Category:Automobiles by country and Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers by country
We are running two groups of Categories, "Category:Automobiles by country" and "Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers by country". At present they both contain a mix of models and makes.
My assumption is that "Category:Automobiles by country" is for individual models from that country and "Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers by country" is for car makers. If this is correct I will add a note to the categories and do some sorting.
(Without re-opening the debate about automobile v car v motor vehicle and what constitutes country of origin, I hope). Malcolma13:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No need to reopen the debate AFAIK... automobile manufacturers often make a wide variety of vehicles (eg. Honda makes automobiles, motorcycles, tilting three-wheel motorcycles, quads, ...), so it makes sense to put the manufacturers themselves under a more general heading. And if they have a subcategory specifically for automobiles, then that can be located in both places (somewhere under motor vehicle manufacturers by country, and somewhere under automobiles by country). --Interiot21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I am considering splitting this off into a disambiguation page: I am seeking a consensus for this. Would any participants agree this is the right thing to do?? --SunStar Nettalk19:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it might make more sense to keep Chevrolet Monza as the H-body page, and just add the Brazilian and Mexican Monza info to the Opel Ascona and General Motors Corsa articles, respectively.
As an aside, it would be nice to have separate pages for the Starfire, Skyhawk, and Sunbird, provided there is enough unique detail to those cars. --Sable23219:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about what is considered a "commercial failure". Some of the vehicles on that list don't seem like they should be there. --Sable23201:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
And, after reading it again, I should say that I'm not entirely sure what "teh" is.
That's exactely the problem. What is a failure? Ther term is highly, highly subjective. Was the Ford GT a failure? Was the Volkswagen Phaeton a failure? In the US market, yes. But didn't help boost VW's "prestige rating" (thus increasing its ability to move merchandise) even here in the US? The problem is there are many different concepts of what constitutes a failure. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"I have gone through it with a fine toothed comp". That's fine tooth comb, and judging by your spelling both here and in the article, your comb is missing a lot of teeth.
45 vehicles and seven brands. References? Six. None of which were visible, since the "reference" section at the end wasn't displaying due to a misplaced '/', another indication of how thoroughly you proofed the page.
My biggest gripe, however, is with the quality of the references.
CarDatabase.net for the Amphicar. Aside from the fact that you link to page one when you lifted a quote from page two, the words seem to be from some anonymous owner. Not a reliable source about anything except his own vehicle.
Your second reference, also for the Amphicar, isn't any such thing. Just writing "ebay listing" is totally inadequate as a citation.
Carsurvey.org for the Cadillac Allante, where you once again quoted an anonymous owner. And mis-spelled "colossal"...
I thought your fourth link, for the Cadillac Catera, was fine until I tried to follow it. The URL needs fixed, and when I finally got to the source (BW.com) I realised that I was reading an op-ed piece which didn't even say what you claimed it did.
Your last link, for the VW Phaeton, is as bad as the "ebay listing" non-link. Without any particular reference to a time, place, broadcast, date of publishing, journalist or any other information, it's not a citation at all.
And of course the ultimate failure of the article remains, as it was in the original deleted article; the title is "List of commercial failures in the automotive industry", yet you've failed to demonstrate a failure to make a profit, which is the only criteria by which commercial success and failure are judged. The Ferrari 430 has been a roaring success with about 17,000 sold, so you cannot simply go by numbers. Show me the money, and some reliable sources. At least one reference for every car, thanks; if I can do it, so can anyone else. --DeLarge02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
AfD. These "List of vaguely defined things" articles need to be zapped. What is the definition of a commercial failure? Can it be a car that never made a profit? Maybe cars that only made a small profit? What about profitable cars that wrecked the companies image? What about those loss-making super-cars that are only there to get people into the showrooms so they can by 'wannabe' cars that ARE profitable? Until you have a rock solid definition, you'll have nothing but controversy.
Take my favorite car - the most popular car in British history - without doubt the canonical starting point for every small front wheel drive car ever made - in continuous production for 5.3 million vehicles over 40 years - came in first for best car of the century, best european car of all time, came second only to the Model-T-Ford for best car of all time anywhere? It sold at a loss for the first 10 years it was manufactured and hardly eked out a profit after that. Can we really, truly call the Mini a failure? Hell no! Can we call it a commercial failur? Why would the company keep making them for 40 years if it was a commercial failure? Well - it kept factories open and valuable staff employed during the lean years so the company was ready to bounce back when demand for profitable cars returned - it provided an 'entry level' model that got people into the habit of driving in a place in a country where you can live perfectly well without a car - that lead to more sales of higher end cars - it shut out foreign car companies and prevented them from sneaking in cars at the bottom end of the market and eroding their core business from the bottom up. It was a strategic move - not a tactical one. The volume production of that car pushed up the volume and cut the cost of parts for more profitable cars. Do you have the courage to list the Mini? I doubt it. If you don't - then how can you say that any other non-profitable car was a commercial failure? If you do, people will revert your every attempt to put the car into the list.
So maybe you can revert to solid references to back up your claims? Hell no! Car companies don't publish the data for the profitability of individual models - you can't find that information anywhere - you can find the overall sales of the whole company from shareholder reports and such - but not on a model-by-model basis. You can claim that (say) the Amphicar was a failure because that's probably the only car that company ever made and it caused the company to fail...fine - that's one. But there aren't many cars you can get such good information on - so the list will be patchy, unverifiable.
You can't possibly come up with a good definition of what should be on the list - and even if you could, you can't find reliable backing for your facts - so this will forever end up being a contentious pain in the neck. Nope - this article is still a very bad idea - it needs to be deleted. SteveBaker02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't like AFDs as it always means that somthing, someone put a lot of effort into is going to be deleted. Karman is a fine editor but unfortunately I think we have little choice besides the AfD. Perhaps the format of the current article could be changed to "list of cars that did not make profit"- of course, it would be hard to find any good references for such as article- car company's don't really like to disclose the extend to which a model was un-profitable. But other than changing the format of the article completely, I don't see an alternative to listing it as AfD. I'm really sorry, but it's up for deletion now. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd bring into light the split proposal for the Nissan 300ZX. Go over and have your say. (I don't know why stuff like this doesn't get posted here anyway..) ren0talk05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I am the original proposer, I have decided to drop the proposal for the time being as I am planning to expand this later as I have the source material for it. Willirennen 02:43 15 December 2006
Hi, I'm trying to get this up to FA status and I'd like someone to proofread, suggest/make improvements etc. (like a peer review) but I came here because the people here will know more about car articles. It has already had a peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Maserati MC12/archive2) and I've tried to apply all of the issues raised. If anyone could bring up suggestions either here or on the article's talk page. Again, any help would be great. Thanks. James086Talk | Contribs03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
A cursory check uncovered...
Check all your wikilinks. I noticed you've piped [[Rail gauge|track]] in the "Development" section.
I think the "review" in the opening (2nd paragraph) should go somewhere further down, and maybe mention the Enzo DNA briefly instead. You're basically saying how good it is before you've explained exactly what it is.
"The car has generally received positive reviews but its critics say it is hard to drive, overpriced, too large." Missing an "and"?
Image:Maserati MC12 2-cropped.jpg (left-justified photo in overview section) causes the sub-heading "Engine" to be shunted into the middle of the page on a 1024x768 screen (the most popular resolution for browsers at present). I think this is frowned upon at the Manual of style and Guide to layout.
You might want to provide more wikilinks to technical details in the overview section (e.g. coil springs, anti-roll bar, etc).
While it looks well referenced, I noticed at least one link to a Fifth Gear clip on Google Video. Can you confirm that's not a copyright violation before linking to it?
"The Maserati MC12 received generally positive reviews, but it wasn't without it's criticisms." The apostrophe Nazi is coming to get you.
We need to clean up the lists in some articles, as there is some "listcruft" in some of the articles, e.g. Volkswagen Pointer. We need to have a task-force that can clean this up, to make them more readable.
