Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Category:Mid-engined vehicles

Category:Mid-engined vehicles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Requested move notification: Hemi engine → Hemispherical combustion chamber

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Hemi engine to move the page to Hemispherical combustion chamber. If you've anything to add, please step in! —Cloverleaf II (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hemi engine listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hemi engine to be moved to Hemispherical combustion chamber. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Pillar (car) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pillar (car) to be moved to Pillar (automobile). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Manganese Bronze Holdings listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Manganese Bronze Holdings to be moved to The London Taxi Company. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Co Ltd listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Co Ltd to be moved to BAIC Group. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Kia Bongo

• Kia Bongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone please check the edits made in June by two new editors to the above. The most recent edits are by someone who might be changing articles randomly, but the edits to the above are at least plausible, although obviously in need of considerable attention. Rather than reverting it as unsourced, perhaps someone here might check and fix it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Plausible. http://www.kia.com/worldwide/vehicles/k2700-k2500-k4000g/product.aspx  Stepho  talk  09:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ford Model B

Hello, I took this photo at an air museum in Italy. This car has a weird story: it was bought in 1933, hid in the 1940s and found again in 1998. It looks to me a Ford Model B with V.8 engine, but I don't know exactly which sub-model if any. Can anyone help? thanks -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 23:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a 1932 Ford V8 Tudor Sedan (Model 18). Interesting car, I'm sure not many Fords were brought to Italy in 1933. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you suppose right. Actually that car too shouldn't have been brought to Italy - Fascism imposed autarky and officially closed foreign trade. I suppose that the car's owner managed to buy it because he was an executive of a major supplier of our Air Force. Then he hid it when the war started, and kept it hidden in order to prevent it to fell prey of German troops in Northern Italy. When he died nobody knew about that secret room where it was hidden and in 1998 the car was discovered still in good conditions because it had been unused fo six decades. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 09:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Vintage car details - 1906 Chicago Motor Show

For those of you interested in old American cars - The Inter Ocean, Chicago of 4 February 1906 carried a detailed listing of all the cars and specifications on display. It's quite a trove of information. It can be accessed through www.newspapers.com if you have user rights. NealeFamily (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia article assessment on hold?

Seems to be dead to me. Ominae (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any official team, any member can assess, assuming they are remotely familiar with the guidelines for such. I probably should jump on a dozen this week myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good. Ominae (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Renault article assessment

A fellow editor raised an issue in the Renault's article talk page that I think needs to be addressed. In 2008, the Renault article was assessed as C-class. However, the article was extensively modified over the years, although I don't know if the improvements are enough to reassess it. Some editors, including me, would like to know what changes it need to once again become a B-class article. --Urbanoc (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Overly specific manufacturer descriptions

• It's come to my attention that, on some of the American car articles, the manufacturer seems to be overly specified. For example, on Chevrolet Corvette, the lead states the Chevrolet Corvette, known colloquially as the Vette, is a sports car manufactured by the Chevrolet division of American automotive conglomerate General Motors (GM). There is a similar situation on FCA and FordMoCo related articles as well - at least for the US-based firms. But why do we need to specify that the division is part of a great company? It seems to be adding words/information for the sake of adding words/information, even when it isn't that necessary. We don't see this sort of situation on most other firms - for example, the article on the SEAT León does not specify that SEAT are part of VAG, Ferrari articles make no mention of the Fiat company, etc. It also seems that, for whatever reason, the main holding company is being described as the manufacturer in the infobox on some articles (such as Jeep articles). It seems like this over complication extends to some BMC/BL/AR/etc-related articles where it probably shouldn't, such as the Rover 800. Could someone give me a good reason why things are done this way? It would certainly be easier - and just as accurate - to say that the Jeep Grand Cherokee was built by the American manufacturer Jeep, or the Rover 800 was made by Rover, etc - and it would look neater as well IMO. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree some standardization is in order, but I'd disagree deleting is the way to go. If we're writing for a general audience, & a worldwide audience, can we be sure the reader knows Chev is a GM division? Or Ferrari is owned by FIAT? IMO, the obvious answer is no, & that suggests we need to include the corporate parentage in all cases. Does it make for "wordiness"? Yes. Does it seem unnecessary when you do know who the parent is? Yes. (Am I contradicting my usual preference for "writing for the head of the class"? Probably. ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think thining it back is the right way to go. This is why we have wikilinks. If they want to learn about Chevy, they can click the Chevy link. The article isn't about who owns Chevy, it's about the Corvette. The same for others. There might be a rare exception, but for mainstream and modern cars, the maker is enough, tracing back to the conglomerate is overkill. This is particularly true since so many have traded hands, which would make us update too many articles. These changes don't affect the car itself, only the corporate structure, which isn't the purpose of that article. At the end of the day, a Chevy is a Chevy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's precisely my thinking. I agree that there are situations where we may need to specify - Dodge Ram, for example, which is now sold under the Ram brand rather than the Dodge brand. But most of the time, if you want more detail, you go to the main article - as you said, that's what wikilinks are for. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Luke and Dennis. Some brands change hands faster than a game of pass the parcel in an Irish pub. The car article can just add a wikilink to the article describing the brand and that brand article can then go into the details of the brand and its owners. The car article should not go into brand ownership.  Stepho  talk  12:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that works. I would suggest adding a mention of the parent in the infobox (if it isn't there), however: it may not be strictly needed, but I maintain it may be worth having, for readers making a casual pass at a page on an automotive subject--that is, somebody not wanting to be bothered chasing links. (I know, that's what links are for, but--have you ever gotten off on a far tangent chasing links? ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be strongly opposed to infobox inclusion, as long as it isn't getting too ridiculously lengthy. I would still view it as unnecessary, just not to the same degree. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Infobox doesn't bother me, even listing prior owners in select cases. That is where you would expect to find that kind of info anyway, not in the prose where it mucks up the flow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Just so we're all clear, I'm not desperately wedded to inclusion in the infobox; I only think it'd be a good idea for general readers for a "page at a glance". Those interested in more can always follow the links. (Those with lots of time can follow lots of them. ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

We previously had a parent company field in the infobox but it was decided it would be removed to reduce the amount of clutter in infoboxes. For cases where the parent is to be included, they style is: manufacturer: Chevrolet (General Motors), Škoda (Volkswagen Group), etc. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 24#Parent company and Template:Infobox automobile usage instructions. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for linking it, so combined is a pretty clear consensus against adding the parent in the template or prose without an extraordinary reason. The rare times you need to add a parent (Dodge/Ram) you probably better do that in prose anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

So, to summarize then; we should remove mentions of the parent company from the lead except in unusual cases, and should change any infoboxes that contain non-standard entries to match the ones displayed in the template. Is this correct, and do we have a consensus for this? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think so. We can allow for the really oddball exception. Crosley might fit as an exception, for example. It is a unique situation that may or may not benefit from an exception. It needs an infobox, as a matter of fact. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Just stumbled on this discussion after an edit appeared in my watch list. I would like to clarify the situation. For example the current version of Singer Vogue makes no mention either of initial parent company Rootes Group or subsequent owner Chrysler UK. For a marque that disappeared over 40 years ago I wonder if many people would know of the connection. (The article does mention both the Australian Rootes and Chrysler offshoots). On the Sunbeam Rapier, Hillman Super Minx and Humber Sceptre articles the lead has been changed but Rootes Group and/or Chrysler UK left in the infobox. (That's as far as I looked before coming here to post!) Thanks Eagleash (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't touched the infoboxes yet, it is something I will get to. But the age of the companies does not matter in the slightest. If there is no mention of the parent companies in the articles, then of course they should be added - in the main body of the text. It's also worth noting that User:Eddaido has gone and reverted wholesale a large number of changes I made to articles, even when the vast majority of those changes were blatantly obvious cleanups that were obviously needed (forgetting the manufacturer changes in the lead for a second.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course the age doesn't really matter but if you asked a lot of people nowadays they quite possibly wouldn't have heard of Singer or Rootes Group, which, to my mind, makes it quite important that the ownership of the marque is included in the articles and quite early on, if not actually in the first paragraph. Rootes Group and BMC are slightly different to (say) the Ferrari/Fiat Chevrolet/GM examples mentioned above. The Rootes & BMC products often really were just badge-engineered examples of the same car with different trim levels etc., often produced in the same factory with finishing specs as orders necessitated. So I see no objection to saying, for example, 'the (Singer) Vogue was produced by Rootes under (its ownership of) the Singer Marque from year X-Y'. The various marques used by the companies were not semi-autonomous companies marketing their own products albeit likely with parent company approval as say Ferrari would do. Eagleash (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that there needs to be a mention, but not because people haven't heard of these companies - to be honest, I don't think that's relevant in the slightest. The reason we need Rootes Group in a lot of the articles is to explain exactly how the cars stood in the wider ranges, particularly as so many cars are based on the same chassis but have different bodies, or similar things to that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• "I haven't touched the infoboxes yet" Apart from where you started repeatedly deleting one (and were dragged to ANEW). Eddaido didn't revert you (no problem, you went for all three strikes anyway) because you were piping a link, but because you were also deleting a third of the article. I didn't revert you on another article because of Rootes, but because you were then linking it to the wrong company.

I don't doubt that this sort of trivial consistency is all very satisfying for you, but the new links have to be accurate too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I made a mistake on the Commer engine, yes - note how I didn't revert you again? I hadn't touched the automobile infoboxes at that point to change things. Engine infoboxes are separate things entirely, and that was a separate thing I was doing anyway... Interesting that, having failed in your desperate attempt to get me blocked, you're now going to come and rant here in this way. How sad things must be for you in your life. And actually yes, Eddaido did revert me in several places for piping links. So yet again, you've completely failed to pay attention to what's going on, due to your grudge. Good job sir! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• See the links added to the ANEW page.

• Morris Oxford Six [1]
• Morris Oxford bullnose [2]
• Morris Oxford flatnose [3]
• Morris Oxford Empire models [4]

This isn't about company naming, it's plain and simple edit-warring because you don't like the coverage of engines in the car articles and keep removing the infoboxes. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have not at any point attempted to force any changes through on that particular aspect of things... but by all means, continue to misrepresent me and my edits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Going back several posts and maybe moving on a bit. How would we describe the manufacturer of the current range of MGs? Chinese (owned) company putting the brand on their output IIRC. From a differing POV we would not describe Jaguars as being made by Tata... I believe this issue is more complex than it first might have appeared and perhaps there is not a 'hard and fast rule' we can use and with all the disagreements that have resulted, things might well have been left well alone. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" Eagleash (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, for MG I would probably suggest using "MG Motor" for the Chinese-owned cars, particularly as that's where the article is located. And I strongly disagree that it wasn't broken, because we had massive inconsistencies within the same manufacturer for how things were presented, even when things were relatively simple (e.g. modern Jeeps and some Dodges.) - some said that Dodges were made by Dodge, others by Chrysler/FCA etc, and others went with "Dodge, a division of Chrysler". Things may not be perfect now, but at least there's rather more consistency than there was. Almost every non-American or non-British article simply states "made by Fiat", or "made by Lancia", or "made by Alfa Romeo", so those bits weren't broken. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree there are inconsistencies which should be addressed and it may (or may not) be a good thing if all pages read in a uniform manner, but I feel it is not always possible and there's bound to be some discrepancies to take into account many different ownership scenarios. Last time I looked the Corvette article still read the same in the first line as in the OP here. Yes, it's a bit wordy, could be trimmed down slightly but all the information is there, readers can click on Chevy or GM as they wish. And the article can proceed to talk about the car. I believe Wiki should be about providing clear, concise and supported information and not necessarily about adhering to some often arbitrary decisions. As for Dodge, just to throw another disingenuous spanner etc... after the Chrysler/Rootes takeover, some Commer vans were badged as Dodge, but we couldn't claim that they were made by Dodge. It could be said they were made by Chrysler UK but... :P Eagleash (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Simple explanation for the Corvette article not having changed; I haven't gotten around to that point yet. I went through most of the FCA-related things, and I'd begun to go through the BL/BMC cars; GM and FordMoCo are on my to-do list as well. :) My edit history should make it clear as to how I was doing things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• As for Commer, the complicated situation is made somewhat easier by the fact we simply don't have many articles on them (which is itself a shame). In fact, we have one; Commer FC, and that only exists because I split out a fairly decently fleshed-out section from the Commer article yesterday. As such, my idea for a lead is present there - although I will say that I based it on what the existing text said rather than checking with sources to make sure everything was perfect, so please correct any errors you see there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

