehicle facelift by year is a waste of time and without encyclopedic merit. It doesn't appear they are linked to much, I've been hear for years and haven't seen a single one before. --Daniel 06:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated history for Autoweek article

I created an edit for the history section of the Autoweek article in an effort to improve both the quality of information and sources. The proposed edit is in my sandbox, User:DetroitSteele/AwSandbox, and I posted about it on the Talk:Autoweek page, but have not received any feedback. Would someone be able to take a look at the proposed edit and post the changes if you feel it is better than the current one? Am also open to any feedback on the proposed section. I would edit it myself, but as I posted on WP:COIN, I am a current employee of the Autoweek Media Group and prefer not to make direct edits due to this. --DetroitSteele (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I copy pasted it to the article, it reads quite ok. -->Typ932 T·C 15:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources - does UK's Which Kit Car meet the criteria

I am trying to find out if Kit Car magazines such as the UK's Which Kit are considered reliable sources. I am embroiled in a debate which has within it a reliable source discussion. Can anyone assist me with how I can determine which motoring publications fall within the "reliable source" criteria? NealeFamily (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thought I'd better add the link back in so we know the background: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative Cars Limited (New Zealand). I don't know enough about the kit car of NZ scene to make further comments. Is the manufacturer active today or sometime in the past? Are the magazine articles current or old?  Stepho  talk  08:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Which Kit magazine is now called Complete Kit Car [2] and although I don't have any ABC stats is a widely distributed magazine. I'd consider them a reliable source. However, given the diversity of products the magazine covers and the often very short lived companies that produce product for the kit-car market. I'd expect another source or two before accepting that a company was noteworthy and stable enough to have its own page on Wikipedia. Often kit-cars are more notable than the companies and go through several changes of manufacturer. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Response Alternative Cars Limited has made kits cars in New Zealand since 1984 and still makes a MG T series for the Mazda Miata chassis. The company exports to the US, UK, Canada, and possibly Japan. Probably by international standards it would be a quite small, however, its products did feature in a number of publications both in New Zealand and abroad. Which Kit (now Complete Kit Car) was one. What I am trying to establish is which, if any, of the kit car magazines is consider reliable. The debate I am involved in deals with notability of which "reliable sources" is one aspect. Thank you for your comments. I wish to ensure that the article falls inside the notability criteria and is not frivolous. NealeFamily (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments to date. Based on peoples knowledge should Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative Cars Limited (New Zealand) be deleted. I am not seeking support for it - I just want to be clear about whether it is sufficient to pass WP:CORP and WP:RS or not. The references used are all I can find and it is this aspect that I am most interested in. If you think it should be kept or should be deleted, please post your comments on the AfD NealeFamily (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The AfD is trying to decide whether Alternative Cars Ltd is a notable company, not whether Complete Kit Car is a reliable publication. Sionk (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Correct, but the reason the they decided it was not notable was because of the sources, which leaves me stuck NealeFamily (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Found Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) which has been helpful. NealeFamily (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Time goes backwards for Borgward?

It seems that Borgward was re-founded in 2008 and that the new company then got moving in 2005. Er, what?

The new company (of course not a RS) has a website that's full of impressive talk and short on facts, but it does reproduce German-language newspaper coverage. A German-reading Borgward aficionado is needed here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The source links covering this on the english language entry seem to be dead - or else so slow that they might just as well be. But here (below) is the equivalent para from the German language Borgward entry. An interesting source appears to be a page from 2010 at the website of the local (I guess local to Bremen: not Luzern) paper. That's at
http://www.weser-kurier.de/Artikel/Bremen/Vermischtes/112431/Neuer+Borgward+wird+in+Luzern+entwickelt.html Neuer Borgward wird in Luzern entwickelt / New Borgward to be developed in Lucerne
The final para, as far as I can make out, quotes Borgward's grandson as saying we won't have to wait another twenty years for a new Borgward. Another ten will do it. ('Nicht innerhalb der nächsten 20, sondern innerhalb der nächsten zehn Jahre.') Well, maybe that counts as optimism in some corners of Germany. Seriously, for now the guy seems to have a book to sell....
And, it may be so, and one wishes the fellow well, but it all looks like piece of kite flying to me. If he's inherited his grandfather's remarkable talent for turning dreams into reality, coupled with the appropriate palette of luck, ferocious energy and entrepreneurial flair, that's great. But unless you want to turn wikipedia into a schedule of crystal ball gazing sessions .... I'm not sure it belongs here yet, if ever. And, like Borgward enthusiasts everywhere, and anyone else who thinks BMW have been just TOO successful since 1962, I'd love to see my scetpticism confounded! Charles01 (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Am 21. Mai 2008 gründete der Enkel Carl F. W. Borgwards, Christian Borgward, zusammen mit seinem Partner Karlheinz L. Knöss in Luzern (Schweiz) die Borgward AG. Die Veröffentlichung im Luzerner Handelsregister erfolgte am 25. Juni 2008. Seit 2005 arbeitet Christian Borgward (Präsident der AG) zusammen mit Karlheinz L. Knöss (CEO und Mitglied des Verwaltungsrates) an der Rückkehr der Borgward-Automobile. Die Borgward AG hat ein Team aus Entwicklungsingenieuren zusammengestellt, das eine eigenständige, innovative Fahrzeugpalette entwickelt hat. Chef des Designs ist der Norweger Einar J. Hareide, der unter anderem das „Vier-Augen-Gesicht“ der Mercedes-Benz-E-Klasse entwarf. Christian Borgward ist Eigentümer der Borgward-Markenrechte. Die Borgward AG ist für die Entwicklung, Herstellung und Vermarktung von Automobilen, Wasserfahrzeugen und Flugzeugen zuständig.[1][2][3]

