Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Disambiguation Pages

Is it appropriate to create disambiguation pages for similarly named cars, engines etc. For example, today I searched for A Series Engine, looking for the BMC variety. I therefore wondered if a disambiguation page pointing to the variety of A Series engines out there would be helpful. Rather than go straight ahead and do it, I thought it best to consult other, more experienced Wikipedians. Wikipedia says not to include partial matches, which I suspect includes this. Also, what about a 'see also: BMC B-series engine' at the top of the A-Series page? Or does doing that start to create a ridiculous precedent (e.g. 'see also: BMW 1 Sereis, 3 Series, 5 series etc' at the top of all of them) Thanks in advance for all your advice! ARDawson (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Afraid of setting exactly such a precedent, I added "See also" sections to the bottom of the A/B-series pages. Category:British Leyland engines is also very useful for finding other articles. I don't see an A-series dab page being in any way harmful, but were I to search for info on the Toyota A-engine, I would include "Toyota" in my search - so I don't see how much use it could be either.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Chevy Volt GA

I need your advice about the convention for expressing units for the Talk:Chevrolet Volt/GA1. The reviewer is requesting to convert L in the infobox and well as the battery volumes (The battery pack size was reduced, from about 300 L in volume in the EV1, to just 100 L in the Volt). I believe the engine volume is expressed in liters by international convention, so it shouldn't be converted. As for the battery volume, should I convert it to ft3 or L is fine? Also, the wheel size is expressed in inches, I never have seen it converted, should I? Your help will be appreciated. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Metric is preferred in nearly all cases of modern cars but wheel sizes are one of the very few exceptions. Of the top of my head, the Russian Lada is the only manufacturer I know of that uses metric wheels - practically everybody uses inches and the public in English speaking countries expects to see inches for wheel rim measurements.

Since the US is the major market for the Volt, it is reasonable to do conversions for litres to cubic feet or cubic inches. As long as it is consistent within the article whether metric or imperial is listed first.  Stepho  talk  06:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. What do you think of converting the engine to cubic inches and the battery volume to cubic feet? Is there a template? (I am not aware of, sorry).--Mariordo (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I just use '{{convert|2000|cc|cuin|abbr=on|0}}' to give '2,000 cc (122 cu in)' and '{{convert|20|L|cuft|abbr=on|1}}' to give '20 L (0.7 cu ft)' . The {{convert}} template takes most units that are needed by car articles. Add '|disp=flip' to swap the order of metric and imperial. That's a lot of fine work you've put into that article (and many other articles).  Stepho  talk  06:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that as US cars are no longer marketed in cubic inches that it is unnecessary to include them (see Wikipedia:CARS/Conventions#Displacement). Other imperial units like inches, pounds, gallons, et cetera are the primary units in the US so should be listed first with metric conversions afterwards. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

For engine sizes you may be correct. But I suspect that if you tell an average American that the battery size is 100 L then they will give you a blank look.  Stepho  talk  08:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that I was only referring to engine displacement and not volume in general. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, I will follow your advice.--Mariordo (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that L is fine here, as the main point is that volume is reduced by two thirds. But I know better than to argue with people who base their measuring systems on "the distance from the tip of the nose to the end of the thumb of King Henry I"... As for engines, ci are really not used much anymore even in the US. I think that the "Mustang 5.0" marked the beginning of the end for cubic inches.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Citroën Xsara (Picasso)

Hello, have a look on Citroën Xsara and Citroen Xsara Picasso (Car). Someone removed the whole section and there are no links between those two articles now. I'm not sure about policies here on en.wiki, if it should be separated or merged. --Pan BMP (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the contents of Citröen Xsara Picasso, which I was redirected to from Citroen Xsara Picasso (Car), to Citroën Xsara Picasso, with the other two articles becoming redirects. I assume that the articles should remain separated, because as far as I know they are different cars, and that the articles should follow the same manner as Citroën C4 and Citroën C4 Picasso.--Pineapple Fez 22:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks okay now Pineapple Fez. Perhaps Citroen Xsara Picasso (Car) is a candidate for a speedy delete as it is superfluous and serves no purpose. Warren (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Auto CID not working