We should stick to the common name of the manufacturer. Getting hung up on the names of holding companies &c is silly - perhaps there's room to discuss this in n article about a marque, but not in an article about a model and definitely not in infoboxes, unless the corporate background is of particular relevance to that model (ie. the SEAT Ibiza). bobrayner (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not entirely sure where you're jumping into in this conversation, but that is the general consensus for where things are straightforward - sometimes it isn't quite as simple as that though, when the same model passes through several different manufacturer's hands as the years go by, and that's what we're trying to work out. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Some marques are not manufacturers or even incorporated companies so while there may be good reason to avoid having to repeat parent company detail in many car articles, I don't believe this is the same for non-incorporated marques, or brands. For example some Chevrolet products are manufactured by joint ventures so making the manufacture an important part of the explanation. I don't see the removal of this little nugget of information from some articles is particular useful or necessary, and we seem to be veering towards kowtowing to automotive marketing rather than describing the product itself. Warren (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• If they're joint ventures, then sure, it is worth mentioning the more specific details, and I try and find a way to incorporate that. But I see no need whatsoever to describe the Corvette as anything other than a Chevrolet, for example - talking about Chevrolet being a division of General Motors in the Corvette articles' leads is just adding words for the sake of adding words IMO - it's supposed to be a short-ish summary, not an in-depth piece. Readers will generally either know who owns Chevrolet, or not care - and if they do want to know more about Chevrolet, then that's what the wikilink is for. Besides, the "parent group" will still be mentioned in the infobox, and it will probably appear in the main body somewhere. Dennis Brown put it better than I can. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The official manufacturer is the one according to the VIN number of the vehicle. Opel/Vauxhall vehicles such as the Combo, Antara or Movano are built by Tofaş, GM Korea and Renault yet the VIN number says Opel or Adam Opel AG is the manufacturer. The same with the Audi Q3 which is built by SEAT, but the VIN number says Audi AG is the manufacturer. --Racerstreet (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I can understand deleting "Cheverolet, a division of GM", but changing "FoMoCo" to "Ford" as "overly specific"? How, exactly, is that "overly specific"? If it was "Mercury, part of Lincoln-Mercury, a division of FoMoCo", I'd buy it... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ford Motor Company is not the general commonname - Ford is. Again, for most articles, the commonname is the name that is used, and that's certainly way the infobox template is presented (it never has said "General Motors Company" or "Toyota Corporation", it says "General Motors" and "Toyota".) and it is generally the consensus from most people, either from what they've said in the numerous scattered discussions, or from their actions (be it direct edits, or the thanks they've given via WP's thank tool.) It is overly specific to use the full name when a shorter, more commonly used name links to the exact same company, and there is no other company it could be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And if somebody was using "Ford Motor Company" throughout an article, I'd change it. That's not what's at issue, IMO: it's a single use of the full company name, at the beginning, where, I suggest, you want the complete name. Why do you think that is a bad idea? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Because it is unnecessary, and totally inconsistent with articles on Toyotas, Hondas, and the rest. We don't generally say "built by the Toyota Corporation" or "built by the Honda Motor Co., Ltd." (although it wouldn't surprise me if there were one or two examples that did), for example - and it would look a tad weird if we did, to be honest. Plus, WP:COMMONNAME supports Ford as that is what the vast majority of people would call the company. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Also, I've just been reminded by a comment elsewhere of WP:CONCISE, which clearly supports the shorter Ford name; The official name of Rhode Island, used in various state publications, is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Both titles are precise and unambiguous, but Rhode Island is the most concise title to fully identify the subject. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles about 1955 MY cars

I just noticed that there are separate articles about the 1955 Dodge (with sections about 1957, 1958, and 1959 models), 1955 Chevrolet (with an unrelated "pop culture" section), and 1955 Ford (which also includes a 1956 section). There seems to be no reason to have these individual one model year articles. All the information in them is already duplicated within existing articles about the respective models. Thanks, CZmarlin (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's worth saying that these aren't really "one model year" articles, but reflect the way that American cars from the big firms were built at the time. As such, they're essentially equivalent to something like the BMC ADO16, although instead of different manufacturer tags being applied, the model names changed (and, obviously, they were updated far more often, as was the American way.) The reason for the duplication is simple; as Dodge, Chevrolet and Ford started producing individual models, they simply reused the old nameplates, which were themselves more complicated than the likes of the "Coupe DeLuxe" tag you'd find on, say, a 1941 Ford. Whilst they are indeed, to some extent, a duplication, they simply follow on from the older years where the main model year was vital to identifying what the car was. For the 1955 Ford, I would actually argue that the Ford Fairlane Crown Victoria Skyliner should be merged back into the '55 Ford article, as that nameplate was only used for '55 and '56 - both of which come under the 1955 Ford article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Luke here.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• What I will say, after looking at the 1955 Chevrolet article, is that it is a bit of a mess (as is the 1957 Chevrolet article). Infobox conflicts with the article, and there seems to be crossover between the two articles where said crossover should not exist. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yamaha Tesseract

Please see discussion at Talk:Yamaha Tesseract#Patents. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Performance Corvette articles

• What's the thinking behind these? We currently have independent articles on Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 (C6), Chevrolet Corvette C2 Z06, and I've WP:BOLDly redirected Chevrolet Corvette C5 Z06 as that one really doesn't show any evidence of it being independently notable. But were any of those justified at all? I'm not seeing that there is sufficient unique content in any of them that cannot fit into a reasonable section within the main C6, C2 and C5 articles respectively. I could potentially see an argument for the C6 ZR1 (and if that is valid, there may be enough unique content to have an article on the C4 ZR-1), but certainly not the two Z06s. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• And, somewhat related, do we really need an article named Corvette leaf spring? I have a feeling that it should be cleaned up and changed to a more general scope - there was a talk page discussion in 2009 about it, but, well, it's a fairly niche page with that title, so nothing happened... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Corvette leaf spring article reads like an essay. I can see little justification for it existing at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If you intend to merge C6 ZR1 and C2 Z06 into the apropriate Corvette articles, count on my support already. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge the leaf spring info into suspension, leaf spring, & the involved 'vette pages, & merge or delete the Z pages. They fail notability IMO; it's not like we're talking about the GS... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Support merge, hopefully after the fact.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. Yes please, these should be merged with the donor car pages. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Unless anyone objects, or decides they wish to do it themselves (which would be perfectly fine by me!), I'll proceed with a merger of the Corvette articles in a couple of days. I'll probably do the same with the vette leaf spring article in due course. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. And for similar Australian cars, especially from Holden Special Vehicles... it's inconsistent overkill CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Corvette articles merged, if anyone thinks more content from the ZR-1 article should've been taken across, please feel free to do so (I felt the existing section was sufficient). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• And I've redirected the Corvette leaf spring article to the main Corvette article. I didn't personally feel that anything was well referenced and written enough to take anywhere - but obviously, if anyone else feels differently, feel free to add it :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• All, I'm a biased editor as I spent quite a bit of time on the Corvette Leaf Spring article. That said, I object to the redirect to the main Corvette article which effectively blanks the content. Originally the article was part of the Corvette parent article. At some point it was split off to be it's own article. The reason why I object to the redirect is it effectively wipes the content away from Wikipedia. I think it is worth noting that the article has been cited by external, automotive sources such as Edmund's. As an auto enthusiast the subject is notable (in a narrow field) given the number of times both auto writers (Edmunds http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/corvette/2002/long-term-road-test/2002-chevrolet-corvette-z06-the-mystery-of-the-leaf-spring.html ) and enthusiast talk about the car's "leaf springs". I would rather see the article be part of the main Corvette article but I think simply blanking the content is wrong given the references contained in the article. I would not object to reworking much of the format (I never really tried to fight that one) so the article would be more concise. Would anyone have suggestions as to where to put the content and how to get access to the old article? Lukeno94, any suggestions? As a final note, the article content didn't really fit into the standard "leaf spring" article because it was very specific to how the Corvette suspension worked. PS, as a car person, I would be happy to help with this part of Wikipedia Springee (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Springee, I saw a hell of a lot of objections from several years ago to the page on its talkpage as well by a couple of different users - most of which are valid concerns that were never addressed. There is nothing particularly notable about the Corvette's suspension system; certainly nothing that deserves a massive essay written on it. And that is what the "article" was; a very poorly sourced essay, full of opinions and original research. There was pretty much nothing that was worth merging into any other article. Had it gone to AfD, it would almost certainly have been deleted altogether as per WP:TNT. The article can still be found in its history. Most of the other suspension-related articles fall a long way short from modern standards as well, but that isn't much of an excuse. An article on transverse leaf springs may have a place, but content not fitting anywhere else is not always a good reason to have an article on it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• As I recall the primary objection came from one user who was not interested in having a forthright discussion on the issue. The article was not poorly sourced and contained sources for much of the information. I strongly disagree with your view that the article was without merit given the number of external links to the article and the fact that it has been mentioned by other media. While I understand the issues with contacting editors of pages, given that I'm currently active I think it would have been nice to have a chance to address the issue you see rather than just deleting the page. Regardless, how would you suggest I get the material back up and running? One of the great things about Wikipedia is that we CAN have these smaller articles that wouldn't make it into traditional encyclopedia. This article is a great example of such. Springee (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Lukeno94, I do understand you are making a good faith effort to clean up the automotive section of Wikipedia. I would like to ask you to, for the time at least, revert your redirect edit of the Corvette Leaf Spring page. The consensus was general and regarding mergers. The Corvette leaf spring page was redirected without transferring content (WP:D-R) thus it was an effective delete rather than a merger and thus the above consensus doesn't apply. There was also no discussion of the redirect was made on the article talk page and it does not appear any editors were contacted. I do understand you are making good faith edit so I would like to ask you to undo your redirect and then we can work on addressing some of the concerns you rightly have pointed out. Thanks! Springee (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• The consensus was for the page to not exist. Exactly what was done with the content is, in effect, irrelevant; and I'm not the only editor who has voiced the opinion that it shouldn't really exist in any form. It was my opinion that nothing was worth moving, due to the various issues (essay-like writing style, very poor sourcing, apparent OR, inappropriate "for and against" type section). So no, I'm afraid I won't revert my redirect, which was entirely valid an action to take and has consensus, and any discussion here takes precedence over a far less watched place than an article talk page (particularly such an obscure one.) If there is any content worth saving, then people can still go and retrieve information from the history and copy it across, with the appropriate re-wording and attribution. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus was two people for merging information. You didn't follow proper procedure to notify editors on the talk page. The page was clearly notable as it was referenced by Edmunds and a number of automotive writers have specifically mentioned the leaf springs of the Corvette. Edmunds even ran an article short on the subject prior to the C7 launch. I will revert the article as it is notable in the automotive enthusiast community. We can then try to fix it (people can address their topical concerns on the talk page) or we can merge the material into another article with proper notification. Fearing that you wouldn't want to undo the notice I've started to gather some better references so at least one of your concerns (a legitimate one at that) can be addressed. Springee (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• General discussion here clearly outweighs any discussion on the talk page of an obscure article, and I'm not a fan of pointless bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. There were more than enough responses here for the actions I took to be valid, and you not liking it is not relevant. I've reverted your revert as you are clearly defying consensus - the issue is not just that the article was in a terrible state, it's that it shouldn't exist in the first place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• And when 90% of an article has no in-line references whatsoever, there is nothing that really can be merged. Particularly as there are generally adequate mentions of the suspension system in each of the generation articles, and I'm going through and adding it where it isn't present. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• The article did have reasonable sourcing given the nature of the topic. I'm not saying improvements can't be made but your 90% claim does not due the sources justice. I have since found a few more sources, including peer reviewed sources. The contents of the article are clearly notable as I've shown. There was a previous merger discussion with consensus to keep the article as stand alone. You failed to notify those editors or note the previous discussion. You failed to follow guidelines. This is why I'm asking you to undo the redirect. With that done we can, on the article talk page, address how the article should be handled. Springee (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have now completed a selective merge into the various Corvette articles, so there is no justification for your "request" (which is a thinly-veiled demand) for the redirect to be reverted. And for the millionth time; the discussion held here takes precedence over any discussion at a specific article, as there are far more eyes here. Consensus here was very clear for a merge, a merge has now been performed. Previous discussions are academic when they were 6 years back at least - and I note that there are opinions from as far back as 2007 that the page should be deleted altogether. And I see 0 evidence of there ever being a merger discussion on that talk page. Any content that hasn't been merged was clearly a long way from satisfying any guideline. If the page had gone to AfD, it would probably have been deleted altogether. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have reviewed your edits. They do not cover the content of the blanked article and are not a reasonable substitute. While I believe you operated in good faith, the process of blanking the article did not follow Wikipedia guidelines. While there are older opinions that the page should be merged, there are others that say otherwise. The subject is WP:NOTE by virtue of the external, reliable automotive media's referencing the page. You claim the page would have been deleted in an AfD but that is just your opinion. You not liking it doesn't mean the page lacks notability. I think the next steps are to get more inputs on how to recover the information that will be lost with the current plan. 15:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Springee (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• You had many years to pull the article into something resembling an acceptable standard, and you never did so. Almost everything that hasn't been merged in somewhere was completely unsourced - how are you not seeing that? Also, whoever Shelbychevette is, I hope that isn't you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• And stop trying to portray me as being the only one who "didn't like" the page. Nobody supported its existence here. Not one person. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• That is fair that you aren't the only one. However, I don't think you or the others adequately notified per Wikipedia guidelines. Did anyone post a RfC or similar on the Corvette main article? There was no talk page discussion either. Furthermore, the small consensus was the information should be merged into another article. You have not done that. The core contribution of the article was a technical description of how the system functioned and how it provided a higher roll rate than a similar rate coil spring system.