Citroën C-Zero mess

I've requested a history merge of Citroën C-ZERO and Citroën C-Zero to try and tidy up the godawful mess there. Basically the two pages were started independently, and now we have the weird situation of...

  • Citroën C-ZERO being the "host" page, despite violating the WP:MOSTM guideline (although the text of the article itself is compliant).
  • Peugeot iOn, which is also covered on the Citroen page, is a redirect (not sure why the Citroen gets primacy).
  • Most risibly, Citroën C-Zero redirects not to the capitalized name, but to Mitsubishi i-MiEV. This is the only page which I reckon is actually correct, since the two French cars are just badge engineered vehicles manufactured in Japan by MMC. (And why does the Citroen clone have its own page, but the Peugeot clone doesn't?)

Anyhoo, once the histmerge has been looked at and either fixed or declined, I'm going to put a merge tag on Citroën C-ZERO suggesting it be redirected. It's already been tried once or twice, but the article creator keeps reverting. However, original, cited, encyclopedic content is minimal. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: Following the fine work of User:Anthony Appleyard (unsung admin he), the page histories have been tidied and the merger proposal is now live. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Related field in infobox

A recent comment on the Buick Century talk page reminded me of something that's bothered me for some time about the "related" field in the auto infoboxes: a lack of distinction between closely and loosely related cars.

In the case of the Buick Century itself, the article correctly notes that the last generation of the car is virtually identical to the Buick Regal -- the wheels and grille trim are the only visual differences. Yet it's just one of five cars in an alphabetized list of cars on the GM W-body. In another clear example, the Mercury Milan shares everything but its front and rear ends with the Ford Fusion, and just as much on the exterior and mechanically with the Lincoln MKZ. But those cars are mixed in on the same list with three crossover SUVs with a deeply buried mechanical relation.

In some articles, the text makes it clear which cars are the closest, but even when the material is present it's not always easy to find at a glance, which would seem to be the purpose of the infobox field. I would propose a third field -- falling between "also called" and "related" in terms of similarity -- for cars that are both visually as well as mechanically similar. Perhaps a standard could be whether the different models could share the same doors.

I don't have a suggestion to offer for what to call this new field, but I'm open to suggestions. With three fields, I would suggest if possible to link each to a page describing what each means. IFCAR (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Without looking at it closely, the Buicks would be rebadges right? So therefore, use "aka" (same for the Fusion and Milan). If the Camry and the Lexus RX share a platform, then in my mind, this is immaterial as platform sharing is extremely common. For example, the VW Group has only a handful of platforms and these are shared by all the various marques. The infobox link to the platform article should be sufficient.
The door policy for "related" would be a good measure in many cases. For example, the Chevrolet Silverado and Suburban are effectively just different body styles of the same vehicle; as are the Holden Ute, Commodore and Caprice trio. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather use the "aka" field for cars that are really just an alternative name with no difference of even the slightest substance -- the name of the same car in different markets, for instance, rather than two mechanical twins that have been intentionally differentiated by their carmaker. IFCAR (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The badge engineering article encompasses more than that. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Isnt that documented in template docs "cars which share most of components like platform." I have using this only to cars which shares same platform, the AKA field is for same car with different name, or just some minor exterior differencies like grill. -->Typ932 T·C 13:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The related section is often misused - some editors mistaking this for competitors rather than cars that share some significant elements. It took me a little time to fully appreciate the difference between AKA and related, and maybe the documentation for the infobox could be a little clearer though I think AKA is the right place for simple badge engineered models and minor marketing differences rather than needing a third option to confuse casual editors even more. Warren (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
A bit late, but I also feel that a lot of the content in the AKA and related fields can be deleted without any loss. Often, cars are listed in both by editors who haven't bothered to read the article first but want to add something. Other times, editors who are looking for something to do will add very distant relations (Camry and Lexus RX being a great example) to a whole slew of articles. I say that these fields will often benefit from pruning, although not as badly as the often very silly "competitors" field.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Peugeot 3008

This vehicle lists sales figures but with no specification as to what they represent: sales to customers, dealerships, in Africa, the UK, the World etc. They're not really encyclopedic as they are as the information means nothing and is incomplete. Thanks Jenova20 17:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The stats are sourced, albeit not to a specific page (partly because the figures are derived from two or three documents, hence the link to the "index" page). As far as I can see, the figures reflect worldwide sales, which is what I'd hope for and expect. I'd disagree that such figures are not encyclopedic. --DeLarge (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I only say they're not enycyclopedic because you would never see these kinda figures anywhere and not what they apply to.
Maybe unprofessional seems more appropriate, but i hope my point is across either way.
Thanks for pointing that out Jenova20 16:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo 159