The Template:Auto CID is not working at present. Paul foord (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Another editor made changes which broke the precision. I tried to repair this but obviously broke something else, so I have reverted to the last-known-good version. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI I have also reverted the changes made to {{Auto lb·ft}}, {{Auto in}} and {{Auto L}}. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The other editor was I. I was rewriting these as hard-codings of {{convert}}. I had intended to avoid the input-insensitive default rounding used in the templates up to that point so I tried replaced the rounding with input-sensitive rounding. In discussion with Biker, however, I decided that it might be better to leave things as they are. I fixed Biker's broken repair to the {{convert}} call. Now the templates are ready for substing and then they can go the way of the others. JIMp _talk·cont 00:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'm fully supportive of the changes and agree that the original templates should be deleted or deprecated. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 14#Automotive conversion templates to discuss the deletion of these automotive conversion templates. All functions are now possible using {{convert}}. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor redirects

Just to let you know, User:Colonies Chris is taking a large number of piped links and turning them into redirects without demonstrating knowledge of the accuracy of these links. By way of example - Holden Commodore SS was turned into a redirect towards Holden VE Commodore, ignoring the the 'SS' nameplate has been used on the about a dozen different Commodore model ranges rather than just the VE. Mini John Cooper Works S2000 was established as a link to Mini John Cooper Works WRC despite the article referring to a different car enitrely with no information on the S2000. --Falcadore (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, he has also cleaned up a lot of overlinked and badly articles.  Stepho  talk  00:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

Mitsubishi Triton > Mitsubishi L200 Anyone interested, please contribute on the Triton talk page. Thanks Jenova20 13:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

GMC cars & trucks > GMC (automobile) (sharing topic, since it was already here) For some reason, User:Scheno moved this to GMC Cars, then to GMC cars & trucks. They also got move-happy with some Opel articles recently. --Vossanova ^o< 20:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I fired a gentle warning shot across his bow (on his talk page). Since he is a new editor, I've assumed it was just ignorance on his part.  Stepho  talk  23:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Article layout guidelines - companies

I can't find any specific guidance for the layout of articles that relate to companies which fall within this project. I am asking because I just reverted a change at Jaguar Cars, which placed the history section after the current/past models section. The bulk of the articles that I have seen put the company history before the models - indeed it is typically the first section in the article after the lead. What are other project members' opinions on this? Are there any guidelines (I couldn't find them here or at the WikiProject Companies). --Biker Biker (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it should depend on the individual subject - if its a defunct manufacturer its all history isn't it. If they are making and selling right now then all about the current line-up should lead the article. Eddaido (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of manufacturer articles do lead with history. The same seems to be true of companies in other sectors e.g. motorcycle manufacturers, banks, oil companies, telecoms etc. While an article about a car falls almost exclusively within the this project, an automobile company would also be within the scope of WikiProject Companies, so I'm guessing we need to fall in line with any guidelines there. That's why I'm asking if there if anyone is aware of guidelines that may already exist. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the way that article is set out. My preference would be to combine the list of models into the history section. A separate list of Jaguar vehicles page could be created as a comprehensive list. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(If I follow OSX correctly) this then means Wikipedia is about the history of particular enterprises and not about what particular enterprises actually are and do? I prefer: General Motors is . . . its current products are . . . and not General Motors began in . . . by making paper-lace doilies. I suggest it makes more sense to say what they are (now) followed by how they got there. This article on Boeing 747 begins by telling the reader what a Boeing 747 is then goes into background (history). If I look up a dictionary(/encyclopedia?) it tells me what a word means first then it might go into its origins. Horse then cart or do I mean cupwinner then its breeding. Eddaido (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the order of sections is too critical. The lead should always contain a short summary of the current state of the company. The history section can come as the next section or anywhere else in the article (but not in the lead). I wouldn't get too worked up about it. Even Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Guidelines doesn't seem to make a recommendation about the order of sections.  Stepho  talk  02:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec x 2) 747 doesn't begin with a detailed description of what a 747 is, it begins (following the lead) with a background section discussing what lead up to the design of the vehicle. All articles have leads (which explains briefly what the topic is) and generally should have a background/history section as the first actual section of the article. --Daniel 02:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Serial spammer on Auto Avio Costruzioni 815 article