You are correct that the article could have been cleaned up but I believe you are overstating the issues with the article. It's references included peer reviewed articles as well as expert opinions in the field. You claim to have merged all the relevant information into other articles. Well where is the anti-roll part (that had IIRC at least 2 reliable sources)? I do not know who "Shelbychevette" is. I think we should avoid accusations of bad faith. It appears that editor is concerned about the removal of other content (transmission and engine types) that is often of interest to people reading articles about an enthusiast car. Perhaps that suggests that the recent edits are too heavy handed. Regardless, I have nothing to do with that account and the implication should not have been made. I would greatly appreciate it if you could offer ways that we can keep the notable content of the article even if we don't keep the actual article. Currently the edits you have made don't do that. Again, while I disagree with you I know you are acting in good faith so please take all my comments as such. Springee (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Shelbychevette comment was just frustration and coincidental timing; it wasn't actually seriously aimed at you (and I wouldn't pay any heed to their remarks, which are pretty obviously inaccurate and not representative of what I did in the slightest, particularly given that they're clearly not a legitimate account.) I'll get that out of the way first. Anyway, all you seem to be doing is wanting more bureaucracy. Did I post an RfC template? No. I'm not required to. Did I post anything on the talk page? Again, no, I'm not required to. I opened up a discussion at the global WikiProject, and the discussion was open for ten days before I executed any edits based upon it. This was not a hasty action that I undertook, nor was it one I did on my own whim. As to exactly what was merged; I generally merged what was sourced to an actually usable source. Things sourced to images of cars or to patents are not usable. And I did make some mention of the anti-roll effect on at least two of the articles, although that was added a bit later on and I can understand that you may have missed that. One thing you seem to be constantly skipping over or missing; the sourcing in that article was woeful. Half of the sources were either to images or patents - neither of which are really usable, particularly as the patent references were generally just used to prove that said patents exist. Of the rest, I took over some of the ones that I could, and that's about all that was doable. The vast majority of that article - I'm talking 80-90% - didn't have any inline citation or anything approaching a reference. It was also not written or laid out in a manner that was suitable for an encyclopedia - and the advantages/disadvantages section is one precise example of that. If it had been usable, I'd have taken it over. And something being notable does not mean it justifies an article (WP:NOT for example). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you for the comment about the other account. I can understand that frustration. Again, I want you to understand I totally see what you are doing as good faith work. I don't agree with this part of it (and actually I disagree with the removal of engine year information as well but that's a different section). I'm not sure that you aren't required to post some type of notification on the article talk page before effectively blanking it. Regardless, the failure to contact editors associated with the article or editors who are associated with related articles does undermine the quality of the consensus. The fact that I'm here says we don't have a clear consensus. While what you did merge as "generally" sourced, I noted some errors in the articles created by your insertions. They are minor and arise from a loss of context. But you failed to include the anti-roll properties of the setups used on the C5-C7. That is actually one of the most notable parts of the design and it was referenced to a reliable source in the original article.

We have WP:NOTE and WP:RS. The question should be how best to include the information. Would it be reasonable to add some sort of "Corvette technology" page to the main Corvette article? That would preserve external links such as the Edmund's one (and many car forums that have linked to the article over the years). It would also remove the article as a stand alone reference. This is actually how the information was originally added to Wikipedia. At some point a previous editor(s) split the article into it's own article.

Again, I know you are operating in good faith, what is the best way to get the notable information into Wikipedia and how do we preserve the external links? Springee (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• You've made a complete mess of the formatting here; it's getting impossible to work out exactly what replies start where. You still seem to want bureaucracy even where it would not be of benefit, and the consensus here was solid enough. I have nothing more to say on that matter, because I'm fed up of repeating myself. Yes, I may have missed some bits when I was copying across - so please go and add them. Same goes for any errors I made. Maybe a technology section on the main Corvette section may be justified; but that article was not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• The consensus is not solid if editors do not all agree. I don't agree. You have a consensus that didn't consult those who guidelines suggest should be notified. The problem with your method of addition is two fold

1. External links to the article effectively fail. Even if the information still exists somewhere links posted to the old article redirect to a main article without telling readers where to look next.
2. The information was about a particular type of technology and logically spanned generations of the Corvette as well as relating to several other cars. If you think it would be reasonable to merge it into another, non-Corvette article please make a suggestion where. Springee (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Consensus has never required all editors to agree, just a clear majority. And there surely can be no question that there is a clear majority here, which equals a solid consensus. Everything else to do with consensus and the discussion/notifications I have already refuted numerous times, and do not care to do so again. If there are any links (and I'm doubting there are that many, although I will confess to not yet having checked that - the main Corvette article didn't link to the essay, and that says everything IMO), then those can be very easily cleaned up. An article on transverse leaf springs, which is what the technology is generally about (at least, the relatively novel interpretations of leaf springs) may be justified, but then, that topic is covered to a small degree by the independent suspension article, although the section definitely could and should be expanded, and is both poorly written and unsourced. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree it doesn't require "all" but the consensus is not as strong when we have clear disagreement. It's hard to say how many external links there are to the article. The fact that a mainstream auto site links to the article is clearly a sign that it is notable. You have not refuted that claim. Anyway, we the editors of the article have discussed other places to put the information. No consensus was reached. The issue is classification. An article on "transverse leaf spring suspension" would throw together rather random stuff ranging from the Model T Ford's rigid axle to the Corvette's IRS. An article on independent suspension might be a good place to put it but the level of detail is higher than other articles. People might question why one type of spring gets so much focus. Basically we didn't think a stand alone article was the best idea but it seemed the best given the circumstances. BTW, the Lamm book as was linked went to a scanned image of the page in question. That link can easily be replaced with a proper citation. I think Wikipeida upgraded their citations between about 2010 and now. Much of this article dates from pre-2010 but that doesn't mean it should be blanked rather than fixed. Again, I'm open to suggestions for how the content should be saved. I would greatly appreciate if you would offer some. Springee (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Clear disagreement from one editor makes no difference to the consensus. Exactly what is done with the content is also irrelevant; there is a clear consensus against the page existing, and I'm staggered you're still either denying that, or trying to get around it by various means (which you clearly still are). And no, the fact a mainstream auto site links to the article does not make the topic notable; what it means is either that site got very lazy when they were doing their research, or they just looked for something appropriate to link to on Wikipedia. It's still academic; notability is not the question, and never has been. I could sit down and list a fair few guidelines and policies that the article failed by a long way, but it would take a while - there are a lot. People were raising serious issues in 2007 about the page, and as far as I can tell, they were never close to being addressed - this is hardly a change in Wikipedia practise... WP:TNT applies when an article is this bad, and it really is that far from being acceptable. So yes, the page should be blanked, it should be a redirect, and the small amounts of usable content (which really are small) should be taken into the relevant articles if they haven't already. That is the consensus. Wikilawyering around the level of content is not relevant or appropriate to the page being restored, which it obviously should not be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• My point about the disagreement is you claimed it was strong consensus. It was consensus but not as strong as you claim. I doubt that you looked carefully at the article or the previous talk discussions before moving to blank the content. The same is likely true of the other editors. That isn't an indictment just as statement suggesting that I doubt people really considered the question which is understandable. However, that is also why failing to notify the article talk page is an issue. Wikipedia has guidelines for such things because we might not always know the full story even if our actions are in good faith as I think yours were. Your claims that the content was largely unsourced are untrue (a previous editor made sure to challenge every claim resulting in many added citations). Your claim that the article wasn't notable based on the opinion of a few editors yet does not stand up to a WP:NOTE review. The subject of the article absolutely meets the notability guidelines. The only question is should it be stand alone or integrated in another page. I'm OK with integration but would ask where you think it's best. Note that previous discussions, and posts by Autostream should be taken with a large grain of salt, never agreed that the material was not notable. It was a question of where it should go. Wiki guidelines on notability state that once a topic is notable is should remain as such (WP:NTEMP).
• In closing I would like to start by thanking you for taking on what is sure to be a thankless task (as the engine edits you chased showed) and a hard one at that. I do hope that we can work together to figure out how to handle this material and I would be happy if you wanted to suggest an alternative forum for the discussion. All I ask is that you give it a fair shot. Springee (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• While the talk page on the Corvette leaf spring page suffered from some abuse, here is a previous proposal to merge the article with the general leaf spring article. The consensus was 4 to preserve the article as stand alone and 1 to merge the content. None said the content should be removed.[[5]] The one who wished for a merger specifically noted that the information he wanted in the Leaf Spring article was actually in the Corvette leaf spring article. Springee (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've refuted your claims about consensus enough times already, I don't intend to do so again. Consensus can change, and you're talking about a discussion that ran from 2006 to 2007, and had very little response at all - which is the precise reason I held the discussion here. Standards have changed enormously since then, and the discussion is so old that it is no longer relevant in the slightest. Whilst I can't claim to have gone over the minutiae of every little detail, I did read through the majority of the article, and found it to be a long way short of various guidelines - and, for that matter, I had a quick read of the talk page. It failed WP:V, it failed WP:UNDUE to a certain degree, it failed WP:NOTESSAY, many of the sources used failed WP:RS for numerous reasons (patents being used as sources, links to images of a car, cuts of text that are hosted in a wonky GIF by a forum with no actual indication in the "source" itself - and that's just from the first four sources!). And how can you still be claiming that everything is sourced? It isn't even close. Racing concerns? Not one source (name dropping a book is not a source.) Traditional usage of leaf springs? Not one source. Motion of a transverse leaf spring? Not one source. Several of the other sections have just one inline citation - take the "Transverse leaf springs in other vehicles" section, where the only thing that has a reference is... a non-notable car that didn't deserve a mention anyway. And that's a dead link. And the wikilinking in that section has been extremely poor since day 1. You cannot just start dumping text from a badly sourced essay into other articles at will, it is not 2007 or 2009 any more, and that is what you are failing to understand. You keep trying to misdirect things by talking about notability and made-up issues with consensus, and yet those are not remotely the issues that are relevant; it is everything else, and besides, WP:NOTE does explicitly state This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.. Why do you not see that there is nowhere, given 2015 standards, that this mess can go? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that might allow both of us to win here and might be a useful method to solve other topical disputes when editors of what might be called specialty articles protest changes. I propose a 1 month reprieve for cases such as the Corvette leaf spring article. During that time the redirect will be undone and interested editors will have a chance to fix the problems identified problems with the article. Notification tags can be placed on the article (NPOV, RS, Cleanup needed etc) so that external readers can see the article is tagged as having issues. At the end of the 1 month period the group can decide if the article should remain stand alone, or merge etc. Remember that many of the articles are old and likely stable thus previous editors haven't felt the need to keep up with updates. Also, many of those editors likely don't follow discussions here so they aren't aware an article they would support is about to be heavily changed or blanked. In this particular case we are dealing with a long time, stable article. I don't think giving it an extra 30 days is going to hurt anything and could result in a lot of articles getting improved without conflict. Would this work for you?Springee (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• The redirect absolutely should not be undone because the consensus was to merge, and a merger has been performed. Exactly how much was merged is academic at that point. To revert would be to violate consensus, and frankly I don't care how many times you claim that the consensus is somehow flawed or weak or whatever, because you're flat out wrong on that front. The article was terrible, yes, but it should not exist in the first place, and that was a general consensus (people were saying as such 8 years ago as well.) Fixing it is not going to make any difference whatsoever. Tag bombing that mess would help nobody. For goodness' sake, just accept that consensus did not fall your way and move on, find something else to discuss, because this is getting to the point of being WP:IDHT levels of disruptiveness... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• You did not have consensus to blank the information. You failed to follow guidelines by blanking notable content. You did not follow guidelines by placing notices on the page to notify concerned editors who might have more insight into the subject. You failed to acknowledge the previous consensus on the subject. It is far better to take the compromise path than simply refuse all efforts to fix the problem. Springee (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• You're deliberately making up things in order to further your own position. The consensus was to merge; a merger was performed. The merger may have been imperfect or incomplete, but the simple fact of the matter is that I did follow consensus and you are trying everything you can to violate said consensus. Reverting the redirect is out of the question, end of story, because the only person here who has so far shown any vague support for its existence is you - and that's a fact. Content being "notable" does not mean it has to be included, and that is yet another thing you are deliberately ignoring. There is no requirement for me to notify any individual person or group before a discussion, which, again, is something you have fully chosen to ignore. The last discussion there was in 2009; as far as I knew, no one was even active any more. The previous "consensus" was extremely vague, did not come about as the result of any discussion whatsoever, and was fragmented over about a year - and it was 7 years ago, long enough back that it simply isn't relevant any more. And, as per normal, you've completely ignored the major sourcing issues and such things that made most of the content unmergable. WP:IDHT appears to be your standard defence, which is disappointing. You need to realize that Wikipedia's standards have changed since 2009, and actually begin to comply with them - because right now, you aren't doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Visual break in discussion:

• As a general point, I think it is fine to have many of these smaller articles so long as they link back to the primary article. Take the ZR1 related articles. How should they be covered? To put all the history of the Corvette into a single article would result in a very long article. An obvious alternative is to have a side article for each generation of the Corvette and all sub-models would be contained in that side article. However, that fails if someone is interested in knowing about say all 3 generations of Corvettes to wear the ZR-1 badge or if, as in the case of the leaf spring article, we have a single technology that spans several generations but doesn't really fall into a general tech discussion article. I think redirecting results in loss of knowledge from Wikipedia. A better way to handle this would be to post a notice on the article talk page with sufficient time for those who track the article to have a voice. If it is decided that the article should be deleted, the editors can still discuss if the material belongs in other articles. Springee (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Consensus is for these sort of articles to not exist. It's just standard practice. The Volkswagen Golf GTI is far more notable than the Corvette Z06, yet it doesn't even have a general article, much less individual model articles. Most of the Corvette ones were redirects. Where articles on the separate versions do exist, it's because either they're significantly different from the base model (Ford Escort RS Cosworth, which isn't really an Escort at all underneath, being one example), or they simply haven't been considered for merging yet. Again, any discussions affecting multiple articles - which this did - should be held here, and the consensus was clearly unanimous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the GTI is more notable than the Z06. However, if reader looking for information on the Z06 finds it on the general C6 or Corvette article then the information at least exists. In this case you blanked the content with a redirect. The consensus view was to merge the content. Springee (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Z06 did not have any effect on anything else; the Golf GTI started (or as a minimum, popularized) a whole class of cars, and a host of imitators. The Z06 isn't even close to being as notable as the Golf GTI. And now that a selective merger has been performed, your demands are not valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Recovering the Corvette leaf spring article content

AndyTheGrump, Lukeno94, TREKphiler,  Mr.choppers | , OSX, I would like to propose a method for handling the review and blanking through redirect of niche automotive articles. While I am focused on the Corvette leaf spring article, I think this could apply in other areas. The Corvette leaf spring article (CLS) is an older article and not surprisingly it doesn't meet contemporary Wikipedia standards. However, the content of the article does meet standards for notability. I propose that if editors of an older article who are probably not following discussions here object to a redirect or blanking through redirection (a discouraged practice WP:D-R) the changes should be undone for a period of 1 month. The appropriate edit tags should be placed on the article and changes can be made. At the conclusion of the 1 month period consensus can decide the fate of the article. This gives editors, such as my self on the CLS page, a chance to address concerns and make arguments for how to handle the page in question. This is a general proposal that I would like to apply to the CLS page (arguments below).

The CLS page was effectively blanked via the redirection action. The topic content is notable. This is established by several books discussing the topic (at least 5 off the top of my head). It is also established by the specific mention of the unusual suspension setup used by the Corvette in a large number of articles including 4 by Edmund's. Edmund's found the Wikipedia CLS page of note and linked reader to the page ([[6]]). The article has been mentioned many times on various auto enthusiast websites (indicates an interest in the topic). As a notable topic Wikipedia says the information should not be removed. That doesn't mean it stays a stand alone article but it shouldn't be deleted and a redirects should preserve the external links.

There was a previous discussion regarding merging the article with the general leaf spring page or leaving it as a stand alone article.[[7]]. The consensus was stand alone. A good argument was made for merging with the leaf spring article by an editor who said he went to the leaf spring article in an attempt to find content that was actually in the CLS article. David R. Ingham, now a semi active editor but one with an impressive list of non-Wiki publications, made a strong case for keeping the content. He noted that the topic is very specific and the people interested in that specific level of detail may not be interested in the more general topic. This also implies that we shouldn't judge based on our interest but should ask if it serves the interest of other reader.

Lukeno94 does make some legitimate arguments about the need to clean up the article. I would agree but that can't be done if the article doesn't exist. The layout is one that I haven't liked and of late have felt like changing but I didn't because it takes time and the article was stable. The citations do need to be improved. Some are to reliable sources but need to meet current syntax standards. Others should be replaced. Much of the technical content is supported by a few key sources but at the time the sources were not repeatedly cited (once was enough sort of thinking). Regardless, these are fixable problem.

With that, I would ask that we give this article, and others like it, a proper chance for cleanup before we blank their content. Springee (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I said above IMO the content should be merged into the involved 'vette model pages. While I was aware the leafspring was an innovation, I had no idea it was as big a deal as all that. If it is, perhaps (& I have no idea what the guideline is) it deserves a keep. So long as the content of the page is preserved somewhere, however, I have no particular interest in where it is; I expect anyone with an interest will be able to find it. Perhaps, if the page is to be removed, we need additional pointers to aid finding the content again? TBH, all I can think of is a hatnote at leaf spring, which doesn't appear it would be too helpful... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This is getting utterly ridiculous in your levels of WP:IDHT. You're selectively interpreting a small number of guidelines, or parts of guidelines, whilst disregarding any guideline that may not support you. David R. Ingham made that comment in the previous decade... it's barely relevant at the very most. This is ridiculous bureaucracy and a deliberate attempt at bludgeoning people into keeping article that should not be kept at all. Whilst there is definitely a debate that can be had about more content being merged, that's not what you seem to want in the slightest; you just want your pet article back. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the Rickett the first car

I know that it is generally held that the first car was the Benz, but if you take steam powered vehicles into account, Rickett created a steam powered vehicle solely for carrying a driver and passenger (and a stoker or fireman). It was driven on roads in 1860 made at least one 140+km journey. The definition under the term Car is a wheeled, self-powered motor vehicle used for transportation. Most definitions of the term specify that cars are designed to run primarily on roads, to have seating for one to eight people, to typically have four wheels, and to be constructed principally for the transport of people rather than goods. The only point of difference between this definition and Rickett's vehicle is that it had three wheels.

What are your thoughts? NealeFamily (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable sources almost always say that the first car was the Benz, so that's what we have to go with. If they were going to take the argument you did, they'd go for Cugnot's "steam wagon" from 1769, which is the first vehicle that can be reliably said to have moved under its own power. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

But can Cugnot claim to have manufactured and sold his to others, even the first Benz can't claim that. NealeFamily (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Why would that be relevant? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure about the Cugnot, either... There's real doubt it actually ever ran. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've not seen much doubt that it ran, but there's plenty of doubt about how well it ran. Encyclopedia Britannica says it was the first automobile in their article on Cugnot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Britannica might not, but IIRC, C&D (or was it R&T?) had real doubts... Where cars are concerned, I'd take their word over Britannica, I think. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's the introductory paragraph under car that needs clarification. If you cast your eye over the History section and the seperate article History of the car it elaborates more on the different types of power unit and perhaps should include Rickett in either or both somewhere. The fault is that phrase "modern car" in the opening paragraph in the car article, it needs a clearer definition. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer towards the History of the car. That makes much more sense and clarifies the issue I was grappling with. I agree that the introductory paragraph to car is inadequate. NealeFamily (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, I see an article asking to be written. Not sure how to title it, but if you start with the supposition that Benz is credited as the first, and cover all the others with proper sources, you have something that is a reasonable fork of Car, but a proper fork because it contains educational, sourced, NPOV material about other "vehicles" that were almost the first car. My 1950s American automobile culture article was kind of like that, there won't be similar for each decade, the 50s were unique. (a 60s might be doable). Is there enough material to cover this as an article, under the history of the first cars? Like the one I wrote, it is a bit of a culture and history article rather than a hardware article, but those are just as important. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Which reliable and precise sources claim the Benz as the first car, as opposed to the first internal combustion engined car?