Hi, could someone check if the lates addition to the Alfa Romeo 159 article is too close to the original source here http://www.italiaspeed.com/2011/cars/alfa_romeo/08/159/1508.html. I think its too close to the source, If I remember correct the was some tool to make comparisons but cant find it now. -->Typ932 T·C 03:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This one perhaps?: http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/
Thanks, I checked and changed some parts of the text -->Typ932 T·C 14:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Citroën C3 Picasso

Can anyone tell me what Vti is and if it's diesel or petrol? I'm aware of Hdi but have no idea what Vti is. Thanks Jenova20 16:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Try the Peugeot website VTI engine page - "Variable Valve Lift and Timing injection". Warren (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, very informative...and now i know it's petrol! =].
Thanks for the help Warren Jenova20 09:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There's now an article for anyone with more knowledge on these things - VTI Engine It's a stub currently but i've added some info Jenova20 12:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't want to add this info to the existing Prince engine article? Warren (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
That's not what the official Citroen site calls it, but then you are using a codename...are you sure these are both the same engine?
Thanks Jenova20 09:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional section for Autoweek article

I created a brief section for the Autoweek article in an effort to make it more thorough. The proposed edit is in my sandbox, User:DetroitSteele/AwEditorialStyleSandbox, and I posted about it on the Talk:Autoweek page, but have not received any feedback. Could someone please take a moment to review the proposed addition, provide any feedback, and/or post it if you think it would help improve the article? As I posted on WP:COIN, I am a current employee of the Autoweek Media Group and think it would be best if I avoided making direct edits to this page. --DetroitSteele (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi NealeFamily. This post is referring to an additional section about the Editorial Direction of Autoweek, which I created in the sandbox referenced in this string. My post that Typ932 addressed was to update the History section in the article. Would still appreciate if someone has an opportunity to review the proposed addition. --DetroitSteele (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've posted a comment in the sandbox's talk section NealeFamily (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on the sandbox talk page. The reason for proposing this section is because the article is about an automotive magazine, and it is probably important to describe the type of content it contains to ensure readers understand what is reported on in the publication. With my conflict of interest I'd prefer not to edit the article myself. So as long as it is agreed the content is appropriate, would it be possible for you or someone reading this post to implement the sandbox content into the live article? --DetroitSteele (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Done NealeFamily (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks NealeFamily, really appreciate your help! --DetroitSteele (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Bentley— 6 new heads and 17 new handles but its the very axe my grandfather used to chop down . . .

There are images of this car in Wikipedia Commons. How should they be categorized? This is the auctioneer's description (note at the end "an honest,trouble-free Bentley ready for the fortunate next owner to enjoy")

"Lot No: 239
1929 Bentley 6½/8-Litre Tourer Chassis no. FA2510 Engine no. FA2514
This 6½-Litre Le Mans-style tourer offered here was constructed from parts by well known Bentley collector/racer and VSCC competitor, David Llewellyn, and has been upgraded with the engine block of an 8-Litre model. Off test on 19th January 1929, chassis number 'FA2510' is one of only 97 Bentley 6½-Litre models completed on the 12' wheelbase chassis, the majority being erected on the 12' 6" frame. The car started life fitted with Weymann-type saloon coachwork by H J Mulliner and was first owned by Mr R H R Palmer, of Messrs Huntley & Palmer, the Reading-based biscuit manufacturers. It was first registered in the UK on 30th June 1929 as 'RX 3612', a Berkshire mark. The car is described in 'Bentley, The Vintage Years' by Michael Hay (page 465).
David Llewellyn built the car as a copy of a Le Mans Speed Six, with replica Vanden Plas-type coachwork and to high-performance specification, its 8-Litre engine delivering tremendous torque. The 8-Litre block is mounted in reverse on the 6½-Litre crankcase so that the engine retains the appearance of a '6½' while the gearbox is an original Bentley D-type and the axles, steering box, etc are likewise genuine Bentley. After completion the car was bought from David Llewellyn by David Ayre, the Berkshire-based Bentley and Invicta specialist, who further improved it by fitting a servo to the braking system. At some stage the Bentley was loaned to a client to participate in a rally in South Africa. When the car returned it was discovered that the top had come off one of the pistons, so rather than risk further damage David dismantled the entire car and was in the process of reassembling it when a Dutch client, Dirk Lindenberg, persuaded him to part with it. The restoration was completed in time for the 2007 Paris-Peking Rally.
On the rally the Bentley was driven hard and the chassis broke behind the front axle's rear mountings. The car was sent back to David to be repaired and it was at this stage that the chassis was replaced with a Julian Ghosh frame to correct specification. It was decided that the originally chassis should be completely destroyed as it had already received a lot of repair work and was beyond saving. The replacement chassis was stamped with the original chassis number, 'FA2510'. The Bentley was then sold to the current owner (around 12 months ago) but he has not used it as much as he would have liked so it is being sold. Currently registered in the Netherlands and eligible for a wide variety of the most prestigious events, 'FA2510' is described as an honest,trouble-free Bentley ready for the fortunate next owner to enjoy." Eddaido (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's currently in Category:Bentley 6½-litre, which works for me. Not only was it once a real 6½-litre, but the 8-Litre block is mounted in reverse on the 6½-Litre crankcase so that the engine retains the appearance of a "6½". Thus best used to illustrate the 6-and-a-half litre, I reckon. An interesting history in either case.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Volkswagen Polo Mk3 cleanup required (probably)