I was just going to suggest tagging articles with {{cleanup-laundry}}, but I see you've done that already. It's not automobile-specific, but it's one way. Also, if the toolserver ever comes back up (yeah right), I plan on keeping lists updated with all the auto articles that have {{merge}} on them, all that have {{cleanup}}, etc... (Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Articles is sort of useful now, but it will provide the backbone for these sort of future tools) --Interiot20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
How are we defining "cruft" here? I can't find anything of the sort in the VW Pointer article. Are you talking about the list of year-to-year changes? Most auto articles have those. The Pointer one, however, is sparse and poorly written. --Sable23221:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I was instructed (in a peer review) that rather than have a list of specifications (which I think would count as listcruft unless it was very short), I should write it into paragraphs (see this diff [1]). I think information should be written out like that. James086Talk | Contribs07:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Help Categorizing
Hi, I recently created a new category: "Category:Cars of England". There's quite a few of them, and if anyone wants to help add the category tag to a bunch of english cars, it would be very helpful. I've mainly been working out of "Category:Motor_vehicle_manufacturers_of_the_United_Kingdom" to find the cars. Thanks, Riguy00:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, is there any particular reason you've chosen "cars of England" rather than "cars of the United Kingdom"? Some British cars were built in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and in some cases the same models were also built in factories in England, so offering up "cars of Scotland" and "cars of Northern Ireland" categories wouldn't solve it. I think this category really ought to be renamed. – Kieran T(talk | contribs)02:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think sorting cars by country can be somewhat tricky. What about the Rolls-Royce Phantom? It's made by BMW, a German company. Still English? What about Jaguar? Belongs to Ford. Still English? What I'm trying to say is that your category needs to be phrased more precisely. Perhaps "Cars manufactured in Great Britain" would be better- otherwise we could categorize the Phantom as a German and an English car (which of course wouldn't that big a deal). Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS06:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I was quite specific about "United Kingdom" and not "Great Britain" in my comment because GB doesn't include Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. And it's where the De Lorean DMC-12, at least, was built! – Kieran T(talk | contribs)15:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It should be United Kingdom and then it matches everything else. I suppose "Cars of England" could be a subcat but I see no point in that, it just adds to the difficulties mentioned above. Re-naming a category does not seem to be straightforward. Malcolma17:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes UK is the best term but it should be "Cars manufactured in the United Kingdom," not just "cars form the UK," as identifying a certain car (e.g. Jag & Rolls) as British might be somewhat tricky. Modern corporations such as VW (Bentley) and FoMoCo (Jag) don't really have a nationality (unless pretending they do moves merchandise); thus adding the "manufactured" to the Cat's name ensures accuracies. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This kind of thing trips us up every time. Cars are made in little pieces all over the world and the final assembly will be some other place that may or may not be the historical place of origin of the marque - which in turn may or may not be where the company - or it's parent company is incorporated. This is close to becoming an irrelevent question. But if we insist on making these kinds of categories, it would be better to make them as broad as possible because that minimises the chances of this being a serious problem. So I would definitely disagree with 'England' in this case - UK would be much better - but in so many cases just saying 'European' would much more accurate. A car that's assembled in England from parts made all over the EU - in a factory that's owned by a German company...it's a European car - it's not German or British...but even that is vague. My 'British-assembled/German-designed' car has an engine that's made in Brazil for chrissakes. SteveBaker17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactely, today's ologopolistic car industry can no longer be put in neat national categories-it's a globalized industry consisting of multi-national conglomerates. Their products (cars) reflect that; thus "European" is definitely better than just British or German, but as you said the parts that make "European" cars may come from places like Brazil. I think in today's globalized market place, national categories are somewhat of an antiquated notion. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS19:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I got enthusiastic, made the category and added automatic categorisation to the userbox/template. I also made a template message for notifying users of the changes (just add {{User:James086/autonote}} to their userpage. It will make a new section and sign for you. I have stopped now, just to be sure that nobody's opposed to what I'm doing. So, any opposition? James086Talk | Contribs12:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
2 days and no reply, I think it's fair to say that there's no opposition to the category. I'm going to notify everyone on the current list of of users of the category. James086Talk | Contribs04:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I notice that User:Senators has been adding Australian car articles: Ford BA Falcon, Holden VE Commodore and HSV Senator Signature to Portal:Cars/Selected article. I have asked him to remove them because none of these articles has reached even WP:GA status - which is the minimum standard for selected articles on our portal. Frankly, none of these articles comes close to GA quality and they certainly don't belong on our front page. Some of those articles are marked as GA candidates on their talk pages - but are not showing up anywhere on the WP:GAC list?!?
I wonder if there is a better way to handle this than to just allow anyone to add an article to that page. As a portal, I wonder whether we can in some way restrict editing privilages and institute a formal process for adding articles to the list.
With the addition of the Assessment Department - perhaps the duty to maintain that page should rest with that group?
Well only articles assessed as GA, A-class or FA should be featured. I suppose the management of the portal feature article selection could be conducted by the Assessment Department, but of course anyone is free to participate in the Assessment Department. Of course, we could institute a formal process-I simply suggest that an article should be requested and listed by different users. Thus authors would be discurage from just adding their own articles to the list-another editor would be needed to make the call. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I am proposing to move the Nissan 240Z to a new page called Nissan S30 to make it fairer to 260 and 280Z owners as I feel these two are always overshadowed by the former and were made to feel like the poor relative to the 240Z when they are the same car with all the US regulation crap
So what do anybody think? Willirennen 02:54, 15 December 2006
I disagree, they should stay in one article because they are all "the same car with all the US regulation crap." These are merely different generations of the same car. Splitting this article would be the same as splitting the Town Car article into four, one for the Executive Series, one for the Signature Series, another for the Cartier Series and another for the Ultimate Series. The Nissan 240Z article should be moved to Nissan S30 as it deals with different generations of one and the same car. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS07:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
cool
i am an avid car inthusiast even if i;m not an expert if anybody has a question about cars particulaily those in or formaly in the chrysler group.GuyDoe20:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I am bringing this merge nomination of Toyota Soarer and Lexus SC here as many of these lot on the talk page seem to object to merging them together with a lot of lame excuses, for example they are different car when they come from the same factory, the same size and same body parts. In all they are classed as personal luxurycoupé.
So far it has already been done with the Toyota Celsior redirects to Lexus LS and the other models that exists as a Lexus but has anybody objected to it yet.
But in all they are the same car, regardless to name, Lexus only exists for Toyota to push upper range cars to people who would refuse to buy Toyota, purely because of brand snobbery as with the pre Lexus days, people refuse to associate Toyota with luxury cars, thats why Lexus exists for these label junkies.
I would love to merge them together as I not prepared to take any s**t for whatever reason, so before I do so and become accused of vandalism, feel free to post your comment here. Willirennen 16:00, 16 December 2006 (utc)
Personally I'd like to see the redirect(s) go in the other direction, since the Soarer (or whatever model) is the home market name. --DeLarge12:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I would merge them - it makes no sense to talk about the two names as if they were different machines. Neither article is very long and both would benefit from the merger. As for which way the resulting redirect goes - it's totally irrelevent from our reader's perspective - so whatever. I wonder whether in these cases where a car has two names, we should have titles that reflect both names (eg Toyota Soarer and Lexus SC) with both individual car names (Toyota Soarer and Lexus SC in this case) being redirects. This would have the significant advantage that no matter which name someone typed into the search box, they would not arrive at an article with a title they didn't expect. If I were to type Lexus SC into the search box - then arrive at an article entitled Toyota Soarer - then I might conclude that some sort of error had occured and not bother to read any further. But if both names appeared in the title, we'd avoid that problem very neatly. SteveBaker16:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The American version (Lexus) has no where near the amount of options and standard equipment the Soarer does. I don't believe a Soarer should be called a Lexus SC. Do you merge Bently and Rolls Royce pages together due to them sharing the same body? The Soarer is available in different engine configurations and many different interior and exterior options then the Lexus is.
If you really must merge them it would be best to point Lexus SC to Toyota Soarer and have the Lexus SC listed under that as the Lexus is a "poor mans" version of the Soarer (Many Soarers have things such as TV, Leather Seats and dash, digital dash etc as standard equipment where as the Lexus doesn't even have some of it as an option)
Also, I think a point to be noted is that the Toyota Soarer existed before the Lexus SC thus there are bodys and models that have never been available as an SC CharlieHAus08:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
All of this previous commentary seems highly POV. I think our resident Soarer proponent is an enthusiast who wants to keep 'his' car article separate from that 'inferior' kind of car. That kind of behavior does not belong in Wikipedia. Here we have a couple of near-identical cars - one of which comes with a higher grade standard option pack. Big deal. This is a very common situation. I might agree that the pages should be kept separate if each was a really long, rich article - but they aren't. What works best in Wikipedia is to start with one article - and if it gets too long (maybe 40 or 50kbytes) then to carefully consider splitting it - splitting things at the outset results in an ugly maze of stub-like articles that just isn't helpful to the reader.
The situation with the Bentley and Rolls Royce articles is in no way comparable. Firstly, these are articles about car companies - not about cars. Secondly, there were lots of things that Bentley did on their own that had nothing to do with Rolls Royce, thirdly, both articles (although the latter is a disambig with links to half a dozen articles) are already quite long and detailed, fourthly Rolls Royce didn't only make cars.
As for naming the combined article after both cars - we need some more finely honed argument than "I've always detested it". It makes a LOT of sense to resolve these kinds of disputes that way. In the end, this is all about not confusing the reader - and having both names in the title with redirects from each individual name gets you the best of all worlds: You can still find the article by typing in the name of either car and you will find when you get there that the article does indeed have the name of the car you are interested in right there in the title. SteveBaker16:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
For starters, the SC article seems to imply that it was developed separately from the Soarer, talking about how the Soarer was too boxy and they enlisted a design studio to make a "new" car for the SC. Then, read the Soarer article and it says the new body was designed for both. I see the SC as not much more than an Americanized version of the Soarer. Normally, it would make sense to merge Lexus SC into Toyota Soarer. But this is complicated by the fact that the Soarer has been replaced in all markets by the SC. I don't like the idea of using both names in the title, either. --Sable23217:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If the two articles disagree about the origins issues then all the more reason they should be merged. If the two articles were merged then the authors would be forced to reconcile the actual FACTS - with references, etc. We simply cannot allow two different articles to contradict each other. There is a specific Wikipedia policy about this: Wikipedia:How_to_break_up_a_page#Avoidance_of_POV_forks...we don't split up subjects just because there is a difference of opinion (not that this should be opinion...articles contain FACTS - and they have to be backed up with REFERENCES). So it the SC article has a reference saying that the Soarer was considered too boxy for one market then this is truth and should certainly go into the Soarer article. On the other hand, if the Soarer article has references to show that the body was designed for both - then that is the truth. That the articles disagree is the precisely the REASON they should be merged.
I don't like the idea of using both names in the title - this is not a reason. WHY don't you like the idea...reasons please.
<indent reset> OK, here's two reasons. First, I can't off-hand find any other articles in the Automobiles section which do this. Every other vehicle follows the "home market name + redirect" convention that's been well established. Second, where other articles on WP do this, they're talking about two similar but distinct things (two examples are Pioneer 6, 7, 8 and 9, or promotion and relegation). Putting both car names in the title implies to me that they are related but discreet, when the consensus here is that they're the same car with different names depending on the market. If the Soarer and SC existed alongside each other on Toyota's price lists then I'd be more amenable to it, but as far as I know, wherever you are in the world you can buy one or the other.