The first British "red flag act" was in 1861, recognising that road locomotives, i.e. steam-powered self-moving vehicles were already in existence by then and likely to become a significant part of road traffic. These were both agricultural traction engines and the first steam coaches and omnibuses. One might reasonably argue that these were not "cars", but the small Rickett overcomes even those those quibbles.

The fact is simple: steam cars pre-dated petrol and electric cars. The Benz was a petrol car. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Recalls-notability

Every year there a few recalls which are notable, either for real reasons, or because of media circus. At the same time almost every model has recalls. Is there really any point in listing recalls that are not notable? obvious example say Ford Falcon AU. Greglocock (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Reproducing reply from the above article's Talk page "I am reading Notability and it talks about stand-alone articles. Indeed, it reads "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." The information added is verifiable, reliable and relevant to the subject. I note you took up issue with other valid content previously". For completeness, verifiable reliability is now possible with the added reference link but, of course, I stand to be corrected if I am wrong and/or there's really a more convincing and sound basis for deletion. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, only major recalls should receive attention (e.g. the Toyota unintended acceleration recalls from a few years ago). The Ford Falcon (AU) recalls are not very severe or notable. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully recommend the application of common sense. Don't ban mention of recalls, but only mention the ones that are critical. Big ones, ones that hit the headlines, ones that involve high profile litigations.... That's probably only 1% or 2% of all the recalls that happen. But please let's avoid attempting to dream up "one size fits all rules" where they're not needed and where they can too easily become an excuse for unproductive p**sing contests. Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's pedantic to repeat, as CtrlXctrlV said, that *notability* is not the issue unless you plan on writing an article on a recall. An article on a vehicle which is itself notable only needs to be concerned with WP:UNDUE, not WP:NOTABILITY with regard to what to mention and what to leave out. We often end up chasing red herrings when somebody deletes content from an article and cites anything from the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines as the reason.

That said, I agree that, based on common sense, only recalls that received significant attention, particularly in mainstream media, should be mentioned. The issue is that if you mention minor recalls it violates neutrality (not notability) by blowing it out of proportion with undue weight, because it's unlikely that other articles about similar vehicles list every single minor recall, hence WP:UNDUE when one article highlights them.

Specialist publications like Motorcycle Consumer News have a regular column where they list every motorcycle recall, large and small. That's routine coverage and isn't a reason to add it to an article. But non-specialist publications that write up a recall are a different story. Even non-critical recalls that for whatever reason attract attention in the NYT or CNN or whatever should probably merit attention, especially if the source tells us a meaningful or interesting reason why the particular recall is worthy of note. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, & if it's made the Times or CNN, it's already newsworthy on its own merits, or they wouldn't be mentioning it. Which would seem to qualify it for mention here, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, Proposal:recalls are mentioned in articles when they have received widespread attention in the MSM. This does not include single MSM articles mentioning them as they are announced. For instance http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/holden-issues-a-record-13-recalls-including-barina-trax-and-colorado7/story-fnkgdhrc-1227090048958 would not qualify, whereas the Toyota floor mat/throttle issue or the Ford burning cruise control presumably would. Greglocock (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support as proposer Greglocock (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Seems the reasonable approach. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Greglocock's proposal, again it seems the reasonable approach. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Support --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok by me so I may as well point out that I added similar information (preceding this discussion but previously flagged by OSX) in the Ford Falcon (AU) article and those for the Mitsubishi Magna, Holden Commodore (VT) and Ford Territory - that now require attention/revision. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I re-tagged those with {{Undue-section}} instead of {{Notability}}. Note that besides WP:UNDUE these lists of all recalls, outside of those covered in MSM, would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE and could be tagged with {{Cleanup-list}}. Or simply deleted on site, since it appears there is complete consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - We have to be strict because the car pubs will cover everything, we need to focus only on what get significant coverage from at least a few MSM outlets, else we drown in trivia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Minor recalls are a dime a dozen, even major ones aren't rare. If major mainstream media starts picking up on it, then it becomes notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Falconry

The above discussion offers this link (a more unclear page title I've rarely seen :( ), which leads to a page hatnoted for another page, which would appear to be the same subject... Huh? Shouldn't these be merged? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Falcon is the longstanding name of a series of large cars produced since 1960, AU was a particular model in that sequence. Greglocock (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Then let me suggest it be renamed Ford Falcon AU; as it is, only people who already know what it means are going to get it... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Article titles, disambiguation for individual models should be in parentheses to show that it is the model code and not part of the marketing name. For example, "Ford Falcon XT" can mean two different things, the Ford Falcon (XT) series from the 1960s, or the "XT" trim level used recently, Ford Falcon (BA) XT. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It may have something to do with being from Oz or something, but I'm not finding that clear at all (after looking at both pages). Maybe some clarification is needed beyond the pagenames? With an eye to people completely unfamiliar? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The lede says "The Ford Falcon (AU) is a full-size car that was produced by Ford Australia from 1998 to 2002. It was the first iteration of the sixth generation Ford Falcon and also included the Ford Fairmont (AU)—the luxury-oriented version of the Falcon." which makes it pretty clear, so I guess your beef is with the title of the article. I don't particularly like Ford Falcon (AU) as in normal use it would be referred to as an AU Falcon. Greglocock (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I support what Greglocock and OSX said - no need for any change. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"The lede says" Yes, I read it. It wasn't exactly clear to me what the "AU" was referring to: a sub-model, a country, a trim level, or something else. It's still not. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• How is it any different from Chevrolet Corvette (C6), Mercedes-Benz C-Class (W203), or BMW 3 Series (E90)? It seems just as obvious to me that the AU refers to the particular model as those titles do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You may be right, & maybe it's previous exposure to those & not this one. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to include an explanation of the model code. So instead of "It was the first iteration of the sixth generation Ford Falcon", I changed it to "The AU series was the first iteration of the sixth generation Ford Falcon". OSX (talk • contributions) 02:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that hurts it. The same wouldn't hurt the others, either, IMO, but I'm too tired to go fix them just now. :) Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Gear ratios

I noticed several articles include gear and final drive ratios tables, sometimes with refs. Are these accepted? Seems to be a little too much detail to me. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Any examples? For sports cars, these figures are extremely relevant. For other vehicles, they may be. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ferrari Testarossa is the last one I encountered. But there are several others I can't remember right now. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted such information in the past as out of scope. It would be good to build a definitive consensus on the issue. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

♠If there are standard ratios, I'd leave them in, but AFAIK, the axle ratio is so variable (engine options alone will alter it, & so will customer choice), it's impossible to say. Not to mention it's a bit trivial. The trans gear ratios might be okay, but even then, it's getting trivial.

♠That said, where is the line? Might be better if we collect it all on the tranny & axle pages & link to those, then cite the model options & combinations. (That could get insanely complicated... 8o ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• I regularly remove these things as I don't think they're appropriate either. I generally take the viewpoint that, if there isn't an infobox field for it, it generally shouldn't be in the article, with the exception of the most common headline performance figures (top speed and 0-60), since those are things that get talked about in most sources and are likely to be of interest to a much wider audience than gear ratios or whatever (which your average Wikipedia user isn't necessarily going to have the slightest clue about.) There may be a place for talking about ratios in prose in a small number of articles (if they are specifically commented on by reliable sources), but in tables? No, not in my opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

♠WP coverage of automotive matters is far from ideal. The gear ratios in the trans & axle are routinely included in C&D feature articles (to name just one case), & not uncommon in Hot Rod or elsewhere. (Plus, they are part of the spec; would you omit engine displacement?) The effect on performance isn't insignificant, so... Whether the broad WP readership cares is another issue. That said, IMO there should be some place for it; we may not be creating Gearheadpedia, but we shouldn't be shutting out the gearheads by default, either. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• When did we start dumbing down because some of the readers might not understand why something is included? I thought you (Luke) had some circuit racing experience? Surely you understand the importance of the final drive ratio, even more so than the gearbox spread? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wish I had circuit racing experience, all I've got is a couple of runs in the British Schools Karting Championship, and we certainly didn't get close to fiddling with any of the mechanicals. I wouldn't say that is the only reason why the ratios don't really have a place here, but that is one reason - this is a general-purpose encyclopedia after all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Gearbox ratios are so dumb that even Jeremy Clarkson could understand them. You can't be serious that they have no place here as they're too complicated! Even my Triumph Vitesse is a somewhat obscure and desirable variant (and recognised as such amongst Triumph drivers) because it has a swapped (and better) back axle ratio. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"even Jeremy Clarkson could understand them" This is a talk page; sources aren't required. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Who decides what "a general-purpose encyclopedia after all" contains? What is this unexpected retrograde Lukeno94 idea that WP automotive articles are to be pruned of accurate content and obliged to become less informative and more dumb? Shame! Can't stay, writing a long essay for Lukeno94's talk page. Eddaido (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have to begin trolling in any discussion I post in? Also note that I'm far from the only person here who has expressed the opinion that it isn't appropriate. Oh, and don't post on my talk page again, I don't want any more of your trolling there, thanks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Would a Car review have final drive and gearbox ratios listed? Almost certainly – even for a Hyundai Shopper-matic. Are they important for sports cars or the Ferrrari Testarossa listed early on? Of course they are. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have said my piece on this matter, and have no interest in continuing when you and one other only care about trying to destroy me/my opinion without attempting to debate with anyone else who has expressly stated the same basic thing. Which, of course, was your intent all along. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was replying to Eddaido, not to you. I know you think the entire project revolves around you, but it does not. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• And in that pathetic post which displays your own staggering arrogance and obnoxiousness, you only reinforce my point. Good job. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As someone who has spent way too much time under cars with a face covered in grease, I think gear ratios are a detail that is not really suitable in most car articles. They tend to clutter it up and break the concentration of the typical reader. It's a detail that is easy enough to find from any dedicated website. Same for the diff ratio. However, If there is a table that lists engines, grades, weights, etc, then it doesn't hurt anything to have another column for the diff ratio. On the flip side, gearbox articles benefit from listing the ratios.  Stepho  talk  01:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Lotec Sirius

Hi, in article Lotec Sirius a lot of information is incorrect. In addition the used references are not very reliable ones. According to the history section of the manufacturer's website the car was not built in 2001 but in 2000. It never went into serial production. Only a single one has been built. According to the car's section of the manufacturer's website the acceleration from 0-100 kph is not 3.7 seconds but 3.8 seconds. The top speed of 264 mph is definitely incorrect. The manufacturer claims a top speed of 400 kph although this is just a theoretical value that has probably never been achieved driving. The car does not have a 5-speed transmission but a 6-speed transmission. For more detailed information check out https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lotec_Sirius&stable=0&redirect=no Regards from Germany, --217.227.73.63 (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Bill Thomas Cheetah - edit disputes

The Bill Thomas Cheetah entry seems to be the focus of some kind of dispute over rights to build replica's - does anyone have any information about the dispute, its origins, and whether it is recorded in any reliable sources? The main protagonist/s seems to be from Arizona based on the IP addresses NealeFamily (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I did find this: Bill Thomas passed away a few years back and I guess there have been misunderstandings and disagreements ever since about those "certificates of authenticity" and who actually owns the rights to what between Bob Auxier and Bill Thomas' son (Bill the Third, along with the rest of the heirs). Not to mention a few unhappy, disappointed and/or disgruntled Cheetah customers rustling around in the underbrush. Plus there's another outfit building its own version of an "evolution" Cheetah (Ruth Engineering in Grafton, Ohio), along with some serious and even bitter disagreements about what makes or does not make an "original" Cheetah, what the correct specifications might be for such a car (did they or did they not ever have disc brakes?), who owns what and who owes what to whom. The genuinely stupid part is that everybody involved originally got that way because they flat fell in love with the original Bill Thomas Cheetahs (myself included) and stupider yet is the fact that there is all sorts of legal posturing, wrangling and saber-rattling going on (lawsuits, depositions, etc.) but it doesn't look to me like anybody involved is particularly worth suing. on Burt Levy's blog site http://www.lastopenroad.com/burtsstories.html but don't think I could cite it as WP:RS NealeFamily (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That there is so much contention & confusion, even among people directly involved, does make me wonder if it doesn't call in question all the sources on it... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably makes it difficult for people who own original Cheetah's made by Bill Thomas as well - to many claims to the throne as it were. I am trying to be as careful as possible, but it is like walking through a minefield. NealeFamily (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete production numbers from infoboxes?