There is an anonymous (IP) editor who keeps adding irrelevant information to the article on the Auto Avio Costruzioni 815 racing car from 1940. His/her addition is as follows:

The trademark "Auto-Avio Costruzioni" was bought in 2004 by a group of car enthusiats. The goal was to create a modified version of the Ferrari F430 with a V-12 engine.(name : AAC 1260)

The brand was launched in a French auto magazine "Sport Auto" in May 2008. The consequences of this article triggered an unwarranted attack by Ferrari.

A swiss court is on the way (2011) to decide if the legal owner (since 2004) of the trademark can keep his rights on Auto Avio Costruzioni. It's funny to notice that Ferrari Spa never make a deposit on the trademark Auto Avio Costruzioni and now claims that the 815 was the first Ferrari. In fact the first Ferrari is the 125S from 1947. The 815 could have been the first Ferrari, but Enzo couldn't use his name on this car due to the agreement with Alfa Roméo. In the same way to prove that, Ferrari celebrate his 60th birthday in 2007...so what 1940+60=2007 ?

In fact, the first car built by Enzo Ferrari is not the 125S or the AAC 815, this was the Alfa Roméo Bimotore...(so Ferrari should have say that Alfa Roméo belongs to him ?)

All this in an article, not about the company, but about a car built and raced in 1940! This is clearly unrelated to the car in question, but every time I take it out, with this explanation, it is returned, with no explanation. All requests for discussion on the article's talk page have been ignored. What should I do next?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

IDK if it's apt, but I added a vandal warning. (There's no dedicated "don't spam" warning AFAIK.) Maybe it'll help. I'd also see if the IP can be blocked for this kind of behavior. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

He/she/it/other needs references to back up their claims. The more extraordinary the claims, the more solid the references have to be. If references are found but they aren't very strong, then it could be put into a 'Controveries' section phrased as 'XX claims ...'. But extraordinary claims without references can be deleted immediately.  Stepho  talk  05:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue with the Cadillac (list of cars) page

Despite, what i feel is rightly placed frustration, i am going to remain polite as the page asks. I would be very pleased if the page for the list of Cadillac's was updated to the end of the 20th century. the list comes to a dead stop at 1975 then jumps to the current models of 2010-2011, there is no mention of any cars produced during 1976 through to 2009. if this problem could be rectified to show the automobiles manufactured during this time, that would be fantastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.72.183 (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is a volunteer effort with no central control. Volunteers add bits of information as their know it. And these volunteers are scattered all over the world. It's a great way to put many minds onto a task but the downside is that there are often gaps in the articles - as you found out. The only way to fill in the gaps is to either do it yourself (through lots of research in libraries) or hope that someone else can do it for you. But even if you can only add a little, then at least the gaps are smaller. Adding the list of models (or even just the few you personally know of) over those years (without actual articles on each one) could encourage someone else to start writing some individual articles for those newly listed models. It's all collaborative. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  06:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Another idea is for you to go through the vehicles listed at Template:Cadillac timeline 1980 to date and add them to List of Cadillac models. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  07:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that! ARDawson (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nissan Figaro vs Nissan Fairlady

The article on the Nissan Figaro has an error. One of opinion, maybe, but wrong nevertheless. The article states that the Nissan Figaro looks like the Datsun Fairlady sports cars of the 1960's, which it simply doesn't. Iit has the same number of wheels, doors and headlights but the general shape and aspect ratios of the design are totally different. I'm surprised you haven't had some vintage sports car aficionado threatening mayhem over the offence to what was a genuinely rapid soft-top, and arguably the first Japanese mass production sports car.