Here's a third reason I just thought of; the precedent it'd set. As I said, in trying to struggle through the process of tidying and cataloguing the Mitsubishi Motors vehicles, I've seen a lot of region-specific naming. Should we redirect the Mitsubishi Pajero page to Mitsubishi Pajero/Montero/Shogun (which, as can be seen, already exists but not as the primary article)? Or, God forbid, how about the Mitsubishi Galant? Known during its 35+ year production run as the Mitsubishi Galant/Eterna/Emeraude/Legnum/Aspire depending on the bodystyle and engine, and that's just within the Japanese domestic market. An even better example would be the various Acura cars, none of which have "multiple" names in the title although they're largely based on Japanese Hondas.
I just don't see any reason why this car should be given special exemption from our established Autoproject standard. They're the same car, named differently in two different marketplaces. Simple as that. --DeLarge20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is not the current convention to list all of the alternative names in the title - but I think we have enough of these debates to justify a change in the conventions - and (most importantly) I think it would serve the reader best. If the page is talking about several related things - then name all of those things in the title...that way the title actually describes what's in the article. SteveBaker02:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think something that still needs to be addressed in the debate is that the Soarer was available previous to the SC (Only in Japan) and now the SC is available after the Soarer (all over the world) as a much-removed car from the original SC/Soarer of the 90's.
Also, regarding one of the posts previous to this, the Soarer for most of the 90's was a Japanese market car only available in right hand drive, the Lexus a US market car only available in left hand drive so therefore you cannot buy both cars in the same Country/market.202.12.144.2109:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Cars change and evolve over time, the names change for different markets, subtle (to the outsider) changes to trim levels and options happen. The basic car remains the same. None of those things seem important to the layperson - you can say all of this in the merged article and give your readers far more insight into what happened. People who are interested in the Lexus need to know where it came from - how it originated in the Soarer. People interested in the Soarer will want to know what became of it - how it evolved into the Lexus. Tell a story - make it compelling. The only reason you would not want to do that is if the resulting article would be too long...it won't be. SteveBaker17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not it is possible to combine the two articles in some way, having Toyota Soarer redirect to Lexus SC, or having the Soarer article merged into the SC one is completely illogical as the Z10 and Z20 series Soarers were never sold as Lexus and have no relation to any Lexus vehicle either.
Furthermore, the SC models represent just 3 out of 12 models of Soarer, the differences between which extend to a lot more than just "a higher grade standard option pack"
I would suggest that the SC information is capable of being incorporated into the Soarer one if necessary, I had already previously expanded the Soarer article to explain where the SC models fit in. Sciflyer18:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Problem is, the Soarer no longer exists, and instead is sold now as the SC. The future SC will be designed as such, without any Soarer appelations. So it would make more sense to merge into Lexus SC (if at all), with a very large and discrete subsection about the different Soarer variants. However, I agree, because the overlap is incomplete, it would make sense to leave the articles separate. This is because...
Toyota Soarer Gen 1 1981
Toyota Soarer Gen 2 1986
Toyota Soarer Gen 3 1991 Lexus SC 300/400 Gen 1
Toyota Soarer Gen 4 2001 Lexus SC 430 Gen 2
Soarer discontinued
2008+ Lexus SC 460 Gen 3
The Soarer article, if left alone, can cover perhaps Gen 1-4, or Gen 1-2 and leaving 3-4 merged to Lexus SC. Or not.
Please note that a similar case exists where the 1994 Toyota Vista and second generation Lexus ES 300 were designed with the same body style and platform, but are given separate articles due to their divergent histories. This is because they shared certain generations but not others. Enigma354200202:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I have considered splitting it into various articles on each of the different generations for these: and a brief historical overview of each one. Is this a good idea??, if not, what alternatives are there? I would appreciate the help! --SunStar Nettalk12:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The Ford Escort case is very different. To start with, the European and US 'Ford Escorts' are completely different cars - they bear no family relationship - except that Ford re-used the name. Furthermore, both articles are quite long - if you put the two together the resulting article would be much bigger than Wikipedias' style guide recommends. The Toyota Corona article is tiny - it's not even close to needing to be split up. If you did split it, you'd end up with a bunch of annoying stubs - and worse still, someone looking for information about (say) the T190 would not see the history of the car nicely laid out as it is now - and that would be a major loss IMHO. If this article every gets up to 40 or 50kbytes - then reconsider this decision. SteveBaker15:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting splitting the Corona article up: the Corolla article could be split into three versions:
I remember the Honda Accord article was split up: maybe I'm wrong suggesting this idea. I've abandoned the original idea because it is irrelevant. My mistake. --SunStar Nettalk18:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Mini Moke Peer Review
Hi! I thought I'd try to get the Mini Moke article through to WP:GA status - I've spent some time today doing cleanup and stuffing it full of references - but it would be nice to get some Peer Review comments before I stick it into the GAC process: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mini Moke/archive1. Thanks in advance for any comments you might have. (And even if you havn't - you should read about this insanely weird vehicle...and if you know of anyone who has one that's in need of resotration that's for sale - let me know - I passionately need to own one!) SteveBaker22:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Not a lot needs doing. I'm a bit anal about footnotes (see WP:FOOT), so I made very tiny adjustments to a couple of citations. I also adjusted one sentence which was very short (just blended it and the subsequent sentence into one). There also looks to have been some shuffling of paragraphs lately. I didn't touch anything, but I feel like the 'Construction and maintenance' section should be further up; definitely ahead of 'Rental operators' and 'Popular culture'.
There also seems to be two mentions of the car appearing in the Prisoner, which is fine except that the second one seems written as if the first doesn't exist, if you know what I mean.
Of course, to really fit in to Wikipedia, you'll need to massively expand the 'Popular culture' section, to include every fleeting appearance the Moke's ever made in the background of any film, TV show or manga cartoon, ever. Games as well. How about Need for Speed, was it in that? Forza Motorsport? Do any wrestlers or rappers own one?
Thanks for the copyedit! I greatly appreciate more eyes on the article. I agree about moving the 'Construction and maintenance' section - I'll get right onto that. SteveBaker04:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Almost all Mokes are on the opposite side of the world from Texas. I'm looking for one to buy to restore - and I'm reconciled to having to ship it from Australia, Macau, or someplace like that. They are just about the wierdest mass-produced street-legal cars on the planet...they look like little Jeeps - but they are TINY. Golf-carts dwarf them! SteveBaker04:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I am going to remove some of the images from this article because there are enough good-quality ones as it is: I am being bold. I am doing this to other similar articles too! --SunStar Nettalk00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Be careful. I agree that having a gallery of random photos stuck at the end of the article (as is definitely the case with Mazda 626) is a bad thing - but I don't agree with "there are too many photos so lets remove some". If the photos are an integral part of the article - and if each one adds some significant information or backs up a particular point - then it must stay - no matter how many photos the article ends up with. But the captions and the location of the photograph in the text should make that clear. SteveBaker02:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The page seems somewhat off in its own little world, so I'd like to solicit further involvement.
Reproduced from the talk page:
Would someone like to explain the rationale for the existence of this page to me? If the very opening to the article notes that it is a subjective category, what is the counterbalance that makes the article worth having? The term itself has no set definition, so not only is the article subjective and inherently POV, it is almost exclusively composed of original research.
I see zero benefit to having this page remain on the wiki, this is simply NOT what WP is for. This is the type of list which, if hosted somewhere else, we could possibly list as a link from the supercar article, but I challenge anyone to cite a positive policy reason in support of this page.
Well, I don't know if you'd consider it positive - but one reason I've created 'List of...' articles in the past is to have a really good reason to stop 'certain people' from repeatedly cluttering up my main article with long boring lists ("Don't add this into the article - there is a proper list article for that!") - it saves endless disputes. Hence for example, I created: List of films featuring Mini cars - not because I particularly feel that the list is important - but because it's dramatically reduced the number of times I've had to fend off people trying to list dozens of movies in oh-so-wonderful trivia sections of Mini and MINI (BMW). I've had to do this for other articles too. It's very hard to continually revert well-meaning edits of this nature - so I figure that if I give them a place to play they'll go away and leave me alone! In truth it doesn't cost Wikipedia much disk space - and people going to visit those lists must be pretty clear about what they are getting. I do draw the line at very poorly specified lists though. List of films featuring Mini cars is pretty clear - if there was a MINI or a Mini in the movie - it's on the list. But List of supercars is very much more difficult. The term supercar is horribly vague - and there will always be arguments about what is or isn't a supercar. Better the revert wars between supercar fanatics are on the list article than Supercar (although that too is a nastily vague article). I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to nominate it for deletion myself - but it's a close thing and I'd certainly go with the majority in a consensus vote. SteveBaker04:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, you're playing the pragmatist to my idealogue. That's the role I'm used to playing, so I'm certainly inclined to see your point.
A possible compromise idea that came to me: strong, inflexible and vigilant enforcement of citation policy. Include a cite with your listing, to a valid primary source using the word "supercar." Have it? It stays. Don't? It goes. Easy, no debate.
