Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 → Archive 55

Place of assembly -CKD

Specifically with regard to South Africa there was a very small operation that assembled various high end sportscars from CKD kits. Some IP editor is keen to add Cape Town as a place of assembly to the Esprit and Countach articles. I acknowledge that it is likely that at least one of each example was bashed together from a kit in SA, but is that enough to be worth adding to the infobox? An alternative would be to mention it in the text. Tesla Model S mentions its much larger CKD operation on the info box. I have no particular opinion on this. Greglocock (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This is InterMotorMakers? I think putting it in the text would be a reasonable compromise, and considering the unknown number produced the infobox might make it seem like many were made in SA. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I would not count on-off's. Special mention in the text would be best.  Stepho  talk  10:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have zero idea on this (I know some Alfas were, I don't know which, I don't know which other makes). But we have a policy on sourcing, and we have a long-standing problem here (and similarly for Taiwan) where IP vandals have been inserting very dubious content. So I don't want to see anything go in here unless it's sourced.
I'd be OK seeing one-offs listed, so long as they were as part of some bigger plan to potentially go to mass production, even if it didn't happen.
Encyclopedically we'd also be a lot better if we had some context here, such as the timing for this work and how it fitted under the apartheied sanctions regimes. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I think its ok to put those CKD assembly places for infobox, problem is that its hard to find good references to those, I have been tryin to find those for ALfa models, but seems very hard to find good references. But dont add those without references. There is couple of vandals who keep adding weird places to infoboxes. There is 2 places in Africa who assembled those CDk kits. Alfa and some other brands were assembled in Willowvale(Salisbury) South Africa - ex Ford assambly plant and other brands in Umtali, Rhodesia (current Zimbabve) - ex BMC assembly plant. We could also make articles of those plants -->Typ932 T·C 13:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

For the last years I have been deleting rubbish from the German WP, also concerning Africa (there were even Porsches built in Morocco mentioned) and South Africa. If there is a good reference concerning CKD assembly, I would introduce it into the infobox, if not or in doubt, in the text (well, it should be referenced, too). When I have ever finished this in the German WP, I will have a look at the EN articles (some were translated from DE, see e.g. these article changes, though it is from Chile, not from Africa). In general, South African vehicle production has a great, sometimes complicated history (see here only one plant, for beginners) and is quite well referenced in the web and in science. --Roxedl (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Automotive Quarterly?

Three articles cited a 'Automotive Quarterly' (1, 2, 3).

I'm pretty sure this is actually 'Automobile Quarterly' but I would like people to confirm if this is the case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: The dates and the content match AQ, so I fixed them. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles and Edits of TheAutoJunkie

The user TheAutoJunkie has created more than 300 articles in the German WP. Most of these articles needed to be rewritten from scratch (and the user is banned from German WP). Some of these articles have been transferred by him or by any translator into the EN:WP. Out of his 65 articles in the English WP, 4 have already been deleted. There is still much work to do (also in the German WP). Examples?

  • DiVolvo (as mentioned above on this page, already reworked, but very funny in its first edition – have you ever heard of an "Araucanian Republic of Northern Chile"?)
  • Audi Senna (there never has been such a joint venture in this form, the beginning is completely rubbish)
  • Industries Mécaniques Maghrébines (same here, there is only few info on this company)
  • Mermerler Otomotiv (never has assembled up to now, deleted in the German WP)
  • Al-Mansour Automotive (AFAIK never assembled itself, though I am unsure here)
  • Angkor 333 (one more nice example, has never been produced, slightly wrong name etc., see DE article)

Perhaps there is a merciful soul that helps to go through all these articles. Indeed some topics will keep being notable, but not all. Volunteers? Roxedl (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose there is no better solution than AfD. The chances that TheAutoJunkie has ever created articles of notable quality are fairly low, meaning that there is not much, if not no good content at all, that could eventually be deleted, but the amount of rubbish T. created, definitely justifies deletion measures. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm usually one who always says "keep", but AutoJunkie's fantasies are truly problematic. Go ahead, be bold, if anything seems believable then bring it here or to someone's talk page. I think that if there are meaningful edits by other editors, there may be some truth.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the discussion goes into the wrong direction. We have about 60 articles with questionable, but mainly notable contents, sometimes already corrected, but in its assumed majority not (and this for about seven years up to now). I am not (yet) familiar enough with the habits concerning AfD or notability criteria, and there is still much work in the German WP waiting. However, in the mean time, it would be nice to have sensibility raised and kept for this topic. --Roxedl (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Large tables on list pages