Should production numbers be deleted from the infoboxes? Particularly for rare models, where this is a small handful, accurately known and significant figure. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be moved down into prose, if there is a source present, or removed altogether if there is no source at all (as per any unsourced information.) The production field in the template makes no mention of any provision for production numbers. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• I always felt like that field was intended for dates, not statistics. So usually I follow Template:Infobox automobile#Infobox parameters to the letter and delete them. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is that because you think that production numbers are irrelevant to an article? Or because bureaucracy over template parameters is more important than giving our readers a good article?

I do neither of those things. Production numbers are important enough to belong in the infobox. Especially when they highlight the obvious difference between a mass production K1 and a K3 racer. So instead I want to find a way to get them in the infobox appropriately, using the right parameter if there is one and expanding the template if there isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

But of course, I'm a bureaucrat fond of awful articles, and I think that production numbers are entirely irrelevant. That's why I wrote sections like this one or this one.

My opinion: the infobox wasn't designed to handle production data, and the template page proves it. Without a specific entry in most cases it's just added clutter. That's why I usually remove that information from infoboxes, usually, except in the case of small production vehicles. As it is mentioning the total production number in the lead and history section seems good enough, while a dedicated section is appropriate if more detailed data is available.—Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I always felt that was exactly the right place and I was never alone in my feelings about that. Put a quantity slot immediately below if you wish but leave the information there, please, don't just throw it away (even if you are not alone in that either). Eddaido (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be opposed to a specific section in the infobox - such a thing is a reasonable idea, and it is something that tangentially related infoboxes have (such as Template:Infobox Weapon, which is of course used for the military vehicles.) At present, however, the template makes no provision for such things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox was not intended to be used for production figures. These are normally relegated to with the prose or to a sales/production table (if there is the detail to warrant this) towards the end of the article. But please, when "fixing" this up, please don't delete them. Make sure they are moved into the prose. @Lukeno94, if there is no source it is not policy to delete. Cars are not covered by the living people rule. The convention is to tag the number(s) with {{citation needed}}, or preferably, to find a source yourself. Deleting good information is not useful like you did here. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If there are per-year production figures then obviously they belong in a table. However there's often just a simple overall figure, and that's all we really need. That belongs, by and large, in the infobox. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. If simple overall production figures are available then the summary nature of the infobox makes it the natural place to put it.  Stepho  talk  02:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the various supporters of production numbers. Not too detailed, but one or even two totals can be very useful to the reader. And, please, don't keep deleting it all for now. Just as a favor, not because of some bureaucratic reason.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• If we are to include production numbers in the infobox - which I don't really have an opinion on either way, to be honest - then they need their own field. The sole reason I remove them is because there is no current provision for them in the template, as my edit summaries (when I don't cock them up) should show. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Rare or unusual cars, the info box is the place for the number. If it is a discontinued model and we give a sum total of the units produced, that makes sense as well. Current models, meh, but it doesn't bother me either way. As long as we are talking single sum numbers, the info box seems a natural as it is a significant statistic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of pre-war MG infoboxes?

As is well-known, the pre-war MG models were structured with a model name as "J2" etc where the "J" was a broad type and there were J1, J2, J3 etc. models within that. The J1 or J2 might be the production model with a fair few made, the higher numbers racing models with superchargers, lighter bodies etc. and only a handful made. These are important differences, they're quite different cars (and easily a factor of ten price difference today) but the articles read better as one article per broad model.

These distinctions, specifically the infoboxes, are now being swept away, with the claimed justification "change lead and infobox to match consensus at WT:CARS," Can anyone please point me to such consensus for this major change? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Naturally of course, Luke is now instantly edit warring to restore his deletions. No interest in discussing them first? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Naturally, of course, you're not even looking at what I've done. All I did was reinstate the changes to the company naming and added "19" in front of the years where it was missing. Will you ever stop being a complete and utter pillock? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Luke, you seem to be having some trouble with reality here:

• Pre-edit, with multiple infoboxes, one for each model
• After edit, model infoboxes removed

You are removing the per-model infoboxes. Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Either you're being incredibly ignorant, or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. AGAIN. Note the word "reinstate"? Yeah, that means it was a response to your claims of me "instantly edit warring to restore his deletions" - nope, that's categorically not what I did. AND you just ignored the second part of my response. Are you really this sad? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• So if you make a challenged change and it's reverted, and then you reinstate the change, but you don't make all the change that time, that's somehow OK? Of course not! There are several issues with your changes and if you're challenged over them, stop and discuss it first. DO NOT simply start a war of attrition and seee just how many you can still sneak through. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• The bits I reinstated were supported by consensus and the fucking template. If someone disputes a series of changes I make, I stop - and have done so every time. Which, if you weren't a self-centred arse and ever paid any attention, you would've noticed. But you are so desperate to get rid of me that you will stop at nothing, and will ignore any facts, in your attempts to do so. Why are you so pathetic? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Luke, why so angry? Why, when you're happily edit-warring, do you even have to slip in the little digs like "surprise surprise, lazy reverter who can't wait to jump on me is being lazy as usual" ? Whatever the eventual result here content-wise, for good or ill, it will all come out in the wash. In the meantime we have to play by rules (not content choices, rules about behaviour so that we're able to make effective choices about content.) Two of those are discuss before edit-warring and don't attack other editors. You seem to angrily ignore both all the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Why so angry? Because you flat-out lie about my actions, or present them in clearly inaccurate ways. At no point here have I edit-warred content that was actually disputed with a reason being given for the dispute; I solely put back the changes that match consensus (either explicit here, or the changes that match the templates). And the fact that it is blatantly obvious you will jump on me when you'd let it slide for almost anyone else because of an ancient grudge. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also, nice to see you're flat-out lying (AGAIN) about my infobox merging - again, you're so desperate to get one over me that you clearly ignored the justification of "merge redundant infoboxes" - it's hilarious how you present evidence that completely destroys half of your claim. I merged the infoboxes because they are redundant - the cars were produced around the same time, and there was little difference between the specifications (or that much information in them at all). Had it been anyone else, you'd have let it be - but no, your pathetic grudge must come above common sense, right? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Why are they redundant? Do you not appreciate the difference between a K1 and a K3 or a J2 and a J3/J4? Some of these are the "production" model, many made, quite cheap, and the others are a world-class racing car of the time, hand-made in ones and twos. As noted above, there's a factor of ten pricetag difference today because of the rarity and history factors. As they were also very distinct models when made, they warrant a distinct infobox.

More to the point though, where is your claimed consensus for this change?

As to your edit-warring, yet again, it's WP:BRD. If your edits are challenged, then stop and discuss them. Do not just edit-war to reinstate them. Do not continue your campaign of edits across the other models in the group. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I did not edit war to reinstate my disputed edits. I reinstated two fucking parts of it; one of which was tidying up the grammar in the lead (they haven't stopped being cars) and the company names, and the other was putting "19" before the years like you're supposed to - neither of which were disputed at any point. So there's another deliberate misrepresentation from you (what is that, the 9001st?). Why are they redundant? Because they have two fields at most that don't directly link together, they were generally produced at or around the same time, and those shorter infoboxes lack that much in the way of content (some of them literally just differ in body style and production numbers - the latter often being unsourced anyway.) If they had contained all of the information that they potentially could, and it was different enough, then you would have a justification for them existing separately. What next, we'll start having separate infoboxes for the "5 Series Tourer" and such things? Jeez. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• A closely related example, a very conventional if pretty open two-seater which has been given just an enormous Ford V8 engine has its very own largish article in WP see Sunbeam Tiger. Could this be the right way to go with MGs? Eddaido (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• A good question, but I think the Tiger is too different from the Alpine and so justifies its separate article (although one might ask why the three different Alpines are all lumped into one). For the MGs, the "K-type" is the right level for an article, but the distinctions within this should still be recognised through the separate infoboxes. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• First, please knock off the chest thumping, gentlemen. Second, Eric Corbett and I brought Sunbeam Tiger to FA/TFA and the info box was something that was massaged and discussed a good deal, trying different ways. He is a good source for infoboxes (without being a zealot about them) and of course, he knows older Brit metal better than most people realize. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take advice from Eric when he stops calling members of the owners club "fucking idiots" when they point out that whoever wrote the featured article hadn't read the (online) workshop manual first. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's not make it personal here guys, it's about the article, not personalities. You can ignore any advice you want, of course. And as someone who did the initial research for that article and went and bought some of the books for that article (they aren't easy to find, nor cheap), I don't remember running across a shop manual. If you have a reliable source link for an online shop manual, that would be news to me and I would love to see that. What I mainly found was contradiction everywhere, something I'm trying to avoid here, which is why I asked for experienced outside opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.sunbeamalpine.org/downloads/WSM%20124%20SI-SIV%20Manual/10%20Rear%20Axle%20%28G%29.pdf As was linked from the article talk page at the time, and Luke described it as "sources that are clearly incorrect,". Just the same time when I questioned statements in this FA about how the front spark plugs were changed by reaching through the firewall from the back of the engine. It still clams that. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

MG Car Company

Per this change, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MG_K-type&type=revision&diff=672569515&oldid=672565121 and specifically MG Car Company to MG. I can agree that this is a GF change in line with the previous discussion on this page. However for the pre-1935 MG cars, it's an important distinction and should be re-instated. Pre-1935, MG was a separate company until it became part of Morris. These pre-1935 cars are seen (perhaps snobbishly) as "more pure" than the later Morris-era cars. More so then than now, although the MGCC (the modern owner's club) still distinguishes from the MGOC (the other owner's club) on this basis and with a name chosen to reflect the MG Car Company's name of the period. This is one of those naming details that matters, and it should be restored. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I see no reason for the extra wordiness. MG suffices for the pre-Morris cars, and MG (Morris) suffices for the infobox for the post-Morris cars. No reason why this should be given special treatment over any other article. And putting back "MG Car Company" is just adding in some of the redundancy and/or inconsistently that we need to get rid of. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's not redundant though, that's the point. It's a subtle point, not obvious outside MG circles. I understand why you might not notice it. Yet (yet again) you are setting yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of all knowledge. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• You whine about digs above, and yet you can't resist another one. I am not, and have never set myself up as "the ultimate arbiter of all knowledge", and your desperation to discredit me at every turn knows no bounds. It is redundant, because MG sums up the original company just fine, and we do not, and should not, start writing company names out in full in every single article. This is not a MG Wiki, it is a general Wiki which needs standard practices. The lead and infoboxes are supposed to be shorter summaries; any wordier things belong in the main body of text. It's noteworthy that, whilst constantly digging at me, you aren't actually going through and improving these articles yourself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• The silence here is eerie. Is it because Andy makes clear well-argued point after clear well-argued point? Eddaido (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• [ec] Read the sources. Read discussion of MGs, by authors knowledgeable about pre-war MGs. You will see the MGCC distinction being used to apply specifically to the pre-1935 cars. "MG (Morris)" is a wikineologism, and those are to be avoided.