I note that the scope of this wikiproject states, in part: articles on all types and classes of automobile. I am interested in automotive technology, having, for example, been the primary contributor to the autogas article. I was going to join this wikiproject but if its scope is limited to non-technical articles about whole cars, as the wording of its scope appears to imply, I can't see much point in my joining it. The absence of automotive technology stubs from the list of stubs covered by the project appears to confirm that technical subjects are not covered by this project. Is there a wikiproject that covers automotive technology? --Athol Mullen07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been here for a while, and have always ignored the list of stubs listed here in favor of the list atop Category:Automobile stubs. *shrug* By quantity, most automobile articles (whether they're officially under this project or not) relate to a model or manufacturer of automobile, so that's what some people spend most of their time on. If you bring up auto parts/technology here, I don't think people will ignore you. I for one prefer to edit those articles anyway. --Interiot07:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
In other words, I think it is covered by the project, otherwise what would make the cars go? We can't have a good article about a car without articles about it's components. James086Talk | Contribs08:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I would propose:
that the 1st sentence in the scope be extended to read: "This WikiProject exists to co-ordinate the effort to compile articles on all types and classes of automobile, automotive parts and technology.",
that a new stub, {{Template:auto-tech-stub}} (Automotive technology stub) be created to cover technologies such as emission control systems that can't really be described as auto parts, &
that the 1st line of the Stubs section in the project page be changed to read: "Instead of simply using {{stub}} you might want to use one of the more specific automobile stub tags, some of which are:"
Support - Definitely merge, which will give you plenty of material to replace the dreadful Escudo article which is currently there. --DeLarge02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Offering a more Oriental perspective, since they're badge-engineered Mitsubishis shouldn't they be merged with Mitsubishi Mirage? And the Dodge Colt page looks like it could be turned into a disambiggly page directing to à la Mitsubishi Sigma (pointing to the Galant or Mirage articles). --DeLarge02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The downside I see to merging into the Mirage is that it could bloat the sections that relate to the generations with dozens of variants. Also, it would split off the wagon version of the Colt/Summit, which was a different Mitsubishi. IFCAR15:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Didn't quite work. Generally, photos of cars inside have lighting problems (as yours did), and yours also had oversized decorations on the hoods and the Milan was especially blurry. The existing images were mostly superior. Try to get shots of the cars outside. IFCAR23:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how there are lighting problems. The area was well lit, and so what if there are ribbons on the hood? it didn't distract from the car, except maybe not showing the the position of the windshield wipers, and I believe that they are better than the current images, like in Lincoln MKZ, where the image is practically overhead, adn teh Mercury Sable, where the original image is all fuzzy. I don't see how they are so poor quality like you describe them. Karrmann01:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, looking at them again, I see that the bows on teh hood actually don't distract from the car at all. Look again. Karrmann01:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Yellow and fuzzy coloring, poor angles, fuzziness, and no improvement over existing images that you keep replacing. Artificial lighting lowers image quality, just try to get them outside and they'll come out better. And try to get ones without giant bows on the hoods, too. IFCAR01:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Rule #1 of car photography - ALWAY USE A FLASH. The more light you can get on the car the better - hence outdoor shots are preferred. SteveBaker01:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
But still, look at the images. IF CAR talking about how they are underlit is pure bullshit. THey are quite well lit, look for ysurself. Karrmann02:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Still, I can't see his criticisms. He claimed that it was underlit, though it was lit quite clearly, and that the bows on the hoods blocked out the car, even though you could see all the car's charistics quite clearly. That is teh main reason why I am a little mad. My images are of high quality, yet I don't see why he keeps reverting them. Espically the Mercury Sable and Lincoln MKZ ones. They are better than the previous images, and I can't see his grounds for reverting them. Karrmann02:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
The trouble with photos is that it's so often a matter of aesthetics...and we don't all agree on what art we like. Indoor photos do tend to have less light than you'd like and (worse still) more uniform lighting than you'd like. This tends to wash out and disguise the subtle curves of the car. Strong directional light from the sun and from a camera flash don't do that - they also make nice sparkles where they hit the body at the right angle. Personally, I find the giant red bows distracting as hell - but that's a personal thing. I also feel that some of the cars were photographed from a lower angle than I'd like for a 'descriptive' photo that's trying to show what the car looks like. Low angle photos are great for making the car look more imposing - more agressive - whatever - but this is an encyclopedia and we don't really want to 'bias' the look of the car by playing tricks like that. I wouldn't say that any of Karrmann's photos were unacceptable - but as to whether they were better or worse than the photos we already had - I can't say. I suggest you try to calmly discuss the relative merits of each photo in turn with whoever is reverting them. If all else fails, you can always use both photos. SteveBaker01:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the decision will have to be made by someone other than the photographer (Karrmann) and the original reverter (myself), for the very reason that it is entirely subjective. With just two people going back and forth, it has been "yes it is" vs. "no it isn't." You can't debate an opinion, so the only way to solve this issue is to have a general discussion of what people personally prefer. Karrmann prefers the images he's taken, I prefer the existing ones, you (I gathered) prefer the existing ones. With some more input, we can make a consensus decision. IFCAR01:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
<indent reset> My opinions on the individual images...
Lincoln MKX – the older image was slightly better, as it didn't have the corner of another vehicle in shot. It has something in the shot (a finger?), but it's less intrusive.
Lincoln MKZ – the older image was undoubtedly better. The ribbon is a distraction, it's taken from a poorer (lower) angle, and the vehicle is less centred in the shot.
Mercury Mariner#1 and #2 – I think the black hybrid shot would have been OK except for the very distracting spotlights reflecting off the bodywork. The second shot again seems to offer nothing new, except a distracting ribbon.
Mercury Sable – Way, way too blurry. If no existing shot existed you could have gotten away with this, but the existing image is perfectly adequate for an infobox until a proper quality replacement emerges.
Sorry, couldn't see an instance where the new image was an improvement. I'd recommend several things here: (a) taking multiple shots of each car and picking the best one; I'm presuming from the quality issues here that you didn't do that - big multimedia cards allow you to run off 30-40 photos of each one without worrying about space issues; (b) getting a tripod or dealing with your shaky-handedness, which seems a serious problem in several shots; (c) shrinking the image a bit beforehand. Do we really need a 2048x1536 .jpg for a 250px infobox when there's no extra detail to be gleaned from the original because it's so blurry? --DeLarge02:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't take pictures of cars indoors. They tend to turn out bad. I always take car pictures outdoors and I absolutely never use a flash.
Karrmann, you own a Gen IV Sable, right? Get it washed and drive out into the country and take a few pictures. That's what I did. --Sable23222:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I followed your suggestions, and uploaded a new batch. I follwed your suggestions, taking the images outdoors, with flash, standing up. THey can be found here. Karrmann19:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Much better. Some are still a bit blurry, but a definite improvement. I'd name the images based on the subject matter in the future though, and you can't assume that because you've taken a picture that it's better than the existing image and needs to go into an article. I reverted a couple of edits (Cirrus and Taurus) where there was a clear advantage to the existing image.
The images still look a little blurry to me too (although the outdoor ones are a marked improvement). Is there a finger pring on the lens of your camera (the blur seems to be worse on 1 area on most of the shots). BMan1113VR22:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. I'll clean the lens. And thank you IFCAR. I invite you to create a new image of a Festiva, as I just meant for mine to be filler just to get rid of that Fair image which was probably cruising towards deletion, because as you can see, the one pictured is very worn down. Though, it is getting harder to find Festivas. That one I took the picture of is the first one I have seen since October. Karrmann22:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to be able to get a new image of a Festiva, but they're no easier to find here than where you are. I've only seen one in the entire time I've been taking photos for Wikipedia, and it was on the road. It's good to have a free image, no matter what the quality is. IFCAR22:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Good perspective but bad background.Great perspective & background.
Ture but quality does play an important role. We are an encyclopedia and we need to convey a certain sense of authority and credibility to our users and pictures are part of this procress. We need ot make sure that we only use the best free images in the most prominent places. I think some of the most important rules to remember are:
Take outdoor shots in bright sun light
Have the sun behind your (don't take a picture facing the sun)
Try and get as few cars in the background as possible (parking lot and "cars on the street" shots should be used only as a last resort)
Make sure the cars are clean and in good condition
If possible make sure they are in a dignified environment (backgournd landscaping, buildings well maintained, etc...)
Try and make sure there are no distracting relfections (e.g. overhead light on the MKZ image).