An editor has added some quite large wikitables containing the power and torque ranges of specific models split by fuel to the List of BMW vehicles page, you can see this especially clearly at List of BMW vehicles#1990s I find it ungainly and not especially useful to readers, but I want to get some input from other editors. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think teachers would say that different people absorb information best in different ways, either because of their genetic inheritance or because of the way they were taught when they were 5. Some need to be told face to face. Or through everlasting international telephone calls during which their interlocutors lose the will to live. Some like to read for themselves in chunky paragraphs of text. Some like pictures. Some like tables. Some like exotic graphs of varying levels of inscrutability. Most people like to absorb new information through some combination of the foregoing but variously sequenced. I guess wikipedia needs to try and cater for all. Within reason. That table you pointed us to does appear a bit ungainly. But not unuseful for folks who like or need to absorb information, make comparisons etc, using that tabular format. I think there's a way you can make tables collapse or reappear. I've no idea how they work, but presumably if someone stares at it for long enough the "programming modalities" begin to become apparent. Here's a (relatively compact) example. Might it offer a solution of sorts to the ungainliness issue? Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. When there is so much raw data to show then tables are often the best way to go. Representing it in prose would be like singing the telephone book. Besides, 'list of' articles are expected to be kind of boring (except to us anoraks, of course).  Stepho  talk  21:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I love tables; some information is just not digestible in prose form. And as long as the tables are collapsible, then go for it!  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Big tables can be great, especially if they're sortable. Great things can be done with structured data. But I always object to any article or list giving a value for power or torque, or any performance claim, without a direct footnote to an independent source. In cases where we will accept a self-published source, there needs to be a clear WP:INTEXT citation, such as (claimed) next to the statistic. I usually delete them on sight, or let them get by with a {{Citation needed}} tag. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
In this case, I would say it should be removed entirely. It's pointless to have just the lowest and highest power output for each model without any context. Furthermore, there's no reason to give undue weight to that information by putting it in the main list of vehicles. Why not sales figures? Or safety ratings? Or any other piece of information that could be arbitrarily included?
Such information belongs in the article for each vehicle where it can appear with sufficient detail and context to be useful. It should not be in the list. --Sable232 (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Even if WP:UNDUE were truly applicable, it's not a reason to delete anything. It's merely a reason to make plans to resolve the (hypothetical) imbalance by adding other informaiton. Undue weight deals with balancing points of view. Deontologists vs utilitarians. Brexiters vs remainers. Horsepower isn't a faction or a point of view. It's one of the many vital statistics for a vehicle. The automotive era given by the year and the fact that we know whether it's a compact or luxury or whatever car gives some rough context for the power figures.

I would remove it pending sourcing if it were a few figures on one article, but given the scale of the problem that seems like kind of a dickish move. Even though I don't like to see unsourced power figures, it's not libel or copyright violation or WP:BLP violation. I'd say WP:PRESERVE per Editing policy, and tag it for citations. I'm sure we can get citations added in due course, along with additional details that will give it more context, such as cylinders/engine configuration, curb weight or other primary facts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Dennis and see if he changes his mind :D. Friendly prodding aside, I agree that it would be better to keep the table even without complete citations and collapse it so it doesn't interfere with reading of the article. I'm personally one of the people who finds tables easier to digest vs text. Springee (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Dennis, if I were quoting policy I would have linked it. "Undue weight" has meaning beyond Wikipedia policy.
I fail to see how a vague range of power output is at all helpful, and why it should be considered more important than any other factor. --Sable232 (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Cars Model years Power
3/20 PS Compact car 1932–1934 15 kW (20 hp)
303 Compact car 1933–1937 16–41 kW (21–55 hp)
It might look cleaner to have a single power column with a single value, like saying 15 kW (20 hp) for the 1932-34 3/20 PS, and use a ranged conversion for those with a high and a low, such as 16–41 kW (21–55 hp) for the 1933-37 303. This would require adding a sortkey.

Words like "notable" and "undue weight" tend to be interpreted as Wikipedia jargon. The existence of a fact in page is not intended to assert that that fact is more important than any other fact. This is the point of WP:Editing policy. If you said every fact had to be equally balanced with all other equally important facts, every edit would have to result in perfection. It's easier to build lists and articles bit by bit. I agree that power isn't the most important thing. We can solve that problem by adding more columns to the list. (Springee, from what I've seen, we agree all the time. We also disagree all the time. I don't expect one any more tan the other). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a particular problem with the idea of the tables, I think that what makes them so large, the power and torque figures are questionably useful and that the previous method where readers would click on the link and could find the information on the specific motor configuration they are interested in was a better way to do things. Yes you can't directly compare minimum and maximums over time but I find it unlikely that most would want to (they basically go up over the years). Toasted Meter (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of these tables. The first thing that I have seen were "wrong" figures. The E38 was available as 725tds with a 105 kW engine, the E39 as 525td with a 77 kW engine, etc. – maintaining figures may be difficult if they are split over several pages, or if there are "duplicates". Getting back to these two BMWs that I have mentioned: In several countries, these "low power BMWs" were not available. And I generally believe that a maximum and minimum power figure are not particularly useful: A certain type of vehicle that was offered with rather weak engines may appear much more powerful than its average version was, if the high performance version is very powerful. For instance: BMW E28. More than 70 % of all vehicles produced have an engine producing less than 100 kW. Only 0.7 % of all E28s have a 210 kW high performance engine. Yet the 210 kW high performance figure will appear, the "regular" power figures (524td and 520i) (85/88/90/92/95 kW) will not be mentioned. But the truth is, most E28s did not have this 210 kW engine. I know that a "range" of power figures covers the "regular" power figures, but, it does not really represent the subject sufficiently. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Edit: Even the E28 power figure is wrong. I wonder which figures are actually correct. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The state of the figures now is very poor, some of the maximum figures are actually from Alpinas, and the M1 has the power output of the race version. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
We seem to be conflating two questions unnecessarily. If tables are showing incorrect data, then the data need to be corrected. Same goes for anything in wikipedia. If sources are unclear or unstated we need to identify sources clearly. Presumably contributors who like looking at tables are most likely to be the ones who spot these issues in tables and make the necessary improvements. If the data are so contested that they don't fit snugly in the table, then they will remain contested if you incorporate them in your article in some other way. That might apply if a manufacturer quotes different power outputs for different markets, because regulations vary or different types of emission and noise control device, mandated by local law-makers, reduce the amount power reaching the driving wheels by different amounts. The general rule then becomes STATE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ("Chinese market models", "US market models", "Swiss market models"). But that's not a reason not to provide any info where it is an important aspect of the car. And dealing with it is not necessarily easier or harder to do in tables than in other formats. Except hat, I suppose, in poorly designed graphs (ie without clear values on the axis labels) or in excessively waffling text you can more easily fudge it so the reader ends up unsure of what s/he just read. But I'm not sure that's such a good solution to anything.
I don't think any of this answers the ticklish question of whether and to what extent tables are a good way to communicate information! Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem is, however, there are several different ways of interpreting figures and standards. German DIN 70020 figures for instance are not manufactuer claims, even if they appear in manufacturer tech specs. It just means that the power was measured according to the DIN 70020 standard. I believe though that this can confuse readers and even long-term editors who are used to manufactuer claims. This leads me to the question: How am I supposed to state my assumptions in the first place? In a list, such as the given one, it is not possible to make exceptions for each market. Doing so would render the advantages of the list (compact information in one place) useless. Furthermore, WikiProject automobile rules make it impossible to state power figures conforming to the DIN standard for instance. Stating assumptions is good to begin with, but in my opinion, firm, clear and easy rules are required. For example: German car figures: DIN/ISO and German market, Soviet car figutes: GOST and Russian market, American car figures: SAE and American market (this is how I do in the German language version of Wikipedia) – otherwise, there will be a weird mixture of half-correct, half-wrong somethings, like we have in this case. Apparently, the BMW E28S M5 figure given in the list is the figure of the American spec version. This means it is not wrong, but only valid in the United States. How am I supposed to correct it? Replace it with the German spec figure? Add the German spec figure? Add a note, that it is American only? This is why I am not touching it, there is just no way of making it right. And I don't want to begin with the torque figures, which are usually given in kilopondmetre for pre-1978 vehicles. In this regard, I just recommend having no power figures in this list but explaining the figures in more detail in the articles. The other problem is that, instead of mean power figures, only highest and lowest figures are given. This may not reflect the power figures properly. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thats why we have convert templates, one big problem in that list is, that it has only couple of sources, and I dont see any reason why we need to have power figures in that page, when all data can be seen in model page. Or do we need that whole page at all?? That list is much more easily seen in timelines -->Typ932 T·C 15:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Conversion templates cannot convert standards. Just saying. Otherwise I agree. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
If you know one horsepower is DIN then it can covert it to hp or kw or wiseversa, there is no problems with that -->Typ932 T·C 22:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
He means that some cars are measured gross and some are measured net, temperature and barometric pressure differ, fuel quality differs, tuning differs per market and many other variables. Eg, some are measured with the alternator, oil pump and water pump disconnected with high quality fuel while others are measured with all those connected and low quality fuel - same engine but wildly different results. But of course that also means the original measurements can't be compared unless they are all measured the same way, let alone conversions. There is no avoiding this problem. All we can do is note what we know (eg DIN vs SAE, Japan vs US, gross vs net).  Stepho  talk  09:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Image sorting