If I am not "going through and improving these articles " myself it is because I was hoping to have some discussion here, and at places like the Infobox automobile talkpage, as to how to improve them first. We should restore the production numbers. Particularly for the racing cars, these handful numbers are the clearest indication of that model's specialist nature. I don't know how to restore those production numbers, your point that they don't belong in the production dates field is a good one. Maybe we change the infobox template.

Unlike your behaviour today though, I am not just turning this into a personal antagonism and edit war. Would you really prefer me to be simply editing over you? That's not the way it should work. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I see no evidence that you aren't making this personal, and rather a lot of evidence to the contrary. MG (Morris) matches the way consensus fell in multiple discussions for the infobox, and, again, matches the template's documentation, and the vast majority of my infobox changes (forget the mergers here a second, which only occurred on a small number of articles) were to bring things in-line with the template - improvements you could easily be doing yourself if you weren't more interested in getting one over me. And for all your mention of sources, I don't see you adding many into these often poorly-referenced and lacking-in-detail articles. And, frankly, numbers alone don't tell much of a story; plenty of production cars have been made in lower numbers than many racing cars (even versions of the same car - McLaren F1 GTR versus LM anyone, as a random, non-specific example?) And for all your remarks about how you perceive this car clubs to work, let's quote MGCC here; "The MG Car Club was formed in 1930 by the MG factory, when in Abingdon, and has been providing top quality support for generations of MG owners ever since. Our strong factory connections mean we possess a wealth of historical material at our headquarters." - no mention of "The MG Car Company", is there? And the only time it is generally used seems to be to clarify that it was when the company was independent in some places (I can see MGOC articles that use it), but it isn't used every time MG is mentioned or even close to that. Again, the lead and infobox are for shorter summaries, so MG is more than sufficient (or, at a push, MG Cars perhaps), whilst the main body can reflect any longer names if appropriate. Plus, MGCC would still be inconsistent with cars produced by the same company under different owners, and would create a mess for those cars built both before and after the merger. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• "consensus fell in multiple discussions for the infobox" - where was this discussed for MG? Yes, there was a discussion (largely about Dodge), but the idea that one simplistic rule will apply in all cases is childish. Where was the MG / MGCC discussion, if any?

"MGCC would still be inconsistent with cars produced by the same company under different owners" What other owners? I'm taking about the pre-1935 situation here, when it was MGCC. Of course it will be different for later periods (and I would favour simply "MG" for 1936+). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Have you read the template description at all? I'm guessing you haven't. It's hardly "childish" to have something that, by and large, works with everything - and again, you're misrepresenting what I was saying - the template documentation supports using either MG or MG (Morris) based on the examples given ("You may show the parent company of a given manufacturer in parentheses after the manufacturer entry, if applicable."), I never said anything about that talking about MG or MGCC - although the examples given certainly don't use the long form... I still see 0 reason why the pre-Morris cars should be indicated by a longer title in the lead, as using MGCC prior to 1935 is a pointless inconsistency with the vast majority of the cars from later years, and we have too much inconsistency as it is. Again, more wordy things belong in the main body. Oh, and by the way, as much as you've complained, most of the articles actually said the "MG Car company" in the lead, rather than MG Car Company, which may seem like a simple distinction, but it rather more implies that the name of the company was MG Car. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the change from "MG Car Company" to "MG", & the claim of consensus, is as ill-considered & flat wrong as the changes Luke's made to (frex) Ford Pilot, from "Ford Motor Company" to "Ford", claiming "overly specific" & "consensus". It appears this is an "I don't like it" change, not a change with merit, & the basis of the change is simply false. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I did not claim that there was an explicit consensus for that change - or if I did, I did so by mistake (I may not have explicitly mentioned it as being a separate change when I was making the ones that were with consensus.) But I see no reason to use the full company name as per things like WP:COMMONNAME, and it is also worth noting that I have received thanks for making precisely that kind of change from at least one editor, if not more. It's nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's part of the standardization and bringing things in line with the template instructions and such things - nowhere does it use the full name in the template, it doesn't say "Toyota Motor Corporation", it says "Toyota". And bringing things into line with the way the documentation presented is, of course, clearly bringing things in line with consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• ?? Your basis for deciding the appropriate way to describe MGCC 80 years ago is the template documentation? That makes no sense at all.

"bringing things into line with the way the documentation presented is, of course, clearly bringing things in line with consensus." Utter nonsense. Again, the idea that one simplistic rule (any rule) will apply in all cases is childish. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• No, having a general rule is not childish, and I did not say it should apply in all cases - what I've said all along is that I fail to see a reason why we should give a random variation to MG, when it was the same damn company just under a different ownership. And, again, MGCC is not directly based on the template documentation, MG (Morris) is - how many fucking times do I have to write that out before it goes into your skull? The template documentation is a small factor, yes, but it is not the primary reason - which is that MG is just as accurate a description of the company without there being excess wordiness, and that it is consistent with all MG Cars products. Dismissing template documentation as being "nonsense" is laughable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

♠"I did not claim that there was an explicit consensus for that change" You did it on at least two different pages I watchlist (the Pilot & the Anglia) that I recall. Would you like to see the edits?

♠Furthermore, there's rather a large difference between adding division names & using the full company name. Is it the common name? No. AIUI, the infobox isn't for the common name, but for the full corporate name; so, too, first usage. Neither do I see a good reason to delete (or even pipe), provided the abbreviated name is used for the body of the page.

♠I'm also interested how it is somebody can talk the way Luke is & have it ignored, when I'm much more restrained & called incivil... (Nothing like a double standard at WP...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• You are correct; I did use the wrong edit summary on the Anglia and the Pilot, and I apologize for doing so - no real excuse for that, the only consensus that applied is the grammar change (which is kind-of obvious.) There possibly are others where I made that mistake with the edit summary, and I apologize for each and every time I messed up the edit summary in that way. Secondly, exactly what are you saying by this not being the common name? Because "Ford" and "MG" are most definitely the common name, and I cannot think of any explanation for them not being. And, if you look at the template documentation, you can clearly see that every example used follows WP:COMMONNAME and does not spell out the company in full, so in the infobox at least, we shouldn't be doing that unless we have a consensus swing to change that. Also, it's hardly like I'm the only person who has spoken that way, and I'm reacting badly to snide remarks by other users - one of my flaws, which is being exploited by one or two users here who know exactly what they're doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two aspects to the name issue: format for presenting them, and the appropriate name to use. The template documentation can only describe the first. The second is entirely subjective and depends on subject (i.e. MG history) knowledge.

In this case, for 1936 onwards, I'm quite happy to have it just as Luke was putting it, which also agrees with the template.

[[MG (car)|MG]] ([[Morris Motors]]) : MG (Morris Motors)

However for 1935 and before, this should be:

[[MG Car Company]]: MG Car Company

This is a separate issue from the formatting described on the template, it's about WP:COMMONNAME for the pre-1935 MG cars, using the name that was correct in period and was used increasingly afterwards to distinguish the "true" Kimber MGs from the Morris-influenced cars. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet another Infobox:Automobile discussion

Based on the edits by User:Eric Corbett on Austin A40 Farina, it seems like the formatting of dates in the infobox is not consistent with WP:MOSDATE, which states A pure year–year range is written (as is any range) using an en dash—​– or –—​not a hyphen or slash; this dash is usually unspaced (that is, with no space on either side); and the range's "end" year is usually abbreviated to two digits: 1881–86; 1881–92 (not 1881–6; 1881 – 86). This is not something that I was personally aware of. Should the infobox documentation therefore be updated to reflect this? And if it should be, should there be a bot task or something run to make all of the changes? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Facelift"

The usage and primary topic of facelift is under discussion, see talk:facelift (disambiguation) ; as the automotive topic is listed as a prominent use, I thought I'd let you know. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the engine-model year information be scrubbed from articles?

While I understand the wish to streamline the presentation of automotive information for various cars, I would question stripping out information regarding what engines and transmissions were available over various years. For people who are car enthusiast such information is very notable. It also makes for a rather silly table of engines in some cases. Consider this Corvette [C3 example.]. There are 21 (!) different engines and 4 transmission offered over the life of the car (1968-1982). I think a number of readers might actually want to know which engines were offered which year. I would propose that we either allow date ranges on the engine lists as part of the standard template or we allow articles to deviate from standard in cases like this where it clearly has benefit to the reader. Springee (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• As per usual; there is no provision in the template for this information, and 99% of the automobile articles do not include such data, have never done so, and 100% shouldn't contain it. And in this circumstance, it really isn't a benefit to the reader to have years in there; you're adding even more information to a field that is already overloaded with data. If the prose is written properly, then it already covers such a thing in proper detail - and I'm pretty sure the Corvette articles do. If not, then a table of engines should be created in the article, like a lot of the newer car articles do. Such a table can also contain a lot more information than the infobox was designed to handle. It's also worth noting that the initial "objection" was made by an obvious sockpuppet account created just for that purpose. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• The above being said, obviously I won't be removing the year information again until this discussion ends (and I'm getting a little sick of people nitpicking at any attempt to bring things into some kind of standard format, like the template is clearly set out as.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• No question the "objection" was a vandal account (and presumably a sockpuppet). Their methods were wrong but the intent wasn't without merit. I think a subsection with table is a reasonable solution. It would be nice because it could also contain engine-transmission combination rather than just a list with dates. Do you have a suggested example to follow? Also in cases like the C3, Landrover Defender, first gen Mustang etc where the list of engines can get very long does it make more sense to simply have a note to look at a table rather than listing all the motors without even a year range?
• While I'm one of those nipping at your heals, I do appreciate the effort you are making. The hard thing about coming up with a standard is trying to invent one that really fits every situation. If you do make more changes similar to the one I linked, it might be good to put a note on the talk page as to the new way that information should be contained within the article. That allows people who think it's useful a productive way to address their concerns rather than though (frustrated) vandalism. Springee (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't agree with piecemeal removing the entire set of engines from the infobox; but I'm presuming that's not quite what you're suggesting. I certainly think that having the capacity range in the infobox in such articles, with a hatnote that points to a more detailed table with all of the individual engines, is potentially a workable idea on an unusual case like this one. I don't personally think that the Mustangs are anywhere near as bad, but that situation is made a lot simpler by the simple fact that there are distinct infoboxes and "versions" of the first-gen Mustang, whilst the Corvette C3 doesn't really have that (it's a pretty unusual case, that I definitely would agree on.) Same goes for the Defender somewhat; there aren't that many engines (and they're certainly not indicated by years), although I'd never argue that the Defender is a good representation - it's rather confusing to have the same capacity and cylinders listed multiple times in the infobox without putting in some obvious way of differentiating them. That is something I shall fix very shortly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If there is a single major option for the engine or transmission, then the infobox should include this and the infobox template should support it. Even if there was also an obscure variant that is mentioned in the article, but the history of the typical vehicle is complete without it.

If the information is complex, such that it requires a table or a substantial list, then it's too complex to present in a single-valued infobox summary. Only then should it not be in the infobox. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to post a notice at the top of the article that the engine-date information should be moved out of the infobox? A problem I see with removing first and then expecting/hoping people to replace later is that many people will never know that information was removed and thus it could be lost. That said, while I actually would favor inclusion or at least say a strong case needs to be made for removal vs leaving it alone, I do see an issue with citing the information. In the Corvette case one might ask how do we know a given engine was an option in 1968. Then again, without the date how do we verify that the LT1 (for example) was an option regardless of the particular years offered?