Only owners can get shots like that second one, so with the puzzling purge of fair use images, street and parking lot shots need to be used most often, until an owner can come along and get a high-quality shot of his or her personal car. IFCAR23:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
That's very true, owners get the best shots of cars and we do need to use "on the street" shots. But we should try and only use the absolute best shots possbile. I am merely dsecribing what we should aim for. The Brooklands pic is excately that- a benchmark. Many of the pointers I mentioned above can also be used when taking on the street cars and even there are differences. See this shot Karmann took of a '94 TC, it is way better than this one of a Toyota Corolla. (The former at least one shows only the 1 car it's supposed to show and the park adds a somewhat diginified setting-though I'd crop out all that pavement in the lower part of the pic-there just isn't any beauty in a black-top) Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS23:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
My point is just that if you don't own the car, you have to shoot it where you find it, whatever that background may be. You can only control the angle and how much you crop it. IFCAR23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm with IFCAR. I am 14, so I am even more on a "Take what I can get" basis. I was just lucky that the Town Car had no cars parked around it. With the Prizm though, I don't see why there is a problem with a couple fo cars in the background, as it is not very distracting from the subject, and it is still clear what the subject of the image is anyway. Karrmann00:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
My general idea is that, quality being equal, best to worst backgrounds are beauty/nature, driveway, street, then parking lot, but that quality/angle/visibility is much more important than background. IFCAR00:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is very hard to get an image like that Bentley, unless we own it. And since Wikipedia has outlawed fair use images of cars, we are forced to trek out to minimall parking lots to get images of cars to illustrate the articles. So I don't think the fact that there is another car in the background would make a proper nitpick abotu a pic. Karrmann00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is hard to get good pictures! And yes I realize your TC shot was just a lucky one-but that's how it goes-the best shots of cars that arn't your own are going to be lucky ones. I'm just saying that that there is a scale form most to least desirable. The most desireable shots are hard ones to get (unless you own the car) the least desirable shots are the easiest to get. A picture of a car with otherones in the background is less desirable than a picture showing only the car that it's supposed to show. I think IFCAR's got the idea with "best to worst backgrounds are beauty/nature, driveway, street, then parking lot"- there is a scale here and parking lot pics are lowest on that scale and should only be used when they are really needed and there arn't any better pics. I do have to say that considering the circumstances that make it so hard to get good car pics, both of you have done an outstanding job so far. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS04:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree you should take it up with the Motorsport Wikiproject. If there is a go ahead I would be interested in joining up on a Drag Racing Project. ren0talk09:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Team Polizei deletion nomination
I am nominating this Team Polizei for deletion as they are not notable enough to deserve a page, all they done is entered the Gumball 3000 and nothing else. Also they are the non celebrity partipicants to have their own page, I think this will soon be a pro-law flouting page if it stays. Feel free to share your thought here. Willirennen
Sources of car data
For people writing articles about current car models, I found a great website with data on weight, sizes, accelleration, etc, etc for a bazillion cars:
Yes, but try to find a car magazine (or auto brochure) first as some of the information is incorrect or poorly researched.BMan1113VR05:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
For the three cars I knew enough to check on, the data was spot on. But obviously I can't say whether it's all that good...and in all cases, you don't want to rely on a single source if you can avoid it. SteveBaker12:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Global Auto Index is more accurate, as they get their data straight from the official press-releases. Unfortunately it doesn't have many models whose production stopped before 2001. Histomobile is somewhat accurate for older models, but I'd recommend using the Automobil Revue yearbooks, if anyone has any. --Pc1316:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time finding any guidelines on how many vehicles should be in the similar field of the automobile infobox. I'm finding articles with anywhere between 1 and 15 vehicles (which seems mighty excessive) and would like to know if there is a desirable (or better yet, defined) number of vehicles to include in the similar field. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Three is the generally accepted convention, but if there are fewer truly similar vehicles, one or two or none would also be fine. IFCAR00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This is what I figured and, actually, I think I remember you bringing up this subject before. I think it's a good guideline to go by, but it's sometimes hard to get this across to other editors. Is there some place this is documented so that I could refer to it when asked? If not, how do we go about starting documentation for guidelines, specifications, and nomenclature such as this? Roguegeek (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have looked for a written clarification of this, but I only remember finding out from someone else as well. I agree that there should be more official guidelines so everyone doesn't need to make up his or her own rules. IFCAR00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
<indent reset> I think the trouble is that people don't apply a strict enough inclusion criteria. If you're dealing with, say, mid-size sedans, there's dozens of possible "similar vehicles" and it's original research to include only some but not others. However, since WP isn't a shopper's guide, it's not merely a list of "competitors". Use the country or region of origin, the drivetrain layout, the dates of manufacture, etc etc. Applying all these criteria, I rarely come up with better than 2-3 similar cars, especially in the "overall" infobox. Look at an old edit of the Mitsubishi Galant. That car's been in production since 1969, is Japanese and has been built both at home and in the U.S. It began as a compact RWD sedan, and evolved into a mid-size FWD sedan during its 35 year life. Yet someone thought it "similar" to a Pontiac G6 or Ford Fusion (North America)?
Within the automobile infobox, one of the fields is body style. My question for this field is as follows. Should we list true technical information here as defined by SAE or are manufacturer marketing terms more important to list? For example:
The Corvette Coupe is marketed by Chevrolet as a coupé, but it's actually a hatchback/liftback due to rear cargo space being able to be accessed by a flip-up window. The same would be true for fourth-gen Camaros.
I'm sure there's peanty of other examples to find, but these are the ones that are currently right in my face. I would recommend going with technical defined only because it doesn't leave any room for interpretation and is (what I would consider to be) more encyclopedic. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I always just use my own judgement based on industry definitions, not always the manufacturer's definition. It's usually not hard to tell and nobody would be concerned if it doesn't have a reference for a simple observation (like you don't need a source to say the McLaren F1 has butterfly doors if theres a picture of it with open doors). James086Talk | Contribs03:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all most definitions vary wildly according to source. I don't think SAE has a definition of 'roadster'. The Corvette Convertible, contrary to your assertions, is not a roadster: roadsters do not have roll-up side windows. The Corvette does. SAE, as far as I know, considers this a convertible because it has a folding roof. I could just as easily call it a cabriolet...
Also, in many cases multiple classifications apply to a car. The Corvette Coupé is still a (SAE-defined) coupé because it has less than 33 ft³ of rear passenger volume. The rear glass does not invalidate that. A four-door car with less than 33 ft³ of passenger volume is also an SAE-defined coupé.
I agree - this is always going to be a 'best judgement/consensus view' kind of a thing. The SAE definitions are very US-centric and sometimes, applying their strict definitions produce a very counter-intuitive result. I looked up the SAE definitions for my article on the Mini and the result came out as "SAE J1100" which is a 'Coupe' (two doors, two or four seats, less than 33cuft interior volume, hardtop)- but nobody ever calls it that and when I put that into the infobox, every other editor shot me down in flames for doing that. The car is generally called a 'saloon' - which is (according to sedan) the same thing as a 'sedan' - but the SAE definition of 'sedan' is a 4-door/3-box design. The Mini only had two doors and was a two-box design. What it's closest to is a 'hatchback' - but it doesn't have a hatchback tailgate so it's hardly right to call it that. So I gave up on formal definitions and put 'saloon' - which is also what the manufacturer called it - nobody has complained since. However, I wouldn't agree with slavishly following the manufacturer's definitions - they are not unbiassed and because they want to say 'Best XXX in its class' are very likely to try to put the vehicle into a 'class' where it can excel. They are also very fond of inventing new terms - 'SAV' or 'MPV'...anything to avoid sticking the dreaded 'SUV' label onto the car and putting off the red-blooded-male market! We need to be ruthlessly correct in the face of such nonsense - and reverting to the SAE definitions may make a lot of sense under those circumstances. SteveBaker05:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Having a hatchback tailgate doesn't disallow a car from being a coupé. See Porsche 944, Toyota Celica, etc etc. It depends to a great extent on the manufacturer's intent. A good trick is to simply follow the old verifiability mantra here. If you can find lots of reliable sources referring to it as a particular body-style, that's what you go with.
The trouble with SAE definitions is that while they may lay down guidelines, unless they explicitly state that car X is in category Y, working out which categories a car can fit into constitutes original research. And take any definition of what constitutes a roadster, convertible or cabriolet on Wikipedia with a pinch of salt. I don't know if that's where you gleaned your definitions of these terms, but not one of those pages cites its sources and therefore can't be assumed to be reliable. --DeLarge13:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed a new article today: Pontiac GR-Series. However, this appears to be a crystal-balling.
We need to watch out for these crystal-balling articles a bit more, as I've just seen this one today, and can find no sources on it.
There is some crystal balling in the Toyota Supra article. The Mark V section. I'm never sure if it should be removed. I mean, I have personally sent an e-mail to Toyota asking about a future Toyota Supra and they have always said "There are no plans at this time to continue the Toyota Supra". Thoughts? ren0talk20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like User:Qizzer444 and User:Simonwyattwestow might be the same person with two different IDs. Personally, I'd ignore all previous tags and speedy delete the pages, except the Peugeot 207 SW which should be merged with Peugeot 207. I'll be bold and do the lot just now.
As for the Supra stuff, it's speculation, but reliably sourced, verifiable speculation. In fact, I'd have to say the Mk.V section is a great example of WP editing; it even includes Toyota's statement that it's all false. --DeLarge22:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Toyota Camry
I've been accused of "vandalism" on Toyota Camry by User:Angry Aspie (here, here and, if you count an anonymous IP edit, here). My edits? Converting a 300px thumbnail image in an infobox to the standard non-thumbnailed 250px, and removing this photo (taken by Aspie and uploaded within the last 24 hours) with the previous Commons image, which doesn't have a huge pole in the way. Since I've already reverted twice in the last 24 hours, and since, according to Aspie, he'll "keep reverting until the vandal stops", I'd appreciate some assistance in restoring order to the article's layout. Regards, --DeLarge02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we stop putting galleries in car articles. I see many articles that have galleries in them, and it just looks sloppy, and they are either filled with just pictures that are useless, or more of Bul-Doser's pictures of cars from the rear. I just don't like seeing them. Coule we please put it in the regualtions that we dont' use galleries? Karrmann16:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Generally, I agree galleries of poor photos are ugly and convey very little (if any) new information - so go ahead, pull the best photos out and put them into the article properly - then delete the rest along with the gallery itself. Dunno about regulations though...let's try to avoid excessive regulations because they ALWAYS have exceptions. SteveBaker16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the pictures are of high quality and esthetically enhance the article we should leave the galleries. If the pictures are nothing special however and don't serve any specific purpose we can get rid of a gallery. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. They are either just duplicate images of the same car in the infobox, or some of Bull-Doser's rear end shots, and thes why I am in such a stink about them. If they were to showcase features of the car or something like that, I wouldn't mind them. Karrmann21:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. Most galleries show different versions of the car. Different bodystyles, pre vs. post-facelift models, or international versions. They can often be pared down, but you can't just go through with blanket deletions. IFCAR23:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Small variations like this are useful, but really, that's what Commons is for. Commons categories and pages can have an endless number of images, so just link to one of those from the wikipedia article, and only include the major differences in the article itself. --Interiot15:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
When an article talks about changes over the years or other things with differences, sending readers to a general link with dozens of images isn't nearly as useful as putting a small thumbnail on the page near the relevent text. IFCAR15:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
yeah, to show a change, put it in the text, bu dont' stick a gallery in there if it shows no relevance, plus, a lot I find just have a bunch of BD's crappy rear end shots.