(Not sure if this is the right place post it since it on another Wiki project) For the past few days I been sorting and transferring images by Flickr user order 242, I skipped the buildings and landscapes since that wasn't my field but did place all images in the photographer's hidden category. I already done a good thousand in their rightful category but it would be helpful if someone got a bit of spare time to give a hand doing car pictures as well, it completely optional and at some point I will eventually get it done , but the offer is there.

Where I last left off (The last one I did was Suzuki Carry ST-90 1980 (36393678415).jpg) --Vauxford (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Want to make a new list of car slang or car terminology?

I just moved some of the man stubs that define automotive slang or a technical term into Category:Automotive terminology. We should probably make a Glossary of automotive slang or List of automotive terms or something like that. Some terms belong on Car classification, Automotive acronyms and abbreviations, or Glossary of automotive design, while others might go on a slang glossary. I think it's mostly a matter of keeping any of them from becoming too long. Anyone? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds more like something for wiktionary.  Stepho  talk  20:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much agree with Stepho. In addition to that, I doubt that finding proper sources for such a list-like article or that creating something that is somewhat complete will be easy. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's much slang, as such, tho perhaps specialist usage. Some actual slang might fit here or here. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit war in Tata Harrier

Hi, in Tata Harrier template the official production start in october 2018, and the car was present in January 2019. Official press https://www.tatamotors.com/press/the-1st-tata-harrier-rolls-out-from-its-all-new-assembly-line-in-pune/

Why most editor cancelled in the template “2018-present”?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.96.137 (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Your edits look correct to me. The {{infobox automobile}} |production= field is for the calendar year (and month if it is known) for the start of production. If the start of production is not known then the start of sales is often used instead. It is possible that the other editors are confusing start of production with start of sales. Or they are confusing US style model years (which I don't think apply to India) with calendar years. To clarify the start of production vs start of sales, I would add a comment such as the following | production = October 2018<!--start of manufacture, not start of sales --> – present . To combat the model year problem I normally add the month (eg October 2018) to clarify that it is not a model year.  Stepho  talk  12:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Article and related category name change

There is a proposal to change the article "Automobile Safety" to "Automotive Safety". This change would also impact automobile safety related categories. The discussion is here [[1]] Springee (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This same guy (RGloucester) again messing automobile articles and no information to this group -->Typ932 T·C 06:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Cadillac CTS-V and Cadillac ATS-V

What do you think?, IMO these (Cadillac CTS-V and Cadillac ATS-V) articles should be merger to main page, there is really no need to have own page for one model variant. -->Typ932 T·C 08:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Support - as per countless discussions before. As long as the Renault 5 Turbo is forced onto the general Renault 5 page, then none other needs a standalone. I would also like to bring up the Aston Martin V8 Vantage (1977), which truly ought to be merged with Aston Martin V8.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
No and yes The CTS-V rivals the CTS article in size and scope, so absolutely not at this point; it would be a major undertaking. The ATS-V article is essentially a stub as it sits, so a merger might be of use. I'm not one for merging left and right, but the ATS-V article seems to be going nowhere. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I opened up this discussion on Talk:Cadillac CTS where it should be. I recommend moving your votes there. Thanks. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hammer (1900 automobile)