The page seems to have been partly changed from Mk3 to Mk4 in January 2011. I guess this is probably vandalism, but I am not an expert so I am just pointing it out. Recent Runes (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Autoweek section addition for shopautoweek.com

In my ongoing effort to make the Autoweek article more thorough, I have drafted a section for a website that Autoweek began last year. The proposal is in my sandbox, User:DetroitSteele/AWshopautoweekSandbox, and I posted the proposal to the Talk:Autoweek page as well, but with no feedback. Could someone please take a moment to review the proposed addition, provide any feedback, and/or post it if you think it would help improve the article? As noted on my user page and other posts above, I am an employee of Autoweek Media Group so this is a section I would prefer to have another editor review and/or post. If anyone adds this section, could you please include the site URL in the External Links section as well? I am always open to feedback if it appears changes or additions are necessary. --DetroitSteele (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't sound as if this content really belongs here. Feels more like advertising than being of an encyclopaedic quality.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Mr.choppers - the draft reads to close to being a promotion, plus the references are marginal sources. Redrafting would probably on leave one line. NealeFamily (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Choppers and NealeFamily, I appreciate your input and want to make sure any additions made to the Autoweek article are up to Wikipedia standards. I'll go back to the drawing board and see if there are some better sources and information to ensure all additions are of encyclopedic quality. --DetroitSteele (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable affecting someone's livelihood, but I must also disclose that I believe that paid editing is bad for Wikipedia and cannot possibly be done in an unbiased fashion. Your paid status actually affects me as well, as I want to avoid harming you but I also don't like what is happening here. Nothing against AW or you, I just think it goes completely against what the majority of us are trying to achieve here.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
For myself, I don't have a problem with paid editing when the editor declares himself/herself/itself. It alerts the other editors to watch out for possibly biased editing. As long the article remains unbiased, it is often a good chance for wrong facts to be corrected - as long as supporting references are presented for verification of course. Biased edits can always be reversed by the ever watchful horde without remorse, regardless of whether it affects the paid editor's livelihood because a livelihood that depends on screwing other people is not beneficial to society. On the other hand, if we ban paid editors outright then they will go underground, using anonymous addresses or sock puppets and they will be much harder to watch out for. Much better for it to be in the open.  Stepho  talk  06:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
(not directly referring to DetroitSteele) - the problem is that paid editors tend to introduce flattering sources, and only flattering sources. They will sometimes remove negative parts (see Cracker Barrel for a particularly egregious example), but the main problem is that they tend to introduce tons of positive (or plain uninteresting) material which may be well sourced. Since they have much more time and resources available than do unpaid editors, they will thus change the tenor of the article. I cannot stop a paid editor from accessing five hundred sources on the firm that is paying them and then cherry picking their favorite five articles and using them liberally. I agree that undercover corporate agents may be worse, but they can usually be dealt with in a more straight forward manner than can these sorts of insiduous attempts to drown free speech. Sorry, will get off my soap box now.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your pearls of wisdom Mr Choppers. I, like Stepho-wrs, prefer those who declare their conflict of interest. I acknowledge there is an element of risk, particularly if they delete negative content, but I think the community is strong enough to cope. If DetriotSteele had not declared, we would have been none the wiser. NealeFamily (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. Appreciate the comments and completely understand the concerns. While I am trying to be as unbiased as possible on this, I do understand how being an insider can skew my perspective a bit. I will continue to be fully open to feedback on suggestions and respect the opinion of the community. --DetroitSteele (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Morris Motors (Limited) was Morris Motor Company

I have asked that Morris Motor Company be renamed and moved to Morris Motors. The name Morris Motor Company is completely from left field (did I get that right?). I have left an explanation on the talk page here. Eddaido (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sales Figures

Found a decent reference here but it only applies to the UK. It covers every vehicle though up to 2011. Hope this is of use to someone. [3] Thanks Jenova20 12:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Volkswagen/Seat/Skoda rebadges