Editer review
I am currently on Editer review, and I thought that since I work on car articles the most, I thought that I would be best getting my feedback from here. So if you any feedback, please post it! Karrmann22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Technically, a truck is not an automobile - so technically, no we don't. However if you need to discuss pickup trucks, here is probably the best place - and sticking to the project's standards is probably a good idea in the absence of anything specifically mentioned. If, on the other hand, you are talking about large (18-wheeler) trucks - then no, we can't help. SteveBaker14:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt answer. I should have pointed out that I was thinking of medium and heavy trucks. Does anybody know if there is a project about trucks? I can't find any. Rotten Stone15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
With the (relatively few) truck articles I've edited, I've found there tend to be a handful of editors interested in that particular make, and not a unified group. You might be successful in trying to drum up some volunteers to help out (or answer queries) from the talk pages of individual trucks and manufacturers. – Kieran T(talk)22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Though I'm neither a trucker, nor a genuine truck freak, and though I'm also fairly new as a registered user, I still might try to start a project about trucks. I guess that most of the guidelines for such a project could be copied from this project with just minor modifications. Rotten Stone13:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you please sort out a consistent policy on famous owners sections! I note your archived debate on such on which I have commented, but it seems you are still not implementing a consistent policy - why remove and battle against it on Rolls Royce Phantom article; and yet have such sections on the Porsche article, or the worst maintained of the lot the McLaren Mercedes SLR article - most "owners" are unreferenced, and some even don't have their own articles. You can hardly refer someone to a "policy" as is being done on the Phantom article, when clearly at present (from edit logs) you have one that is not at all/not consistently applied by all members of this project. Good Luck! Rgds, - Trident1312:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, it's not up to us to implement policy. We've had a discussion and made a decision, but you're an editor just as much as we are. If it bothers you that much, be bold and "implement a consistent policy" yourself.
In both cases you gave, I'm in agreement with you. Too much cruft, not enough references. Wipe out at your leisure. --DeLarge17:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I just re-read the previous discussion on this subject - and we never really did make a clear-cut suggestion. In my humble opinion, we should avoid 'trivia' lists of all kinds. The information about who does or does not own a particular car is only relevent to the article on the car if that is important to the history of the car. If some notable person owns a particular car, that may be relevent information in the article on the person - but probably doesn't matter in the article on the car. But there are times where one can verifiably show that a particular person's ownership of a particular car did much to publicise it (in either a good or bad way). I mentioned the Beatles and the Queen of England in the Mini article because I can produce multiple solid references to say that the credibility those people brought to the car made it a hugely popular car. You might find a reference to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger's famed ownership of Hummer's made them more acceptable to a certain part of the population - but could the same be said of the fact that Neil Young, Hugh Hefner, DMX, Dennis Rodman, Mike Tyson, Randy Johnson and Coolio also owned them? If you can find references that prove that such-and-such person's ownership of the car had some important effect on the history of the car - then by all means say so. But in the vast majority of cases, that person's ownership of the car is utterly irrelevent to the car - and therefore doesn't belong in the article - no matter whether you have a reference for it - and no matter that the person is or isn't notable in their own right. So, I would propose the following two criteris:
You have to show that this person's ownership of the car mattered to the history of the car.
...AND...You have to have a suitable reference to say that this is true.
I'm with SteveBaker. In 99 out of 100 cases it is only relevant to mention car ownership on the person's page with nothing on the car's page. What next, famous owners of washing machines.
I think the answer is consistentcy to a defined set of easily understandable criteria. Quite what that is is a rounded debate, together with what is realisticly maintainable - I won't go yet cutting articles until there is a clear criteria which is understandable, which I agree that the last debate has not yet created. For instance, the Phantom article at present doesn't mention the fact that the Peninsular Hotel has the largest fleet of Phantom's - but the Porsche article does mention that Seinfeld is the probable owner of the largest fleet of Posrche's: both items of which probably should be included in an encyclopedic article. Quite where you would that information, for instance under the title of "Famous Owner", or "Trivia" - both of which are difficult to maintain; or place such information in the main article is another point. I am not a member of this group, but am a self-confessed petrol-head - hence the question. I think this whole area is one where Wikipedia is prone to "addition" by more non-registered editors than any other (probably most males between the ages of 8+ would have an interest!), and hence clear/simple and realistic guidelines with that in mind would help all/avoid continual maintenance/edit wars. The guys on the Phantom page are trying to fight a "King Canute" like battle at present - reference to a clear set of guidelines would help all, and I would be more than happy to help implement consistently across other motoring articles. Best Regards, - Trident1320:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said in the previous round of this debate, one tactical way to get rid of well meaning trivia collectors is to create ancilliary articles with "List of ..." titles. It's not great that these exist - but you can at least delete trivia that gets put into your main article with the comment "Great information! Please add it to the List of.... article!"...that way nobody gets upset with you and all of the junk ends up in the article that nobody ever reads! Sooner or later an AfD can be put up and let some faceless admin take the heat for getting rid of it! THe main thing is that it keeps your main article looking clean and lean and encyclopeadic. SteveBaker21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, Steve's pruned the Porsche article and it looks no worse for it. I'd venture that the fact (if it can be verified - I believe it had no supporting reference) that Jerry Seinfeld is the owner of the largest collection of Porsches in the world is something that should go in the Jerry Seinfeld article, as it's more relevant to him than to the car company. As for the Phantoms, that's also fairly straightforward. Using this citation,[2] you can put it in the "Sales" section of the article, noting that the biggest single purchaser of the car was also the biggest single purchaser of (seven) Silver Shadows in the 1970s.
A great rule of thumb with trivia is this: if it's a list of bulleted points, it's probably safe to purge. Information which is worthy of inclusion can usually be blended in to the main text. This approach is, in fact, explicitly recommended by WP. In fact, the Phantom page could probably do with having the Sales section rewritten as a paragraph or two.
That's why the good editors write the car articles, and then the anonymous IPs come along afterwards and tack on a list of what Manga cartoons and Need for Speed games the vehicle appeared in. Hope that helps. --DeLarge21:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
But seriously, if the article says: "The largest collection of Porsche's in the world belongs to Jerry Seinfeld" (with a reference of course) - then I really have no problem with it. But somehow when you stick a bullet in front of it and say "Jerry Seinfeld has the largest collection of Porsche's in the world" - my instinct is to delete immediately. The emphasis of the second version is all wrong - it's about Jerry Seinfeld - which is irrelevent to an article about the Porsche. The first version is all about the car...it's subtle - but it just seems a million times better. So writing these things into paragraphs that flow - rather than as a bulleted list under a == XXXX == heading does help. It probably discourages the Need-for-Speed enthusiasts too. SteveBaker21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I was patrolling the 'Article Creation Requested' page just now and someone suggested an article on Curb feelers - which I created (I wondered what those things were for - you see them on the sides of the police car in the movie cars). Anyway - the photo desperately needs a photo. Does anyone have a picture of a car with those little wires sticking out the side of the body close to the ground? I think they are mostly found on cars from the 1950's with white wall tires. SteveBaker06:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
ok guys get yer camera's and try to find one of these ancient clunkers around, the photo we were using for the article was removed, I talked to the creator of the photo, and he only had rights for his website and couldn't extend them to us. I've checked the internet, there don't seem to be any photos we could use so we gotta get one. I saw one of those the other day on hastings street in vancouver biritsh columbia, but I don't have a digital camera TotallyTempo18:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Following on somewhat from the "famous owners" discussion, and past discussions about "apearances in film and television" sections, I've noticed that the Citroën DS article is really suffering from having not only an "...in popular culture" section, but also a large "...in film and television" section. The former is possibly worth keeping since this is such an iconic car, but the second... However, so many people have contributed to it, I don't think it's *quite* so clear-cut as the equivalent sections in some other articles. At the very least, I expect removing it would cause some reverts. So before being bold and doing it, I'd appreciate the backup of having raised it here. Thoughts? – Kieran T(talk)15:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You are right - that's completely out of control. Again, I encourage you to create another article "List of TV shows and Movies containing the Citroën DS" - move all of the entries over there - and then write a prose-style (ie *NOT* a list) of the two or three most important appearances of the car. Remember - this is an article about the car. If the movie or TV show happened to use the car - that's irrelevent. What matters is whether the show or movie INFLUENCED the car. Did some movie appearance cause the public to rush off and buy lots of them (eg The Italian Job and the Mini or The Prisoner and the Mini Moke - those actually influenced the popularity of the car - and I have references to prove it.) - or did the show disparage the car so much that nobody would buy one? (eg Mr Bean and the Reliant Robin).
I believe that writing this section in prose style (as recommended in WP:MOS) discourages people from just adding another item. It's very easy for some person seeing a list of 10 movies with a '*' in front of each one to notice one that you've missed and just add it onto the end - thinking they are doing you a favor. However, if you've written something like this (from my Mini Moke article):
"Mokes were famously used as taxis with distinctive striped canopies in the TV series The Prisoner. They also appeared many other TV shows and also in the Beatles' film Help! and in the James Bond films The Man with the Golden Gun and Moonraker where they were used as runabouts in the villain's headquarters." (The actual article has references for each of those statements).
Then it's less likely that someone will just add another item because it requires writing some actual prose text. This has worked very well indeed for Mini - whose 'companion' "List of..." article has about a hundred entries and yet the main article doesn't even need a 'Cultural References' or 'TV and Movie appearances' section because the text about those TV and movie appearances is scattered throughout the article where it is most relevent to the story of the car. Occasionally people put in stuff about the "Mr Bean" TV show that featured the Mini - but I simply revert - and tell them that Mr Bean only aired on TV while the Mini was in it's final decline and had absolutely no influence on the car whatever. I don't get edit wars when I explain it like that.