Is this really notable? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Only one car built. No article on the builder. Presumably it didn't lead to anything else. I hate to remove Aussie stuff but I find it hard to defend.  Stepho  talk  09:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Defending it will come if someone digs out some more sources and some better information. If no one found usable sources online or in their own collections, then presumably the best chance would involve investigating libraries and museums in (and around) Adelaide. With a name like Bruno Hammer, the constructor was most likely an immigrant - probably first or second generation - from Germany (or an adjacent German-speaking country in Europe). I remember coming across plenty of villages in the hills round Adelaide where they still sell convincing Bretzels and German-style beer. Maybe also local archives and/or auto--enthusiasts with contemporary publications from the early part of the twentieth century, hiding behind the more eye-catching stuff? Charles01 (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
There's a brief mention of the car in this issue of Serpolette's Tricycle. DH85868993 (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I have a soft spot with obscure 1890s-1930s automobiles. I do have Nick Georgano's 3 volume encyclopaedia of automobiles as well as a few other ones by different authors. I also own a book called Automobile Manufacturers Worldwide Registry which include 10,000+ automobile manufacturers, doesn't have pictures or description as it literally is a "registry book". I can have a flick through to see it mentioned in any of them. --Vauxford (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay so I looked through the 3 volume as well as a older edition from the same author and the only automobile mentioned that was that had Hammer in it was Hammer-Sommer which was a manufacturer based in Detroit, Michigan. However, on the registry it does mention the Australian manufacturer along with the same location it was based in which is already included in the article. The only difference is the year was "c.1903" rather then 1900. --Vauxford (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
As written I would say no. If more sources discussing the car come up then I would change my mind. Rather than just deleting it, is there a parent article it could be added to? Springee (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
As seen from a Wiki-perspective, I doubt there is any relevance. Two years ago, I decided to write an article on the manufacturer of one of the tractors of my childhood, and at the time, I had serious doubts that there was any coverage of the topic in notable literature. I happened to find useful sources, but it turned out to be difficult to prove the relevance. And this manufacturer has made over 3,600 tractors. Now taking a look at Hammer, I see one car built. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

<-AfD? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Update February 2019:

I recreated the article page and added new info, source and even a photograph of the automobile. --Vauxford (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Related RfD needs your assistance

The discussion about the redirect Plymouth Duster (L-body), which currently targets Dodge Charger (L-body), would benefit from contributions by those with subject knowledge. Please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 20#Plymouth Duster (L-body). Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hofele-Design

Would some members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article? It's starting to get an overly promotional feel to it and take the look of a sort of online directory/catalog for the company's automobiles. Image use seems a bit excessive in comparison the the amount of text content about the history of the company, etc. Since may of the images are being uploaded with claims of OTRS permission, there might be some COI or even undisclosed paid editing going on as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Automobile engineering

Is this a useful addition to articles covered by this project? Eddaido (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if it is useful, but Automotive Engineering would be better English, and possibly even exists. Greglocock (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see what it gives that a category doesn't already give.  Stepho  talk  12:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
In its current state it isn't useful at all. While there's a possibility that it could be expanded, I don't see what it would accomplish. --Sable232 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Marketers at work on Dainese

Dainese could use a couple more passes to clean up come COI edits by a small swarm of publicists or marketers. Could check to see if the frequently cited press releases can be replaced by independent sources. I've gone through it a bit but it's not done. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Does this company produce something to automobiles? yes Im lazy to read that article... -->Typ932 T·C 22:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Helmets, racing suits? They say they're a big deal in auto racing. Probably just marketing hype. I guess they've done more in equestrian and mountain bike gear than F1 and so on. So... --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

ISIRI standards

There are four dozen stub articles on various Iranian motor vehicle standards (see Category:ISIRI standards and Template:ISIRI). The articles only give a single-sentence overview of what the standard covers and references to other jurisdictions' related ones.

I propose merging all of them into List of ISIRI standards. There is not enough content for the articles to stand on their own, in my opinion, and the list article can easily cover what little information there presently is. --Sable232 (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Toyota Hilux

Please see talkpage discussion when you have time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The rot has set in

Good faith hard-working editors are changing this project's articles (sometimes articles receiving hundreds of hits each day) introducing straightforward errors of fact (and other confusions).

No one seems to mind.