I recently noticed that the Volkswagen up!, SEAT Mii and Škoda Citigo all have their own articles, even though they are essentially the same vehicle. I then noticed that SEAT's other rebadged Volkswagen models (the SEAT Alhambra, the SEAT Exeo, and the SEAT Arosa) also have their own articles. I then notices that even many of SEAT's rebadges Fiat models have their own articles (the SEAT 124, the SEAT 131, the SEAT 132 and the SEAT Marbella. Before I propose merges for these articles, does anyone have any comments?--Pineapple Fez 06:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No objection. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The Exeo is not rebadge version IMO, it has enough differences to Audi, even metal sheets have differences, SEAT Panda is rebadge Fiat, but the Marbella has some differences -->Typ932 T·C 19:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The Exeo has two unique panels compared to the B7 series Audi A4—a new bonnet (hood) and boot lid—that's it. The fenders carry over, the interior is identical (from the A4 convertible) with no changes except the cap over the steering wheel, which is actually the same wheel that was fitted to the Audi. By looking at this image, one can see that even the Audi MMI interface (software) carries over into the SEAT, a feat no other non-Audi product can boast as far as I am aware. So if the Exeo is not a rebagde, then I don't know what is. Even the Exeo article states, "it is essentially a rebadged "B7" generation Audi A4", and is supported by two citations.
The SEAT Alhambra is nothing more than a Volkswagen Sharan updated so not to look out of place in the SEAT lineup, and the SEAT Arosa should likewise the merged with the Volkswagen Lupo article. With the Arosa, there may even be a case to grant the SEAT-badged model primacy since it was released in 1997, a year before the rebadged Lupo arrived in 1998.
I know virtually nothing about the 1970s-era Fiat, SEAT hatchbacks, and any other similarly rhyming model, so I can't comment there. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
IMO rebadge is that you can replace the brand badge and it cant be noticed for example some Opel/Vauxhall models. If you dont make differencies with metal panels, then you can go and merge all VW cars to same, they all (almost) use same parts. Platforms are also almost same with different numbering only. -->Typ932 T·C 12:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Our article on badge engineering covers eveything from a literal rebadge to new frontal styling to integrate the "rebadged" version into the design language of the adopted brand. Why can't a SEAT Exeo with different front- and rear-end styling be combined with the A4 article when the B6 and facelifted B7 Audi A4 models (also with different front and rear styling) coexist? In fact, even though the Audi A4 (B7) is only a facelift of the B6 series, the B7 is actually a closer relative to the SEAT than the B6. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course they can be combined but we have to put limit somewhere what to combine? My opinion is if metal panels are different they are not rebadged, dont know what others think? Anyway those two articles would need very much own text to both models because there is so much variations on their versions, so you basically cant get much advantage of that merge -->Typ932 T·C 14:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you're taking the literal meaning of "rebadging" too seriously. I tend to think of it more as "rebranding" whereby one vehicle is modified to integrate with another brand's design language. If the purpose is merely to make the car look consistent with other same-branded vehicles, then whether this involves simply a new grille insert or a completely facelifted front-end, there is not a great deal of difference in my eyes. For some brands this is easy (like Opel and Vauxhall); marketing a SEAT (with prerequisite distinctive design) out of a conservatively-styled Volkswagen requires more effort for the translation to work. Merging the SEAT Exeo page with the Audi would require a generational article for the Audi I think. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's something you need to judge on a case by case basis, applying practical criteria such as the amount of information already in the entry, and the extent to which the information concerning the Spanish version is likely to be interesting to someone checking out the Italian version and vice versa. Several of the Seat entries seem to involve cars with different engines, different production locations, way different production years, different marketing strategies - in fact different everything except the car body. And if you start merging the Galaxy and Sharan and Alhambra entries then you trip over yourself in terms of basic computer like logic because some iterations were identical and some aren't. Most of the entries in Spanish and Italian and German seem to split out different models when in doubt, and I guess I am a little uneasy if wikipedia starts to be influenced by the unspoken assumption on the part of the anglo-american universe that anywhere they don't speak English as a first language is somehow a single rather dull country called "Abroad", with a shared history and set of ways of doing stuff. Very few of us think that on a conscious level. But it is an impression that people who grow up in countries where God's own language (as in some variation thereof) is not the language you learn in your mother's womb should not risk picking up when they consult English language wikipedia. One of the unusual things about the English language wikipedia will be the extent to which it will be used by people who do not have English as their first (even second or third) language, because of the way English tends to be used as what we used to call a "lingua franca" Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Volkswagen Up and badge-engineered models are all very similar: same engines, same factory, same everything but a little trimming to the front and rear. I would say this model is very suitable for merging. I would just note that there have been discussions about previous Seat and Fiat models before and some fans of the respective marques can get quite agitated. The Exeo I can see as being "related" but perhaps is a little more than just a rebadged Audi A4. Same with the Marbella and Panda; related, but significant differences. Warren (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
As I've always said, rebadged cars should be included in one single article. Be careful that rebadged cars may have different panels, typically the front and rear end (Aygo/107/C1). Charles01, other Wikipedias have separate articles because they copy the English version. The Exeo has some platform evolutions over the A4, so I'm more neutral than usual. But as Charles01 says, there must be caution with cars with multiple generations, for example the Ford Galaxy, the Seat Toledo and the Fiat Fiorino. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input everyone. I'll create merge discussions article by article, as some articles may have stronger arguments to be kept than others. I have initiated a merge discussion for the VW up!, the SEAT Mii and the Skoda Citigo Talk:Volkswagen up!#Merger proposal.--Pineapple Fez 21:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with NaBUru38 that care is needed with multi-generation cars. However, and I have brought this up before, to have separate articles on the 124, 131, and 132 is wholly against guidelines. The Arosa too, probably. The Marbella and Ronda are safe - after all, a panel of three judges officially ruled that the cars were different enough to be considered as separate. Can't argue with that!  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Citigo and Mii have been merged into the up! article. Now for the Volkswagen Lupo and SEAT Arosa. Before I launch a proposal, which article should me merged into which? The Arosa was built a year before however the Lupo is much more well known. Also, many sources incorrectly claim that the Arosa is a rebadged Lupo.--Pineapple Fez 23:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It think granting the SEAT primacy will upset too many people. The Volkswagen Lupo article at the German Wikipedia is much larger entry than the equivalent SEAT page. Also, the Volkswagen Group ended up replacing the Lupo with the Volkswagen Fox, but the SEAT was never replaced, suggesting that the Volkswagen-badged version was far more important. Does anyone have any sales figures to compare the two cars?
In the Volkswagen Lupo article, I'd make it very clear that the SEAT was released first. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
IMO the one which was released first is the "base" car, btw when Citigo and Mii were merged there was some data differencies, which could be have been transferred in the same time (e.g. lenght of cars). -->Typ932 T·C 04:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, despite what I said above. Either way, I wouldn't be bothered which version is given primacy. Basically it's:
  • Original car; versus
  • More prominent car
A similar case would be the original Lexus GS which was released as the "Toyota Aristo" a year or two earlier, yet the Lexus is given primacy. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Google searches on Google.co.uk (the only English speaking market where both cars were sold) give the following results:
Volkswagen Lupo.....~12,200,000 results
VW Lupo.................~6,770,000 results
SEAT Arosa.............~5,180,000 results
Because of this I think the Lexus GS path would be more suitable.--Pineapple Fez 23:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles

Please comment on RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Autoweek's Vinsetta Garage

I created a brief section for the Autoweek article about their television show which began this year. The proposed edit is in my sandbox, User:DetroitSteele/AWVinsettaSandbox, and I posted about it on the Talk:Autoweek page, but have not received any feedback. Could someone please take a moment to review the proposed addition, provide any feedback, and/or post it if you think it would help improve the article? As I posted on WP:COIN, I am a current employee of the Autoweek Media Group and think it would be best if I avoided making direct edits to this page. --DetroitSteele (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have posted comment on DetroitSteele's talk page NealeFamily (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks NealeFamily. I just responded on my talk page and made the suggested addition. --DetroitSteele (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Lists of fast cars

Seems that we have now three articles about the same thing, these should be merged somehow? also these needs some better rules than now.

If they are kept, then the first two should be merged, and the last one looks like a candidate for AfD (because my Morris Minor isn't on it ;) or where on earth would the article lead? No car on the planet would be excluded). I don't think restarting the debate on the merits of the first two is worthwhile as views seem entrenched. The lists, as you pointed out previously, are flawed because there is no single globally accepted definition of a "production car". My recent debate over the issue seems to bear that out. NealeFamily (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Usually Gasoline, but sometimes Petrol

I propose a general rule that, in all article titles and categories, "gasoline" is preferred over "petrol". The idea is to generalise the preference at gasoline, which is preferred over petrol, to all pages and categories that somehow relate to "gasoline/petrol".

This idea arose at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 28#Category:Two-stroke petrol engines, where it has been noted that the varying preference of gasoline versus petrol at different articles has lead to complicated and even confusing navigation aids, particularly in the category trees.

Are there any objections? Are there any articles or other pages that should retain the word "petrol" over "gasoline" in the title? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I reject this for the reason that it's a term not used in some countries and we shouldn't use terms like this to articles where they aren't recognised.
Example, vehicles for European market only or with a majority of the market European or non-American where Gasoline is unused.
This is the Saloon/Sedan argument with petrol and gasoline and you can't steamroll across different markets with an Americanization of Wikipedia WP:MOS.
Someone correct me if i'm wrong. Thanks Jenova20 11:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Jenova20 here. This isn't a "sometimes" and "usually" matter. It's geographical, and absolute. In my country it's NEVER gasoline. It's ALWAYS petrol. To insist on a name that's never used in many parts of the world is an inappropriate arrogance. (Fellow Australians will agree that we cannot let go of the term petrolhead.) HiLo48 (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The more specific the article, the easier it is to make an exception. At the more generic end of articles, they can't be split geographically, and so one name must be used in preference to the other. If you never use "gasoline", somehow you have to cope with the fact that "petrol" redirects to "gasoline". On the other hand, "gasoline engine" redirects to "petrol engine". Why the difference? Petrolhead, an album name, obviously wouldn't be covered. List of Volkswagen Group petrol engines is more of a problem I think. This is about artilce titles that feed into the categorisation rules, and it might not need to affect articles of narrow scope. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you need to learn why the album was called Petrolhead. The word has a well known meaning in Australia. It's not up to me to tell you. You're the one telling us how we WILL use the language. Sorry, but I cannot get over your arrogance and lack of flexibility here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
You're reading too much into this limited communication form. I know well what a petrolhead is. I also know that few Americans say "gasoline"; maybe in technical terms, or chemists, but in the gas stations it is only "gas". I looked at many of the gasoline/petrol related articles, and saw that "petrol" is the exception to be found in titles.