I suggest you quietly create the 'List of...' article first - get it all nice and pretty - with a photo of the car and all of the entries from the main DS article - then in ONE EDIT - delete all of the junk from the article, add a {{main|List of TV and Movie appearances of the Citroen DS}} and write one or two paragraphs about the influence of the two or three most important movie/TV appearances of the car. Try hard to find references for those things. Do it in one edit so that people don't see the half-finished version and have time to complain that their 'stuff' is 'deleted' - be sure to tell them that all of that "vital" data has been "promoted" to it's very own article - give them the link to it. Encourage them to add to that new article! If anyone tries to sneak some of that data back into the main article, simply delete it - saying that "There are no references in your contribution - we can't accept it".
But to get from here to there is going to require you to get tough and 'be bold' and to take some heat. But I encourage you to do that. The DS article is a nice piece - and it's definitely spoiled by all this junk accumulating within it. Remember: We're behind you!
The Toyota Camry article is again being vandalized by User:Angry Aspie, with unreasonable image arrangements, insistance on an incomplete 2nd-gen image, and a fascination with dual exhaust. This is a repeat of an earlier incident by the same user on the same page. IFCAR16:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have to say that some of his image choices aren't so terrible. I certainly wouldn't describe this as vandalism - and neither should you - that's a personal attack and the guy has a right to be upset about that. This puts you firmly in the wrong. You are the one who has to clean this up and apologise.
The white Camry does look much nicer than the one you have in the infobox right now - unless there is some technical reason why it's wrong (eg if it's the wrong kind of car - or has aftermarket aerokit parts or something). If I had to pick one photo from the article to have at the top - that would be it. Aside from that, all I see here is some petty bickering. I don't see one person's view as clearly better than the other (except that you called him a vandal - which is truly an unforgivable thing to do). Right now, I think you are in the wrong - and so you need to be the one to extend the olive branch.
I strongly suggest that you both cease arguing in revert wars (which will sooner or later result in one or both of you violating WP:3RR and getting banned for a while), You have to take this off into the Talk: page and discuss each photo on it's merits. I suggest putting a gallery of photos up on the talk page (not in the article) - and discuss which ones belong in the article and where and why. What precisely is wrong with this photo? Does is show the wrong car? Is it a modified car with aftermarket parts (which would largely disqualify it)? Is it a taken from a bad angle? Is the car dirty or rusty? Is there too much clutter in the background?
You have to make it dispassionate - discuss the individual photos - don't mention who took which one. This has to be a discussion about photographs - not a discussion about people, reversions, vandalism, etc.
User:Angry Aspie has already shown immaturity by calling a different editor a vandal for putting the best images on the page. Plus, the edit summary get over it, your images S-U-C-K doesn't exactly make me sympathetic to his position. In fact, looking at that kind of behavior from a new user it is reasonable to say it's vandalism.
The image changes were a switch of the XLE image to text about the SE, and switching the 2nd-gen image to one with the trunk cut off. IFCAR20:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought there had been SE text, maybe it's been edited since then. But either way, the SE, while stock, doesn't represent the Camry as well as a non-sport version. I took both 07 images, by the way. IFCAR20:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Edit summary is irrelevent, but the picture (at right) missing the rear end is what was swapped in. The other edits made at the same time (dual exhaust being notable, and switching the others without much reason without changing the captions) made a full revert seem logical to me. IFCAR22:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
So the rear bumpers cut off? Whoopie ding. It is clearer ad in better lighting than yours, though yours has the stock hubcaps. Karrmann23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
"Images of complete cars in good original condition should be used whenever possible — they should include all original parts and represent vehicles in reasonably good condition." That image fails two sections of that: it cuts off the rear end and isn't stock. I have a new better-lit image taken today that I'll be uploading soon anyway. IFCAR00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
When viewed at 150px your picture does't show much detail of the car due to a poor photo angle which doesn't show much of the front end. It is hardly distinguishible from a Corolla in that picture.
FYI - Most GenII Camry's came with wheel rings and NO hubcaps. I know the people who bought both the one pictured and a 1990 Camry who confirm that they didn't come with hubcaps. If you would rather have a picture of one with rusty wheels, then good for you.
Second, your Japo-phobic reverts against the dual pipes on the V6 models makes no sense. The 07s are the first camry model to ever come w/ dualies standard, which both increases horsepower and improves gas mileage. Maybe your rustbelt American Shitmobiles should consider making cars that are both high proforming and fuel efficient.
This debate belongs on the page for that car - but please avoid personal attacks - and assume good faith. You can't assume from what someone has been saying that they are "Japo-phobic" - so you have to avoid making any kind of assumptions about the other person's feelings or intentions and just talk about the photos. If the car came with and without hubcaps, with and without dual tailpipes - then there is room for both photos. The ability to show those distinctions is rather useful in fact. I know we need to show the most common configurations - but it's also interesting to your readers to see rarer configurations. So if "Most GenII Camry's caome with wheel rings and NO hubcaps" - then it's also interesting to stick up an additional photo of one that DOES have hubcaps and say "This Gen II is unusual because it has hubcaps". SteveBaker02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, please, we absolutely do NOT need five different photos for each generation of a car. Off the top of my head, I can think of five different external variations on the Gen II Sable alone. And why not stop there? How about a shot of the dash, because there was a rare option for woodgrain on the dashboard. So that's six pictures, which would make the article cluttered and look like complete garbage. Pictures are there to illustrate the CAR. If hubcaps on a 2nd-gen Camry are rare (they aren't), then say so in the text with references. Putting up a picture and then claiming that the car is rare is not going to work.
I do agree that the introduction of dual exhaust is notable. But is it a true-dual system? If not, then it has little effect on power and economy. Angry Aspie, if you want to stick around here, you really need to rethink some things. All I can see is that you are here to stir up trouble. If that is the case, you are not going to last long. --Sable23217:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I saw that somebody inserted images of Police package Taurus' in the Ford Taurus article. Well, as a member of the Taurus Car Club of America, I noticed that the images are ripped scraight from the TCCA Encyclopedia, though the uploader claims that he created the images. I thik we need to look into this. I'll go and alert the TCCA. Karrmann17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The Gen II Police Package image is from the TCCA, but I don't believe the Gen I is. Keep in mind that it is possible (though unlikely) that the uploader of these images was the person who provided them to the TCCA in the first place. --Sable23217:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's not so unlikely - look on their 'Credits' page. The TCCA do credit Wikipedia for "providing research resources" - and a GFDL image is fair game for putting onto their site. SteveBaker18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, he claims that he created the Image recently, though it has been in the TCCA encyclopedia for quite some time. Karrmann17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
So if you have proof, list the proof that you have. Ask the guy specificially when he took the photograph. If he claims to have taken the photograph (say) a month ago - then use the 'wayback machine' to look at the TCCA website from two months ago (or a year ago or whatever) and see if the photo is still there. If it is, tell the guy he's mistaken and revert the image - getting an admin person to delete it permenantly from the site if possible. Certainly you should take these actions BEFORE notifying the TCCA because we don't really want to get them upset with Wikipedia if we can handle this internally. If on the other hand, you can't find the photo on the wayback machine from that long ago - then we have to assume good faith and let the photo stand. If you are still convinced it's not his picture then you could maybe look at the image metadata to see what kind of camera was used, see if he knows that. Check the metadata on the TCCA site's photo to be sure it hasn't been tampered with. Look at the metedata on other photos this guy claims to have taken - does it look like they were all takein with the same one or two cameras or are they all different? That's usually a dead giveaway! SteveBaker18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
They are both different sizes, the one of the first gen looks like it's scanned. Also, the guy claims he took the image in December(the G2), the image has been on the TCCA long before then. Karrmann19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Images
I've got a new digital camera! If you want any photos of cars that are European, leave a request at User:SunStar Net/Car photo requests and I'll try and get it! Make your request like this:
Commons is a much better option, as it makes the photos available to all wikipedias, not just the english language one. --Athol Mullen20:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Every possible colour combination
I have been maintaining a MINI fan site for a while - one of the things I've been collecting has been a set of photographs of these cars - one in every possible paint combination. Since the MINI comes in over a dozen colours with either a black, white or body-coloured roof - and three choices for convertible roof colour (black, blue or green). As new colours appear in the product line every year, this means there are getting to be close to a hundred photos there. I'd like to transfer this collection over to Wikipedia/Wikicommons because maintaining the photo library is becoming hard work and I'd like to share that pain with the community. Also, the bandwidth demands on my home server are killing me! The question is: Would it be appropriate to collect all of these photos into a List of MINIs in every available colour article? I know a lot of people consult my web page when they are thinking of buying a car - and I hear that many of the car dealerships recommend people go there because unlike the manufacturer's web site, these are photos of real cars in real situations rather than computer-generated images. All of the images have been released into the public domain when they were donated to me - so there are no 'fair use' or 'copyright' issues here. You can see my site (with all of the photos) here: http://www.sjbaker.org/telamom/colours/SteveBaker05:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I think including that information is a little excessive. For an enthusiast, the colors are of interest. But in a general article about a car, I don't know. For instance, I could include "1993 Mercury Sable GS sedan in Crystal Blue Frost with Light Medium Aubergine pinstripe" in an image caption, but does anyone really care? Now, the MINI is a much different case. Maybe it would work for that car, but I don't want to start down the slippery slope. --Sable23205:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - that's what concerns me too - which is why I'm seeking an opinion from those who care rather than 'being bold'. But most cars only come in a handful of stock colours - so it wouldn't be that big a deal in most cases - also, we have so much trouble finding even one good photo of most cars that the idea of having a hundred of them wouldn't be very likely. But if you take a look at my page, you'll see that almost all of them are very nice pictures - and because I require contributors to always take a 3/4 frontal photo, they aren't generally too badly posed. I don't think this belongs in the main article about the car - that would be too much. I'm thinking of a "List of..." auxiliary article that would be referenced by the main article. SteveBaker05:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
An article is one thing, and putting the images on Commons is another. I dubt anyone would have a problem with you putting the images on Commons. // Liftarn
"The Truth About Cars" refs
I took a look at "The Truth About Cars" which claims to be an automotive review site. I looked at some of the reviews and I am wondering how this source is reliable. The articles are nothing but baseless opinion, written out like a stand-up comedian's show. The articles are comprised almost entirely of wisecracks and give no real information about the car. Any information gleaned from these is found in other, more-professional reviews, and you don't have to wade through incessant one-liners to find it. I would be disappointed if I was reading an article here and then found that as a cited source.