This (anyone can change it!) was why Wikipedia was laughed at in its early years. I am not prepared to nominate articles or editors but I will point out that a similar deterioration in the quality of automobile illustrations has recently been . . noted. Regretfully, Eddaido (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Dude, what? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You will have to be more specific if you want something to happen. Differences of opinion and style can be glossed over but errors of fact should be pointed out and dealt with.  Stepho  talk  05:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes Stepho, that's right, all I can do is place this alert. My guess would be that because the project has, shall I say matured, there is less participation and sense of involvement and less sense of personal responsibility. There's a lot of WikiProject Automobiles text out there. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Less since when? Matured since when? The problem is that you're not getting your way on an article somewhere? That's new how? When I look at the edit wars you got into over car articles in 2009 and in 2015 and in 2019, I can't tell the difference. To me it's the same old same old. We all win some and we lose some. Sometimes we play together nicely, sometimes not so much. Can you be specific? If you can't be specific, then please don't do this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey dude, read the correspondence above. Eddaido (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Which correspondence? The answers to the questions I put to you are not there. You say quality has "recently" declined but I really can't guess what you mean by "recent". Your account has been active for a decade and I can't find any era in that period that stands out as all that much better than now. I don't know which correspondence you mean above. There are several, but you're not a participant in any of them. Why don't you just state in plain terms what it is that you mean? If you're going to answer then answer. Why are you being so coy? Is it for the fun of it? But if you're going to go on playing games, then please don't bother to reply. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Oops, I can be specific, Dennis Bratland, your personal activity on Wikipedia has declined since 2016, in fact 2018 is less than half 2012. Eddaido (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, fuck off now. You're wasting everyone's time. Go sleep it off. Take a break. Whatever it is, it's a personal problem and it doesn't belong here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, dude, the subject is this project and not, originally, your involvement. Eddaido (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment, Eddaido, I'm not sure I understand the concern. I think an example would be helpful here. Your criticism of Dennis specifically based on number of edits seems very unfair. Number of edits doesn't reflect quality of edit and we have to remember that sometimes real life events impact editor's ability to contribute. Eddaido, this is a case where you may be right but you haven't effectively communicated the concern. Dennis, while I get the frustration I think that was outside the bounds of CIVIL. Springee (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me try a paraphrase. There is no longer the interest in this Project there was 7, 5 or even 3 years ago. Mistakes are creeping in and not being fixed the way they were.
I am unwilling to even try to cope but I can, as I have done above, bring it to the attention of the Project's members.
I hope that sufficiently clarifies my message. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so its a general "volunteers aren't working hard enough" thing. Since we are volunteers, we owe nothing to WP and it cannot demand anything from us. If Dennis, or you or me or any other contributor decides to slow down then that is their choice. If everyone is also slowing down then WP has a problem that can only be solved with a recruitment campaign. Me personally, I make it a point to thank new-ish editors for anything good that they do so that they are encouraged to do more. If they do something with good intent but make mistakes then I patiently spend some time teaching them with lots of encouraging words. Honey vs vinegar. That's about all we can really do without going into heroics. But wait around - lately I've noticed a few new editors (some as IP addresses) that are actually doing some nice work and fixing up many old oversights (eg: grammar, missing metric conversions, references).  Stepho  talk  05:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, no. It was not intended to be a criticism of anyone.
Everyone seems to be utterly determined to see it that way.
I am pointing out that the inherent danger in allowing anyone to edit is no longer better than counterbalanced by a bunch of enthusiastic fact checkers. It used to be like that, its my opinion its not that way now— for the reasons I've outlined. I hope I'm wrong. Eddaido (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
There will also be vandalism but to me it seems about the same as it has always been. Some of our regulars have become burnt out but there are also new ones to take their place. It ebbs and wanes in the short term but the long term average of breakage and repair seems about the same.  Stepho  talk  07:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Eddaido "I will point out that a similar deterioration in the quality of automobile illustrations has recently been" I assumed this has something do with users like me. I like to think all my edits are in good faith and not simply a vanity project and I can ensure you they are not, but I guess that up for you to decide. When it comes to hard-working I do travel around the country to catch the latest vehicles coming into the market such as car shows and dealerships etc as well as ones that might make a good replacement for a existing image on here. I'm not particularly interested in getting involved of what is going on above but I just thought it was important to put my 2c in the section possibly related to me. --Vauxford (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Vauxford Thank you for your contribution. Eddaido (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Using a limited production model as a normal example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Audi_R8_(Type_4S)#Your_recent_edits

Sorry to bother again, but I want to see what other users think using limited production models as a base example. --Vauxford (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

If it is not significantly visually different, I can't see a reason not to. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Typically they'll have lower ride heights, maybe a different stance, lower profile tires and bigger wheels. Those would be quite misleading on some boring cars. Greglocock (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Something like a Focus RS 500 would certainly be a bad choice to illustrate the Focus page. Toasted Meter (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't mean to sound impatience but could we reach a consensus soon? Seeing this question could address any future edits users does on the automobile articles as well. --Vauxford (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
As Greglocock, if the models are visually distinct then the infobox should use the more common model as the representative image (but pragmatically relax this restriction if the only standard image are really crap and the only nice images are close-ish to the standard model).
But if they a visually similar then use whichever photo is clearer. The idea is that the infobox image allows you to recognise the car family from the infobox image, not getting bogged down about which particular variant it is.  Stepho  talk  22:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit clash)

I'm not but if I were really keen to know exactly what an Audi R8 (Type 4S) looked like and I found an uncaptioned photo on the page about Audi R8 (Type 4S) I'd just accept that was an image of the correct car.

But, if i then dug deeper in the image's info and found it was of a limited production version I would be left up in the air as to what a "real" Audi R8 (Type 4S) looked like. That is unless I was told in the caption that its appearance was no different from the standard version. I would assume there was no good photo of the standard version available.

Yes, I agree with Vauxford, the main image should not be a limited production version even if it looks identical - unless the reader is told that there is no distinction in appearance / you can't tell the difference. Eddaido (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems like there is a policy regarding this: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Images 5. The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other. However, the image must be representative; low-volume, obscure/unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image. Given that policy, the question remains whether or not the "standard" model looks different from the "RWS" and "Decennium" models. The answer of this question is somewhat subjective, especially, if there are many similarities between these models. But I'd say, there definitely is a notable difference. Especially the "Decennium" model's grille looks much bigger and more aggressive than the standard model's grille. Choosing the standard model photo seems more reasonable to me. In addition to that, the "photographical quality" of the standard model photo is better when compared to the other photos: Proper focal length, proper aperture, the viewing angle is not bad, whereas the viewing angles on the other photos are quite off due to short focal lengths of 35 and 40 mm respectively. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, despite the split opinion about this. U1Quattro already try to make my comment meaningless by replacing a image that was never discussed in the talkpage. Overall people seem to agree that the blue Audi is the best choice which is what I done. If U1Quattro does revert it, then I have no choice but go back to square one. --Vauxford (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Despite giving the impression that blue example was the best one to use, U1Quattro reverted it so we are back at the beginning, if he hasn't of used a image that was never discussed in the first place, this dispute would of been solved. --Vauxford (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
"The R8 Decennium is limited to 222 units" this isnt very reprsentavive version of this car, being made so few. -->Typ932 T·C 18:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Well that what being used as the main Infobox picture and why I think its a problem, if your brave enough, you can address that in the talkpage discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It the brute force method U1Quattro use to get his own way is what frustrates me, which I explained in detail on the R8 talkpage, I'm not getting work up solely over the picture it just how sly and forceful U1Quattro is with discussions. --Vauxford (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Cyberdriver

Cyberdriver currently redirects to a video game. Shouldn't this point to some driving automation article? -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Eh, it sounds stupid, and when I search it all I find are Watch Dogs videos, zero uses referring to anything else. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Separate list for Acura vehicles?