One more thing, I noticed in this 1st gen Corvette change that the engine table no longer notes that the 283 was fuel injected. [[8]] In other articles the use of turbo or superchargers are mentioned as notable. In the 1950s any car engine with fuel injection would be notable. A lesser but still notable example would be the LT5 engine used in the C4 Corvette. It was the first (and only) DOHC V8 used in any Corvette. Currently the infobox just shows a series of 5.7L V8s. Addicting DOHC to the box would indicate the notable feature of the LT5 vs the other motors. I think that it would be a good idea to allow the infoboxes to contain notable information that might not be part of the template. We would have to use best judgment when something is notable or not. Springee (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

♠Looking at the linked C3 infobox, the list is a bit daunting. IMO, a separate table of engines is a much better idea, if only for making it easier to read. It could reduce the linking to a single case, pointing to SBC & BBC, or link engine codes to the appropriate engine page subsections. The same format wouldn't be amiss in all U.S. makers' articles, IMO, since many offered a wide variety of engine options. I wonder if engine-drivetrain combinations makes sense, too, since many engines were only available with a given trans.

♠That said, it occurs to me it might be better to put engine-drivetrain combinations on a separate page & link out to it, for clarity & simplicity, rather than repeat the same information in several places, with numerous opportunities for introduced mistakes, & to avoid lack of commonality (& common correctness).

♠I'd also agree, mention of the fuelie 283 & DOHC C5 in the infobox is warranted; these were a big deal. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:03 & 00:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Does linking to a separate page result in the same issue that was discussed above, too many Corvette pages? This was an issue we discussed with the leaf spring page back in the day. Because it applies to several generations of the car it didn't make sense to create an individual section in each generation specific article. At the same time it seems too detailed for the high level Corvette page. The finally decision was to make it a stand alone page. However, if people are intent on removing as many stand alone pages as possible then a stand alone "C3 engine options" page seems doomed to deletion. Incidentally, I don't see why it is really necessary to cut the number of articles so long as they are all interlinked. Thus the Corvette leaf spring article could link to at least the C4 and later model pages and perhaps the C2 and later. Either way, I do agree that with such a long list of engines it might just be better to remove all engines from the infobox and use a pointer to a table later in the article. The C3 is an extreme case but the later cars still offered a large range (C4 had 5, the C5 had just 2, the C6 had 4 and the C7 thus far has 2 but a 3rd is almost a certainty). The BMW 5 series is another mess. The E39 had 20!! engines and 8 transmissions! The E34 was 18 and 4, the E60 reduced that to a "reasonable" 13 and 4 :D . Perhaps a rule of thumb would be more than 4 goes in a table with a pointer? Springee (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

♠I wasn't thinking of a 'vette-specific page, but more of a GM-inclusive page, akin to the GM engines page. Or maybe that should host this information; IDK. Either way, what I see it doing is acting as "home" for links from all GM car pages (or all Chevy pages, anyhow; might need to break it out by division), with a list of all the engines & trannys used, by year & model, tabulated. So, there'd be a table for the 283 which had the engine codes, uses by model, tranny, & year used. A bit like this:

283 ci SB

Year	19xx-19xx
Transmission	TH350, TH400
Used in	Corvette, Bel Air, Biscayne

And tables on the page for every engine. Clearer? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I can see the idea but I'm not sure I like the all inclusive engines page. For a company like GM that would be a HUGE list. Also, how would you cover companies that at various times were and weren't part of GM (Lotus, SAAB etc.)? It also might be hard to look of info on say the Corvair (two engine options IIRC) or Fiero (again 2 or 3). I like the idea of all the info in one place but I think it would be hard to put together. It also almost certainly would be filled with holes. The engine options of some older models might be hard to verity while noted models like the Corvette would certainly be easy to check. Regardless, I like that you are coming up with ideas. Springee (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the recent discussions are most disappointing because they are so unnecessary. We have infoboxes with an established standard layout which is flexible enough so it may be expanded to incorporate the likes of the above information. Sure some articles have much more information to pass on than others. Why bury stuff in extra tables or remote parts of the narrative. Quick and easy to follow is the right answer, using the existing infoboxes adjust where necessary. Where has the drive to minimise properly tabulated information come from? Eddaido (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I asked because it has come up as an issue. Personally I think it's not worth making a huge fuss over changing the work of the page editors. However, it did cause a minor edit war on the C3 and other Corvette related articles. It's not a change I'm likely to correct but I wanted to get the view of more people. I would suggest in cases such as the C3 article the dates be added back in until they are tabulated somewhere else in the article. Springee (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

♠"I'm not sure I like the all inclusive engines page. For a company like GM that would be a HUGE list" Hmm... I'm not sure it would be so enormous. If it lists only the displacement & use...

♠I've seen a really good Chevy page with the option codes & brief descriptions; IIRC, it already mentions many, if not all, the models using a given engine, & it's not an insanely long page. (Just don't ask me what it's called... :( I'd have linked to it already if I could think of it.) I'd use that as a model, given a choice. IMO, that approach is readily adaptable to other marques. Nor would it take a major effort to add all the models using an engine to it, nor the tranny options, IMO. Plus it centralizes the information, making updates & error-correction vastly easier, not to mention offering fewer opportunities for vandals (alas, a continuing problem).

♠Perhaps most important, if it already exists in some form, we need not invent it, merely adapt it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Saloon vs Sedan, Wagon vs Estate, what names to use?

I did a search in the archives of this talk page and was unable to find an answer, which terms to use? I know that Luke has been working to clean things up and one of the changes he has done is to use the "EU" names. Is that really correct? I understand that say a BMW is a European car and the English use the term Estate while the US uses Station Wagon. If we are talking about an English car I think it is proper to default to the English (UK) term. Do the Germans call their wagons "Estate" just translated (Landgut, Nachlass from Google translate). When I ask what is German for Station Wagon I get Kombi. I suspect we would find something similar with the Swedes and Japanese. Thus my question is should we use the UK terms for European cars that aren't English? Is it better to reference both North American and UK terms or simply allow the editors of each article to choose? Springee (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

IDK what the MoS says, but for subjects outside North America, I default to British. It seems the reasonable choice, since the Brits had worldwide exposure before the U.S., & since AFAIK, most non-U.S. markets use that. (This may be changing...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Previously people would use things like "Station Wagon (Estate)" or the reverse. I think that is a more neutral term when talking about say a E39 5 door which wouldn't use either term in German. Where I agree with home country centric labeling is things like the Mazda Miata. The MX-5 designation was used worldwide (US was MX-5 Miata, I think Japan was MX-5 Roadster). It's not that I think we should force every page to say "Station Wagon (Estate)" but that I think it is just as wrong to assume that UK terms are representative of European terms. I suspect the common term for "Station Wagon" doesn't literally translate between German, Swedish, French or Italian. By default it can't translate to the English term since there are two English terms (UK and NA). Thus I would suggest that we simply not make a fuss one way or the other and state that, for cars that were sold in significant value in both markets both terms should be or at least on should not be favored. Springee (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to use "estate (station wagon)", but point taken. I don't object to "5-door", except to say it sounds a bit too "car magazinish": too much like insider language, less accessible than "station wagon" or "estate". (Maybe that's lack of exposure to non-American usage.) If that's what got settled on, I'd offer no further complaint. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

For European cars I'm also OK with Estate (Station Wagon). If we were talking about a car that was UK or Europe only then Estate is fine with me (Jag X-type, Mondeo Estate). However, when we are talking about Volvo who sells a significant volume in the US and for a while was Ford owned I don't think it's right to say Volvo didn't build "wagons". Also, how would we handle the Japanese brands? Should an Accord wagon (US term) be called an Accord Estate? I agree about the 5-door term. I know wagon vs hatch is blurry in some cases but not in others (the Mondeo came in both hatch and wagon). Also, a Ford Explorer could also be called a 5 door but I wouldn't call it a wagon. Springee (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"Saloon" and "estate" are appropriate for UK cars, but not for cars associated with other countries. These terms are not widely used outside of the UK and Ireland. Sometimes European carmakers will use the terms to suggest prestige or luxury, but the common names in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc are "sedan" and "station wagon". This has been previously discussed here. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because it is a common enough Australian presumption I need to point out that NZ terms are often quite different from Australian (and also cars nominally the same — see the ACC fuss last week). If the word sedan is used in NZ it is consciously foreign. The correct local term is just "car / station wagon" or a default to no distinguishing term for the car and then if it is a station wagon it is distinguished. Sedan like automobile - very rare. Eddaido (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As I discovered back in 2011 and linked to above, "sedan" appears to be the predominant term used in NZ as well.

Sedan vs Saloon at Google.co.nz (NZ only search) — search results as at 10 July 2011

• "BMW AND sedan" (1,910,000 results), "BMW AND saloon" (190,000 results)
• "Jaguar AND sedan" (2,720,000 results), "Jaguar AND saloon" (143,000 results)
• "Rover AND sedan" (1,670,000 results), "Rover AND saloon" (116,000 results)
• "Toyota AND sedan" (1,910,000 results), "Toyota AND saloon" (211,000 results)

...and also in South Africa: Sedan vs Saloon at Google.co.za (ZA only search) — search results as at 10 July 2011

• "BMW AND sedan" (983,000 results), "BMW AND saloon" (112,000 results)
• "Jaguar AND sedan" (507,000 results), "Jaguar AND saloon" (65,200 results)
• "Rover AND sedan" (761,000 results), "Rover AND saloon" (77,000 results)
• "Toyota AND sedan" (1,050,000 results), "Toyota AND saloon" (92,100 results)

At the end of the day, anomalies do not matter, just the full picture and it is clear that "sedan" is more common worldwide than "saloon".

Sedan vs Saloon at Google.com (worldwide search) — search results as at 27 July 2015

• "BMW AND sedan" (91,400,000 results), "BMW AND saloon" (14,400,000 results)
• "Jaguar AND sedan" (34,100,000 results), "Jaguar AND saloon" (8,350,000 results)
• "Rover AND sedan" (32,000,000 results), "Rover AND saloon" (8,650,000 results)
• "Toyota AND sedan" (184,000,000 results), "Toyota AND saloon" (10,900,000 results)

OSX (talk • contributions) 03:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Given car sales are by market & WP really isn't limited that way, is there a "right" answer? Maybe we just need to use all the terms & let readers figure it out based on where they live. When I was much younger, I was first exposed to Brit usage of bonnet & such, & tho I never used them (& never heard or saw them in local use), when they'd turn up on TV or in books, I felt like I had an "in" others might not have had. I'm wondering, now, if we shouldn't be hoping for that among our readers, instead of sweating over "right" & "wrong" use. Am I dreaming? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TrekPhiler, there is no single correct way. The correct form in British English is saloon. The correct form in US and Australian English is sedan. Other countries with English as the national language will also have one or the other. Since WP does not favour one dialect of English over another, both forms are correct. If there is a strong tie to a dialect then WP:STRONGTIES says use that. Eg: Rolls-Royce articles would use British English (saloon), GM articles would use US English (sedan), Holden articles would use Australian English (sedan). But articles of German or Japanese vehicles that have no such strong ties (regardless of whether the US is their major market or not) and therefore WP:ENGVAR says they use whatever the first major editor chooses and we stay with that unless a consensus is reached on its talk page to change it. If you think a reader would have trouble understanding a term then the first usage can have the alternative name in brackets without a link. Eg: "The BMW 5 saloon (sedan)" or "The BMW 5 sedan (saloon)" depending on the first editors choice.  Stepho  talk  08:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I have only one minor complaint with that: repetition isn't necessary. Link to the term & pipe with the term of preference, then use that one throughout--no? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was always under the impression that European vehicles would use "saloon" and "estate" rather than the American/Australian terms. I couldn't tell you where that came from, but that's something I've always thought. With that being said, I've often noticed articles that have infoboxes indicating that they were written in British English and yet still use the American terminology, which is obviously wrong (and it would be wrong to do the inverse as well). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Use whatever term is most appropriate, ignore international consistency across articles. Use redirects to target links of such terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)