Should we really be citing a source like this when we have plenty of (more or less) trusted sources like Consumer Reports, Consumer Guide, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc? --Sable23214:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, its a humor page and not an authorative institution. The page consists of a bunch of guys who thought "Hey, let's get together and make a web-site with car reviews." Regards, Signaturebrendel19:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Rear end shots
I am starting to see a bunch of rear end shots popping up in articles again, mosotly from our good friend BUll Doser. I think that we should just plain ban rear end pics. Karrmann14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd be against an outright ban; sometimes a rear-view is the best way to demonstrate unusual body features or a range of shapes. Best we stick to a guideline about the ideal shot for the infobox, but allow for special needs in individual articles. – Kieran T(talk)15:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The best would be to have both front and rear shots. Preferable at an angle so you can see all sides of the car. // Liftarn
I've always thought of it like this. No rear end shots in infoboxes, period. However, if there's a station wagon model of the car, wouldn't it make MORE sense to use a rear shot? The front view is (generally) the same as the sedan. Might as well get a rear 3/4 of the wagon. Likewise, there is no good reason why a smaller image of a sedan rear couldn't be present, just as long as there is substantial text in the article. --Sable23216:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Sable232, but I think we also want to avoid a preponderance of images. If there's a front-end infobox shot of one version of the car, a rear-end shot of sufficient quality makes sense. However, if every article has front and rear end shots of the same version, there will be a great deal of unnecessary clutter. IFCAR17:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
So put them in a category and/or page at commons, and link to commons from the wikipedia article. An abundance of images shouldn't be considered a bad thing, that's what commons is for. --Interiot20:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep - definitely no rear-end shots in info-boxes. Rear shots can sometimes be effective - for example, the one in De Lorean DMC-12's infobox doesn't look too bad - but I think it's important to maintain standards in infoboxes and three-quarter front views are definitely preferred. But I would strongly object to an actual ban on rear-end photos in the main article. If you have something to say about the rear end - and a photo adds something to that statement - then by all means let's have a rear-end shot. But generally, the most recognisable and informative view is the front three-quarter view - and for 'general' images of the car, that's what we want to show. Mr BullDozer evidently needs to be whacked with a clue-stick again...but I wouldn't want to make a hard-and-fast rule beyond the infobox. SteveBaker20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The kind of stuff I am talking about is when there are rear end shots as teh only way illustrating the car. Like in Pontiac G5. (I have removed them) That is what I wanna ban. Using a rear end shot to properly illustrate a car where there already is a front end shot will be just fine.
I don't understand that. If the only photo we can find for a car is a rear-end shot - then, fine - it's better than nothing. If you have both shots then use the front shot - unless the rear shot adds important information - then use both. The only thing we should avoid is removing the front view shot to replace it with the rear view shot - or using the rear view shot in the infobox when you have a front view that would do the job. I don't think this is rocket science! SteveBaker23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Steve's points above "If you have both shots then use the front shot - unless the rear shot adds important information - then use both." Generally speaking rear end shots are less desriable then fron end shots, but it depends on the article. One cannot make broad generalizations here. Where and how a picture ought to be used must be determined depending on the individual characteristics of the article. Regards, Signaturebrendel01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Photo requests
Are there any specific articles that need pictures? The Washington Auto Show is next week, and I can fill some requests when I go. --Aude (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
As of tomorrow, I am going to the Montreal Auto Show. There are about only 250-350 cars there. I will continue to be there, however. -- Bull-Doser03:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I took many pictures at NAIAS, many which I uploaded adn added to their respective articles. Ther are more than I uploaded, I just saw no place where Wikipedia could use them, so I didn't waste my time uploading them.
I have a picture of teh CX9 I took at NAIAS, though it is not very good, so I didn't upload it. It's at a good angle adn all, but people are in it, adn a doors open. Karrmann01:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry man, but those images aren't very good. Crooked angles are good for artistic images, but not good for encyclopediac images. Karrmann02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
aight, here it isI think my CX9 pic will probably prove more useful than BD's. I'll upload it adn let you be the judge. Karrmann03:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, that one will go in the article. It was hard to get one without people though, cause it was grabbing a lot of attention. That is the clearest it got, at least when I was at the Mazda stand. Karrmann12:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have found that if you go up to one of the official-looking people 'minding' the car and tell them that you are taking a photo for "the car's official entry in Wikipedia - the online Encyclopedia" - then they'll clear people away from the car for a minute or so in order to let you get a good shot. They just naturally assume that you're some kind of professional journalist. But PLEASE - avoid turning the camera through funny angles and turn your flash on (don't leave it in 'automatic' mode). SteveBaker16:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I used flash, thats how my images turned out so clean. When I took the dealer pics, I didn't use flash, so thats why they were so blurry. Karrmann18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Just please don't take skewed angle pictures. I know you thought it would make them look edgy and fancy, but unfortunately it does not. So please, Bull-Doser continue to take regular up-right images (they're best for use in an encyclopedia). I'm sorry I have to say this but pictures like this are completely un-usable. Regards, Signaturebrendel20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well sometimes that may not be the case. A really low low quality image may actually take away from an article and make us look totally un-professional. Signaturebrendel21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Meh, I'll just head down to a Saturn dealer and take an image of another OUTLOOK to replace that piss poor on e. Karrmann21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Didn't you read a word I said? I am not doing cars or upadting infoboxes, I am adding infoboxes to car brands! Karrmann20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"Range" boxes
I'd like to ask you guys to help me keep an eye on a few articles. There have been a lot of sequential edits to Vauxhall Cavalier, Hillman Avenger, Leyland Princess, amongst others, adding tables listing models in the range. These are unreferenced and sometimes have information not otherwise in the article. They're mostly from anonymous editors. And most worryingly, some are copied and pasted from one article to another (see error link, below). Sometimes, an edit wipes out all the other work that editor has put in, which would normally call for a request that they experiment in their own sandbox.
I don't know the ranges inside out, so can't check the facts, but there seems to be lots of scope for error. Certainly, multiple sequential edits leave the page in a mess for many minutes per day and if the editor wasn't anonymous, I'd ask them to prepare their work offline, but since it's not all the same IP, we can't presume it's the same person. (A major reason why I wish anons were not allowed, but that's another matter...) Here's an example of what goes wrong: at the time of writing this, the Vauxhall Cavalier article has a table labelled Hillman Avenger: [3]
I'm tempted to revert the lot as unreferenced, but some of it is copied information from the article, so that wouldn't be entirely fair. – Kieran T(talk)16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Now there's a pointless waste of time. 122 edits to Vauxhall Cavalier and at the end of it, unnecessary spaces were all that were added.
Yeah, it's not the first time that's happened — over a week or so, it all comes... then goes. Another one for the watch-list, btw, is Austin Ambassador, though there's been less activity, just some unreferenced tweaking of model details which feels like it's related. – Kieran T(talk)23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The table on Hillman Avenger received yet more changes, and last night there were three reversions (of up to 33 edits in one hit!) by fresh editors who identified the changes as vandalism. To avoid further confusion, and the article being left in a mess, I've removed the table entirely, with a polite edit summary requesting it be completed in a sandbox and then inserted in one edit, together with references. No response yet. If it goes smoothly, I'll probably do the same to Vauxhall Cavalier shortly. The Princess one is less bad, since the tables are spread around the article, so I'm planning to leave that unless the editing binge resumes. – Kieran T(talk)13:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As I was messing with the Nissan Skyline article, I noticed that when you right align an image and you have an infobox template it places the image below it. Is there a way to allow the image to just be placed to the left of the infobox or no? (for example small images.) ren0talk17:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, you just have to align left next to an infobox if you want the image to stay where you put it. IFCAR01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This is warned against in the Manual of Style, since it can result in a very narrow column of text for people on mobile devices or with other small screens. Remember, Wikipedia pages are like HTML in the old days: they're intended to convey a hierarchy of information, not to be a form of DTP with precision layout control. – Kieran T(talk)01:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Autos conventions ask for images to be as close as possible to relevant text, so one of the standards must be chosen. IFCAR02:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, your point makes sense, and this is a common conflict in various subject areas. Personally I think infoboxes are a layout pain in the neck and would be better as a sort of introductory table horizontally, but that ain't ever going to happen. Since the "don't squeeze" advice comes from the Manual of Style, and is soundly grounded in general internet accessibility we might be better following that — also because I suspect most Wikipedians would vote that above the stylistic suggestions of an individual project in terms of authority. It's different when it's an issue regarding the project's subject matter, but internet accessibility and page layout probably aren't part of ProjectAutos... ;-) – Kieran T(talk)02:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