Please see Talk:List of Honda automobiles#Should Acura have its own list? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image on BMW 5 Series (E60)

Please see talkpage discussion when you have time, thanks. Talk:BMW 5 Series (E60)#Infobox image (here we go again) (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Since U1Quattro objected despite most agreed that the one on the infobox was perfectly fine please see the talkpage discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of "@" vs. "at"

I raised this at WP:MOS/Dates and numbers recently, but there was no clear conclusion and the changes have started again.

Does WP / MOS have any preference for "@" vs. "at" ? I note a large series of changes at present to replace it with the long form. [3] @TKOIII: Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Today I note this and [4], the implication being that @TKOIII: is planning to replace all of the uses outside of tables?

I, for one, prefer the @ form. It's long-established and well understood as "a term of art". I certainly see no reason to change the wording, just because one's in a table and one isn't. It might have begun as a typesetter's shorthand to save space, but nowadays it's a convention outside that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

ISO 1585 states: "ISO net power xxx kW at xxxx min−1 (ISO 1585)" (See ISO 1585:1992 page 20, 9.2.1). So, no @ in this standard. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley:, yes, though I have put on pause edits that change between @ and at in tables, I have continued to change @ to at in plain text as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations does express that @ should not be used in place of at in normal text. TKOIII (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
But ISO 1585 is a standard for testing, not typography. It's evidence of the use of one format, but not a proscription to use only that format. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
It is a standard for testing, and it includes "notation". (See table of contents, 9.2). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I dislike @, no reason of typography or "correctness" I just don't like how it looks. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The @ symbol is standard for engine rpm in power and torque. We should definitely use it in infoboxes and stats tables. Those get too crowded as it is and anything we can do for brevity is necessary. In prose, I'd allow either. The Telegraph says "at" in prose and "@" in the stats table. But @ in prose content is perfectly acceptable to. The last thing I'd want is some kind of rule on this requiring someone going around pushing this change into articles. It doesn't add or remove information, and doesn't harm or help readers. It's merely one of those fussy details used as an excuse for editors to fight in the name of consistency.

Infoboxes and stats tables get @. Everywhere else, editor's choice. No edit warring. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Depending on the typeface, "@" and "at" aren't always much different in terms of how much space they take up. However, the use of "@" in specifications tables is established in automotive journalism (and there's no telling how a reader's browser may render things anyway) so that style should be reflected here. In prose, I believe MOS:ABBR should be followed as I don't feel there's a good reason not to use "at" in prose - but as Dennis mentioned, this is not a big enough issue to make a "rule" out of. --Sable232 (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I would vote no preference. I hope someone doesn't go around changing @'s to "at"'s. I kind of prefer @ when used in stats because it's visually more distinct. However, if the discussion hadn't come up here I'm not sure I would have ever really noticed. Springee (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I feel like the @ symbol may be a bit counterintuitive, at least seen from a casual reader's perspective. After all, this is not an enthusiast encyclopedia. Whether or not the @ symbol is used in printed literature that can be described as "reliable sources", depends on the scope. In my experience, classical "engineering books" and "scientific books" (like those found on my literature page) rather don't incorporate the @ symbol. On the other hand, service and repair manuals (those not published by car manufacturers) often use it, which means that it is common at least to a certain degree. So I'd say using the @ symbol is not ideal, but not harmful either. Removing the @ symbol and replacing it with at or the other way around doesn't seem like a reasonable way of increasing the edit counter though. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Also no preference To a point, some things can be overthought. "@" has been on a computer keyboard longer than email has been in use, so there is practical use for it out there. While I would like to say that "@" should be best used for table stats and infoboxes and words are best for prose, I am most keen all of us not randomly changing things. Be careful on what font one sets in preferences and don't start an edit war out there... --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
'@' is a type of short-hand or jargon that not everybody understands. For the sake of 1 extra character, 'at' is understandable by a larger portion of our readers - especially those where English is not their first language. Why make it hard when the cost is so little?  Stepho  talk  00:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Using @ in main text looks stupid, IMO in main text all things should be written out in 1st instance. kg to kilograms etc and not using any these kind of markings. If you look car reviews from net I think its most often written as AT. -->Typ932 T·C 08:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
What do you think about it in tables? Toasted Meter (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Clearly it's a generation thing. Given that it's not really wikipedia's job to change the usage of the English (or any other) language, I think probably I will continue to write "at" when in doubt, if only because back in the dark ages when I went to school most of us had no idea what that "@" thing on the type writer keyboard was for (and most us didn't spend too much time looking at type writer keyboards in the first place). And for people who come to English as a second, third or fourth language, it does, as someone above already indicated, become particularly impolite - and gratuitously damaging to the understanding - if mother tongue speakers start changing the language in midflow. (From the other side of a nearby language barrier, please don't get me started on "Rechtschreibung".) But ... it really does feel pretty unimportant. Unless you believe in "rules for rules' sake" (which I don't), it is, surely, not mission critical either way. Charles01 (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Answering Toasted Meter (talk · contribs), I would prefer to use 'at' everywhere unless space was really, really cramped. Of course, if its that cramped then the table probably should be split anyway to allow mobile users to see it.  Stepho  talk  09:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the assessment backlog is there

Just letting you guys know. Ominae (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It has been proposed to merge List of automobile manufacturers of Michigan and List of defunct automobile manufacturers of the United States into List of automobile manufacturers of the United States. --Bamyers99 (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Aston Martin infobox

Please see talkpage discussion when you have time, thanks. Talk:Aston Martin DB11 --Vauxford (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Also do see Talk:Toyota Hilux while you at it. --Vauxford (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

1930s identification request

Can anyone identify this? It's 1934, on the island of Madeira.