On the subject of whether the regularisation of category structures, requiring the standardisation of category names, encouraging the standarisation of Wikipedia article titles, discouraging the diversity of the English language, that is an interesting thought. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Tinkering with this will only lead to edit wars. Leave it as is and focus on specific articles, not all. Thanks Jenova20 12:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Otherwise yes, let's change everything to petrol. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose - A very sensitive subject that comes up about every 6 months (usually by an American). As Andy pointed out WP:ENGVAR covers this. 'Gasoline' is tied to American English. 'Petrol' is tied to British English. If an article has close ties to a British or American English then it uses 'petrol' or 'gasoline' respectively. Otherwise it uses whatever form the first editor used. 'Gas' should never be used because it is ambiguous. American English speakers treat 'gas' as short hand for 'gasoline' but British English speakers treat 'gas' as shorthand for 'LPG' or 'CNG'. Americans might use 'gas' in informal speech almost all the time but they know what 'gasoline' means when they read it in formal language (which encyclopaedias should be using).  Stepho  talk  23:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose use gasoline for some specific regions, otherwise petrol is the more common term, as I see in Indi. extra999 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. The "oppose"s are reasonable, but are not not opposing the intent. ENGVAR is well and good. My intent was to look at consistency amongst articles, and category names, strictly where regional variation is not a factor. The following categories and articles are the main cases in point.

  • Petrol-paraffin engine "A petrol-paraffin engine (aka gasoline-kerosene engine in North America) is ..."
  • Gasoline direct injection "In internal combustion engines, gasoline direct injection (GDI), also known as petrol direct injection or..."
  • Internal combustion engine is an article rich in the metion of "gasoline" but early devoid of "petrol "
  • Petrol engine "A petrol engine (known as a gasoline engine in North America) is ..."
  • Gasoline "Gasoline, or petrol, is a transparent petroleum-derived liquid ..."

Taking a step back, I see the following options:

  1. Do nothing. Expect the readership to know, or rapidly pick up, that gasoline and petrol are region-specific name variations of the same thing. Who cares if category refereencing appears confused?
  2. Apply consistent naming across non-regional science & technology articles, such as the above. i.e Prefer one of gasoline or petrol, but which?
  3. Leave the article names alone, expect the readers using categories for navigation to understand the equivalence (category pages can explain in their headers), and apply consistent naming in the category system. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Most Wikipedia readers care nothing about categories. And you cannot reasonably get the kind of consistency you seek when language isn't consistent across the English speaking world, and in this case, very decidedly not consistent. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Most, but not all, and to those of us who do, it looks very unprofessional - and is, in fact, something that the nattering nabobs can point out and laugh at in the "look at that silly Wikipedia!" sense. Can we agree at least that category trees should be ENGVAR'd by whichever eng-var was used for the top cat of the tree? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
If you were to translate that into a common form of English, understood by us plebs of all backgrounds, maybe you could get a constructive discussion going. Unfortunately, this thread began with an obviously American editor telling the rest of the world that their use of the language was not a preferred one. A lot of antagonism was generated, Never a good way to initiate mature linguistic discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you are referring to me? I try to avoid personal bias. I chose to suggest "gasoline" over "petrol" an the basis of the existing WP:RETAIN preference for gasoline, while noting a very confusing history at the conflictingly named petrol engine article. For the purpose of this discussion I thought the the title of the article gasoline to be a decisive factor. The use of "preference" appears to be not well used. Across the English speaking world, I think there is no "preference" between "gasoline" and "petrol". I souhgt to introduce a Wikipedia-preference, generalising the WP:RETAIN preference existing at the article gasoline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Like it or not, regional language variations will always be a factor. You can only get consistancy throughout Wikipedia'sindexing system if you have a single regional language bias because british-english and american-english are often mutually exclusive. If Wikipedia was in british-english, there would not be an article or category where gasoline was part of the title and conversly, in american-english, nothing with petrol. They would only ever be found as a redirect, and in british-english kerosene might not even make it as a redirect! Our logic, conventions and existing technology currently demand a single term throughout for consistancy, the divergance between the languages will often produce two. The only ways to resolve the issue would be either to have a button to switch between language preferances or to have two versions of articles where such a problem occurs. For instance above, you could change Category:Gasoline engines to Category:Petrol engines to quickly fix the problem as it stands, but to almost every American reader that would be entirely wrong. Switch it the other way and British readers will feel equally slighted. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Can we agree at least that category trees should be ENGVAR'd by whichever eng-var was used for the top cat of the tree?
No, for two reasons.
Firstly because cat trees have multiple roots. It's easy to find categories rooted by fuel, or by country, and to then find intersection categories of these that throw up incosistent uses, such as "British gasoline engines".
Secondly, the appropriate context down a deep tree doesn't necessarily remain the same, even when it's only involving a single root.
Andy Dingley (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
There are two thought models to use here. One is the American model which says there is only one way to do it - probably because they don't have any major competitors. and there is the European model which allows for multiple ways to do as long as an easy form of translation is possible and there are no ambiguities - probably due to multiple cultures living close to each other. Personally I love things being consistent (some say I have an obsession about it). But trying to force categories to always all 'petrol' (my preference) or all 'gasoline' (and never, ever the ambiguous 'gas') will just alienate editors. And as Andy said, any halfway scheme will just highlight the guaranteed inconsistencies. I'd leave this one in the too hard basket until we can get a British vs American on-the-fly translate function working.  Stepho  talk  06:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Seconded. Consistency really is in the too hard basket. I am not a fan of inconsistency, have been burned from trying to force it previously, and I am also waiting for the preferences switch that can switch between the two terms. In the interim, we just have to put up with it unless we can agree on some form of trade where maybe we use UK spelling for some words and US spelling for other words. I'd personally be more than happy to have a universal US spelling policy throughout Wikipedia even for articles that don't have anything to do with the US. I'd prefer this consistency than our current policy (and I'm Australian, so I use UK English). Maybe as a trade-off, we can do away with the annoying imperial units that even the British who invented them are phasing out (albeit very slowly; the process started in the 1960s). OSX (talk • contributions) 07:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Units such as the mile and the pound were devised by the Romans, not the British. The word petroleum is Latin too. Warden (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
While Australians generally use spelling and language conventions derived from the UK, we are reasonably aware that Americans have different conventions, and have some idea what they mean, because we've been flooded with their TV programs for the past 55 years. I think this has been a useful educational experience for Australians. The use now of metric units and UK spelling and language conventions in many Wikipedia articles is a perfect opportunity for Americans to have a similar learning experience. It will do them good. However, that TV based learning for Australians has mostly taught us that the US name for what we call petrol is gas, because that's what the TV characters call it, rather than gasoline, so it hasn't helped all that much in the subject matter of this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
"until we can get a British vs American on-the-fly translate function working."
That has been around for a while (it's not on the fly, you have to set it up beforehand). It's one of those features that's available for MediaWiki, but not deployed for Wikipedia because of the implications of having to support the large page volume through it. If anywhere within WMF does go down that route, it'll likely be Commons first. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose English contains many synonyms and variations. It is educational for readers to become familiar with these. Warden (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to say that I find the nationalistic and ideological positions that have been staked out in this discussion (let along the CFD) to e disgusting, especially since they're coming from editors who I otherwise respect. Shame on... pretty much all of you.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • ABF with no constructive intent? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
      Everyone loves to throw around good or bad "faith" anymore, as though it's some sort of weapon. There's nothing to assume here, though. Do you deny anything that I said? You don't believe that there are nationalistic and rather severely ideological positions that have been staked out in this discussion? As it stands, this isn't going to resolve anything, as it only functions as a theater for several of you guys to throw verbal punches at each other. So, unless and until I see yourself and a few others come together and move this in a constructive direction, I stand by what I've said already.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I submit that the first punch was thrown when this section was named. Things went downhill from there. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
        Fine, whatever, the other guy did it. Get over it and figure out how to move this discussion forward.
        — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
        Hey, I said "Things went downhill from there." Obviously, as one of the contributors, I was part of the downhill push. That was a confession! HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    For my part, I deny having a nationalistic or idealistic position, and I don't think is it helpful to accuse others. As for moving forward, I thought that this thread had reached a conclusion - overwhelmingly, editors prefer ENGVAR variations to be WP:RETAINed on an article-by-article basis. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, that was my impression too. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Most of us showed that we are proud of our own language and don't want to see it trampled. I would hate my Australian 'petrol' banned in preference to the American 'gasoline'. I assume that an American would feel the same in the reverse position. So most of us argued that allowing both forms (although only one of them per article) is the better way - nothing disgusting about that. But if we were to actively argue that our own form was the only form allow - yes, that would be disgusting.  Stepho  talk  11:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Seriously can we end this?
Even if we were to all agree with the original post WP:ENGVAR prevents it. And if it didn't nobody is going to agree to it for the reason that gasoline isn't an appropriate use outside of America and would lead to incorrect renames across articles in exchange for a regional dominance. Thanks Jenova20 11:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Although agreeing that WP:ENGVAR exists to stop precisely this situation arising, the rename WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Category:Two-stroke_petrol_engines has already been actioned by an administrator who holds that WP:ENGVAR is over-ruled by consistency across categories. Now we also a further rename debate open at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_14#Category:Gasoline_engines. Although both policy and projects have been ignored so far, it would be premature to see this as "resolved" just yet. I fully expect to see a rename for Petrol engine before long. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR is only a style guideline, is intended to apply to article content, only explicitly applies to articles (not categories), and is nearly devoid of prescriptive language. The only prescriptive parts are to be found in the section "Retaining the existing variety", shortcut WP:RETAIN. Its essential parts are: "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default."
On the question of Gasoline engine versus Petrol engine:
Which means that under WP:RETAIN, under wP:ENGAR, the title should be Gasoline engine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Apart from this interesting little bit of sleuth work here at the end, I oppose the renaming of all these articles. But Joe definitely makes a good case for this one particular article.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
oppose - i already thought i pointed that out but there it is anyway. Thanks Jenova20 18:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ hralu.ch
  2. ^ Borgward
  3. ^ Neuer Borgward wird in Luzern entwickelt | WESER-KURIER
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_31&oldid=1136054234"