The Nissan Figaro looks vaguely like the original 1959 Fairlady SR211. You might be thinking of the 1969 Nissan S30#240Z, which was also called the Fairlady Z in Japan.  Stepho  talk  08:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos from the 2011 Rolling Sculpture Car Show in need of better categorization

A very helpful member of your project (Typ932) helped me identify two cars I photographed at the 2011 Rolling Sculpture Car Show in Ann Arbor, Michigan (an Alfa Romeo Spider "Duetto" and a Fiat X1/9 respectively). I took a handful of other photos at that same event that I was only able to categorize by make (and one I was completely unable to identify), so I thought that someone here might be able to categorize them more specifically and accurately than me. If you have any interest in having a look, here they are with their makes as their captions:

• 
  Cadillac
• 
  Edsel
• 
  Bentley

Thanks in advance for having a look and take care!

TFCforever (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done two. That leaves 9 for someone else. Happy ones. Charles01 (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm insufficiently certain to caption them, but the "unidentified" red number makes me think Alfa 33 for some reason, & I'd say the Cad is a '59. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The red job is a Manta Montage (later built in the UK as the UVA M6), a fairly good copy of the McLaren M6GT which was inexplicably relabelled the "Cody Coyote" for an American TV show called Hardcastle and McCormick. See article here.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I've updated the descriptions of all the images (and the few categories that haven't already been changed) to reflect your identifications. I'm also removing the identified cars from the gallery and will take a second look at the three remaining unidentified images. I really appreciate all your help, and I cannot say enough about the swiftness and helpfulness of your collective response as a WikiProject. All the best! TFCforever (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

SEAT 131

A Spanish car fan has turned a redirect into a stand alone article for the SEAT 131. I figure it's best to nip this in the bud before there are also separate SEAT Panda and SEAT Ritmo pages. Feel free to discuss the question here. Just realized that the same editor (LeonCR) also redirected the SEAT Ritmo to SEAT Ronda, which seems less than optimal.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've entered a (far too long) disagreement with you over the Seat 131 at the relevant talk page.

On the Seat Ritmo I don't know what there is to be said/written...I don't know much. But if there is disagreement over whether it should be subsumed into the entry fopr the Fiat Ritmo (which the English call Fiat Strada for reasons which made sense to someone's Marketing Director) or into the entry for the Ronda (which was a direct evolution from the Ritmo even though the discussion over whether or not it was a copy with endless very small differences in the places where the judge might look - fascinating story but a digression) --- the fact that you cannot agree which entry to subsume the Seat Ritmo into suggests to me that you probably need to set up a stand-alone entry for the Seat Ritmo which you can link to both the Fiat Ritmo and the Ronda entry. I don't know what there is to say about the Seat Ritmo, but someone must do. And there was certainly plenty to be said about the Fiat Ritmo in terms of the sales and marketing and background politics that is totally irrelevant to the Spanish situation. There are ugly rumours that Fiat quality and availability suffered from the poor industrial relations in Turin. I've no idea how true that is: no doubt it an be sourced, true or not. But it has nothing to do with Barcelona. Ditto the industrial robots on the Ritmo production lines that Fiat kept boasting about atthis time.

No futher thoughts. Time for breakfast. Charles01 (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The SEAT Ritmo was simply a license-built Fiat Ritmo. There were some minor engine differences, but nothing enough to warrant a standalone article. The Ronda was its successor in the Spanish market (I don't know where else we have redirected an article to a cars successor), which should have been made more prominent in the Fiat Ritmo article. I just made some changes to that effect.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)