I'm thinking maybe a Lancia Artena or a contemporary? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but my guess would be 1933 Astura or Dilambda. Strange steel wheels on it, bad roads in that locality? Eddaido (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
On the photo description and in the category it apparently a 1934 Rolls-Royce. --Vauxford (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
At full zoom the mascot looks different to the Spirit of Ecstasy, the radiator shell has a different shape (RR having a very straight temple shape) and the badge just below the mascot doesn't look like the double R logo. But I'm out of my area of expertise.  Stepho  talk  00:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Is that hood ornament or something from scenery? that ornament would be best way to find the brand. This seems very hard to identify, is it me only or is that radiator shaped differently at bottom part? -->Typ932 T·C 07:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a lot of bodywork variation in Lancias of this period, even to things like the radiator grille which were normally unchanged by coachbuilders. Did any of the heavier chassis, like the Dilambda, use 6-stud wheels? I can see some Dilambda File:2005-03-04 Motorshow Geneva 158.JPG where the grille has the same curve forwards at the foot, but not the same combinations of grille, bonnet sides and wings.
The roads looked like this: File:Auto's op een tocht in het binnenland van Madeira, Bestanddeelnr 190-0178.jpg. There are a number of related photos at Commons:Category:Photographs by Willem van de Poll in Madeira, but this is the only one I can see of this car. Van de Poll would always have found the biggest and best car to ride in though. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Rolls-Royce only built rolling chassis. The bodywork was done by external coachbuilders, and customers could choose whatever they want. If this is a Rolls-Royce, this is most likely a Phantom II (given the fact that the Phantom II was available as a left-hand drive version). But I am not 100 % sure. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a car that came past while he was taking the other photos (cars identified by Darwin = Madeira resident) and I now suggest the car might be a Belgian Minerva type AP. Eddaido (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Short wheel base version
Yes, I could go with that. Radiator bottom curve is odd, but the rest fits. Even the wheels look like a Minerva but with the removable hubcaps removed. If they were 6 studs that would be further confirmation (but I have nothing about Minervas on the shelves). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, I doubt that it just randomly drove past. His wife's in the back. As to his ability to blag nice cars, then see Commons:Category:Bentley 6½ Litre — GJ6649. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Latest suggestion a Fiat 525N 7 passenger tourer 1929-1931 body by Viotti (as would be Minerva and Lancia), "525N Fiat's last big true luxury car". I cannot account for lower portion of the grille unless Viotti is entrusted with experimenting for a new model. A Fiat because of the shape and placement of the engine's side ventilation. All good clean fun. Eddaido (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I don't think it's a Rolls-Royce. If you google the license plate and the word Madeira you get what I think may be an indication that an archivist on Madeira thought it was a picture of a Chevrolet. I don't think that's right either. The photographer, from the evidence of his "collection" on wiki-commons, took good pictures, but was not particularly interested in any cars he included in them.
That curve on the base of the grille is unusual. Even though the car may most likely have been purchased in "bare-chassis" form and then clothed with a bespoke body, it would be a little unexpected for a bespoke body-builder to replace the manufacturer's grille with one of his own design. Might be a clue? Charles01 (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
6 stud hubs
I can't believe it's a big Fiat. It clearly has 6-stud wheels, the Fiat 5-stud. Now bonnet sides are easily changed at the whim of the bodybuilder, but hubs are the sort of thing that are defining and very hard to change. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: OK — but why not have a proper look at the wheels and you will see I have it correct. Eddaido (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Wheels are easily changed - but the hub bolt number isn't. Fiat used 5, this has 6. Andy Dingley (talk)14:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe Topolinos? Have a look at this one here because its another Fiat variant on the Fiat car in Madeira and, thank heavens, it is a photo which shows the wheels side on, with six studs. Eddaido (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
OK then, if we're confirmed that the 525 was six stud, then I'm happy with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
If nothing is sure about that car, the name of the file may be changed again, changed to "File:Auto met oa Nell Langlais in bergachtig landschap op Madeira, Bestanddeelnr 190-0209". I think (with google tranlate) "auto" could be the appropiate word. --Io Herodotus (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Chevrolet Camaro (sixth generation) infobox

Please see talkpage discussion when you have time, thanks. Talk:Chevrolet Camaro (sixth generation) --Vauxford (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

MG T-type

Please see talkpage discussion when you have time, thanks. Talk:MG_T-type#MG_T-type --Vauxford (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Audi Q3

Please have a look at Talk:Audi Q3. Thank you--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

List of Acura vehicles

An editor has created a List of Acura vehicles. In my opinion, it is an unnecesary WP:FORK of a section of List of Honda automobiles, and it has an excesive number of images, Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Except rare exceptions, that kind of gallery lists should be in Wikimedia Commons. List of Honda automobiles is actually a good example of how most lists are supposed to be. I propose to make List of Acura vehicles a redirect to List of Honda automobiles. Thoughts? Pinging the list creator. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments would be better at Talk:List of Honda automobiles#Should Acura have its own list?.  Stepho  talk 
I didn't see that discussion, thanks. I leave my opinion there. --Urbanoc (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Most of Acuras are rebadged Hondas, some (1 or2) might have different body panels or maybe different engines. basically its same car. -->Typ932 T·C 07:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Better to keep the discussion in one place at Talk:List of Honda automobiles#Should Acura have its own list?.  Stepho  talk  08:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please help categorizing photos

Hello.

I happened to be in Košice, Slovakia, early this month when there was the Cassovia Retro 2019 car show. I took some 50 pictures of the event, but I do not know all the vehicle makes & models. It would be great if someone more competent than me would take a look and assign the proper categories, fill in the description and/or find a more suitable title for the pictures. Category is here. - Andrei (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice exercise. I've made a start on a few of he easier ones. Thank you. However, I think a lot of the (for us in western Europe) harder ones are Skodas, so maybe you need to ask the same question on Czech and Slovak wikis? Success Charles01 (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I dropped a note there, too. Thank you all for stepping up.- Andrei (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Talkpage discussion

Talk:Alfa Romeo Giulia (952) Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Dear members and managers of WikiProject Automobiles, This is maybe the most inappropriate place to post this, but I don’t know an other place to post it. I have become a member of this project because I am very interested in the automotive industry (except motorcycles). And, one more reason to do this is that I want to transfer the vast encyclopedic content of the English Wikipedia about cars to the Greek one so it will be expanded. But, because I am new user, I will not participate to the project’s purposes until I log in on my computer (this is my phone) on Tuesday or a little later. So after that day, I will post a new message here (or everywhere else is preferred by you, just tell it to me) to inform you and I will be ready to contribute for your project, I will do everything you want from me. I look forward to that day because I am a fan of automobiles and I want to contribute about it. Best regards, Enivak (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, there is lots of work to do. -->Typ932 T·C 07:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Welcome, what you are proposing will be a massive undertaking (there are thousands of automobile articles here), but translating our content into languages (for the world to see) is a great idea. This translation and transfer of knowledge is a huge contribution. --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I will help as lot as I can, after logging in on my computer! :-) Enivak (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Hey guys, I've just logged in on my computer! I will finish the training and after that I am ready to help! Best regards, Enivak (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Category:1956 Packard automobiles

Two of us have added some recognition information to the top of some of the later Commons Packard model year categories, Commons:Category:1956 Packard automobiles is an example. It is quite a lot of work, is it of any value? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The 1941 Packard Custom Super Eight One-Eighty featured in the film The Godfather (Real class, no jumped-up Cadillac for the head of this Family)
Yes, it is of value. Thank you. It will be particularly helpful next time one or several of us (each) photograph(s) a Packard without knowing what it is (beyond the fact that it has Packard written on it). There may be wiki-contributors who grew up stateside in the 1950s / 1960s and know all this stuff without having to think too hard, but here is Europe we never ever saw too many Packards. The US troops who came over after the Second World War were, presumably, mostly youthful and - by their standards if not by those of the Europeans they came to protect from cuddly Uncle Jo and other geo-political menaces - impecunious, and therefore not naturally Packard drivers: I tend to think of the Packard as a car intended to appeal to older (and more prosperous) customers - a bit like Rovers in the 1930s, 1950s and beyond, here in England.
Out of curiosity, did this exercise come out of analysing Packard images on Commons? Or did you have other sources to hand which you've mentioned somewhere where I missed them? Somehow contributing to wikipedia has made me very conscious of the importance of telling folks about your sources. Thanks again. Same treatment for Studebakers? Buicks? Pontiacs even? Or maybe someone already did it. I must look more closely. Success Charles01 (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The catalogue-style information I found in www.PackardInfo.com "free public information storehouse about the fine vehicles manufactured by the Packard Motor Car Company". The more detailed changes are described by fellow editor Chief tin cloud who surely must be a Packard enthusiast! Packards like Mercedes-Benz may have provided taxis but until their bathtubs of the late 1940s Packard's premium cars would not have been over-shadowed by Pierce-Arrow and well out-ranked Cadillacs. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned: I think it often misleading to use pictures already on commons as a reference, as you rarely know for sure ifthese cars are in fact in original condition. For identification work, I am always referring to literature, or reliable online sources like Packard Information already mentioned by Eddaido. He did most of this work. Thanks for that.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes indeed, we cannot know if the model described in the picture is indeed that model, especially from cars of 00' till 50's, because all these were nearly the same.Enivak (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Assessment backlog

Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Assessment has a backlog. Not a member though and I'm wary about doing assessment. Though I'd raise it here. Ominae (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Some job then... -->Typ932 T·C 16:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Assessment, particularly for B, might be easier with formalised sub-conditions, as for some other projects. This would also help to encourage workflow, directing the subject experts, the copyeditors and the referencers more easily to where they were most needed.
It would also be more encouraging for classifying articles (as a general WP point) if we had more than "High, Medium, Low" to work with. There's a wide range in low, from the "level 5 vital article" (ie. unimportant, but widely known) down to the "utter trivia but survived AfD" of truck nuts. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I've been filing away at that backlog as I have time; trying to start with reassessment of low-graded articles before I hit the unassessed ones. The WP 1.0 tool's scoring system is helpful for that, but it doesn't always accurately reflect the article condition so it's not necessarily reliable. There has been a fair chunk of articles that are beyond stub level but still had that rating from the original assessment a decade or more ago. There's also a lot I'm coming across that are on the line between Stub and Start.

    I'd agree with some formalized conditions if we can find a way to apply them across the project (WikiProject U.S. Roads has clear criteria that make assessment very straightforward, but highway articles are probably more consistent in what information is there as opposed to automobiles). --Sable232 (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey I got the 9ff article, if someone wants to help me is welcome because I need some help! I will not make it perfect, but I will expand it and add references. Best regards, Enivak (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_51&oldid=912515601"