Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

CID vs. in³

Discussion from Sept 13 to Oct 14

I'm sure I'll get some flak for this, but I'd like to bring this up. Some pages use CID to denote engine displacement while others use in³. CID is the industry standard, but it's been said in this discussion repeatedly that Wikipedia is a site for laymen. Anyone who went to school knows what "in³" stands for, but CID will require an explanation for some people. I prefer the use of in³ for this reason, but either way, I'd like to have a standardized unit.--Flash176 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC) This has been discussed a fair number of times in the past. I personally prefer CID because it is standard usage (and easier/faster to type), but I accept and use in³ here, because as you say it is universally understandable. More than that, it is already codified as a convention within this project, so the issue is already resolved. If you come across "CID" in an article, change it to in³ and if you think it's likely to be challenged, link in your edit summary to WP:AUN, the shortcut I've just created to the relevant units conventions. Of greater annoyance to me is the continued unsupportable and inappropriate use of ft·lbf for torque in automotive articles, rather than the correct unit, which is lb·ft. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks, and sorry for bringing up an old topic. As for the ft-lbf, thank you! That bugs me so much, but every time I tried to fix it someone would revert it, so I finally just gave up. This came up before and it seemed to me that things were moving in the direction of using "CID" (as shown here). Personally, I don't see a problem with either one. As for ft·lbf: let us purge that from Wikipedia's automotive pages forever. I can't even recall why it was instituted in the first place, and I can't find the discussion on it (although I seem to recall contributing to said discussion... hmm.) --Sable232 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC) It seems to me that the use of in³ is in error with respects to automotive articles. I searched many major automotive websites and couldn't find a single use of in³. Here's what I found: Ford uses both CID and cu.in. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] GM and Victory motorcycles use the abbreviation ci: [9], [10], [11] Chrysler tends to spell out cubic inches: [12], [13] Other websites that have used CID: sae.org, epa.gov, epa.gov, newdodge, allpar mopar, fourwheeler magazine, dodgeram.org. Other websites that use cu in: harley-davidson, chilton, [14], classichemi So that begs the question: If the big three American auto companies don't use in³ for cubic inch displacement of engine size and many other auto-related website don't use in³, why does wikipedia's auto articles? If the arguement to use in³ and not CID, is for valid encyclopædic reasons then why is the auto standard cc used instead of the encyclopædic standard--cm³? CID is very common among automotive literature and manufactures and that is what the wiki articles should be based on. If CID needs an extra second to have a person who may not be able to ascertain what it stands for, then that is what hyperlinking to first occurrence is for (CID). For folks like us, we may not know what kpc in this sentence: The center of the Milky Way is about 8 kpc from the Earth, and the Milky Way is about 30 kpc across..., but the space editors left me a link to follow if I don't know. After some reading, it looked as if everyone was in favor of changing the convention to CID but no one ever put the trigger on that. I think it is clear if anything that in³ should not be used so I say we should be bold and standardise on CID. Thanks Scheinwerfermann for pointing me to this discussion. Oilpanhands (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC) So, considering the rpm vs. RPM discussion below, if we switch it's going to be cid then? --Sable232 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I think literature favors the all caps, but if consistency with the rpm vs. RPM discussion below is desired, the lowercase version would still be a step in the right direction. We could argue lowercase vs all caps for this abbreviation some other time. Oilpanhands (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Oilpanhands, I'm sure you're not acting in bad faith, but posting a whackload of links from a single website (fordvehicles.com) to create the impression of massive, widespread support for your position tends to make you look disingenuous. Likewise, citing unreliable sources such as auto enthusiast/blog sites doesn't do much to advance your position. I would also caution you not to misinterpret the "be bold" principle, which does not give licence to bulldoze conventions you don't happen to agree with. You ask a good question as to why we use in³ rather than CID, but cc rather than cm³. The two situations aren't quite as directly comparable as they might seem. Both cc and cm³ are universally and unambiguously understandable (and understood) to refer to cubic centimetres, but CID — as you have noted — requires elucidation. Surely, as you say, we could link to the explanatory article, but...why make things unnecessarily complicated this way? CID verges on jargon, and we have an accurate and correct non-jargon unit (in³) readily and immediately understood to refer to cubic inches, without need of any explanatory link. That is what makes in³ the better choice. Me, I started out preferring CID, but this particular point convinced me that in³ is preferable. As for why we use in³ when the automakers appear to use CID on their websites and in their brochures, well, that's because we're writing an encyclopædia here, not a promotional website or sales brochure. Different writing tasks call for different writing styles. This present discussion is also not directly comparable to the lb·ft vs. ft·lbf debate, even though a similar argument ("the automakers all use lb·ft") gained great traction in that discussion. The difference is that we were talking about a correct unit (lb·ft) versus an incorrect unit (ft·lbf) to describe torque. All that said, if consensus develops to change from in³ to CID, the correct form is all caps, because CID is a noun abbreviation; an acronym. The reason rpm, mph, mpg and suchlike are in lowercase letters is because they are adverbial expressions of compound units. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) If I was acting in bad faith, I wouldn't have posted any examples other than what would be my position to use 'CID'. What I did post, showed cu in, ci, cid, and, CID being used by American automotive and motorcycle manufactures, government, magazines, repair manuals, and yes 3, what you call, unreliable enthusiast/blog websites (Here's two other more reliable sources taken from the ft lbf discussion below: C&D, Edmunds). I tried to place them in such an order to show reliability of source. There are more examples from Ford because they use cu in for some products and CID for others. What I did not find was any of them using in³ and this encyclopædia should be based on the literature available. If encyclopædic correctness trumps automotive writing style, then why even have an automotive style convention? Shouldn't a whole encyclopædia convention dictate that all articles use stuff like 3,136 cm³; complete with the proper SI symbol and comma separation and not how automotive writing style dictates-- 3136 cc. It is absurd to think that we need strict automotive style writing for somethings but we should abandon it and leave in erroneous ways of conveying information because we're afraid that a layman can't fathom what 426 CID (6,980 cc) would be from the context of the text surrounding it. For automotive articles, forcing the use of a clearly demonstrated symbol that is unused by the auto industry and its literature (from high brow Edmunds to Joe Sixpack's HotRod mag), only sours the article for the bulk of automotive article readership. in³ stands out in these articles as improper in much the same way that mi/h, mi/gal, and lb/in² would be improper to most of us in automotive contexts as well. Scheinwerfermann, you asked me to contribute to this discussion as to why the "convention is in error, and" ... "provide valid reasons why CID should be the convention". If I've done anything, I've showed that the convention is in error and we should adopt a new way of abbreviating cubic inch. So if the consenus is between CID vs. in³... I'll be the first to vote for CID. CID >>> Oilpanhands (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC) This whole thing with defining standards is a major reason why I've nominated certain templates for deletion already. Us as a WikiProject or individuals can not standardize something that already has standards or guidelines in place within Wikipedia as a whole. The proper abbreviation for cubic inch should absolutely never be "in³" as per WP:MOS nor should it really be "CID". It should be "cu in" with "cid" maybe being acceptable. Again, WP or individuals or Scheinwerfermann can not be overwriting Wikipedia standards. If some of these templates followed WP:MOS or {{convert}} more closely, you'd hear a lot barking from me on these fronts. roguegeek (talk·cont) 06:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Per MOS:SI symbols and unit abbreviations: "Squared and cubic metric-symbols are always expressed with a superscript exponent (5 km2, 2 cm3); squared imperial and US unit abbreviations may be rendered with sq, and cubic with cu (15 sq mi, 3 cu ft). They keyword being "may." So, according to WP:MOS, it appears to me that the preferred unit is expressed with a superscript exponent and an alternative for English units is written abbreviations.--Flash176 (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Yes, I stand corrected here, but there is still an MOS violation in these templates. Do not use the Unicode characters ² and ³, but rather write <sup>2</sup> and <sup>3</sup> to produce the superscripts 2 and 3. Again, it's these small things that definitely get me hot because you know oversights like this absolutely do not happen with {{convert}}. Again, I'm just looking for consistency. roguegeek (talk·cont) 06:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Yes, you're right that it needs to be in superscript. I actually learned that just now when I was looking it up and am happy because it makes it easier to read and add. Definitely understand where you're coming from on consistency.--Flash176 (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC) EDIT-Just changed the Template:Auto L and Template:Auto CID templates over to superscript, and for some reason it's still the same size as the unicode letters.--Flash176 (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Did you clear ur cache, I think it is smaller now --— Typ932T | C  07:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Oilpanhands, please let's tone down the accusations about who's running roughshod over what, because they really aren't productive. Let's all try to keep the discussion cool and rational, assume good faith, and demonstrate genuine concern and action towards the betterment of the project. Onward and upward, please, eh? It's clear you don't like the in3 convention, but your claim that it is "erroneous" just isn't correct, for in3 is a valid, accurate abbreviation for "cubic inches". This is not a discussion of whether in3 is a valid abbreviation for cubic inches; it is, indisputably. This is a discussion of whether in3 or CID is the preferable abbreviation for use in this project. So far — from my perspective, at least — you haven't engaged or addressed the reason why universal in3 is superior to jargon CID. Continuing to argue without addressing that crucial point is not likely to gain much traction for your position. Roguegeek and Flash176, it looks like we're moving forward productively here with discussion and action on superscript vs. unicode; good catch on that. I've changed Template:Auto Lrev to superscript.—Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I cleared my cache, history, etc. The superscript still isn't working for me in the two templates I changed, but the one Scheinwerfermann fixed works just fine. Does the 3 appear in superscript on Template:Auto L and Template:Auto CID to you guys? If so, then that's fine, I just want to make sure it's only my computer having this problem and not everyone.--Flash176 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I am definitely seeing superscripts in all three templates. I have often found that my browser (usually Firefox) will hang tenaciously onto an old template edit no matter how many times I clear or bypass the cache. I usually just toss the URL into another browser to see if the change has taken hold, and usually it has. Once I wait a day or so, my regular browser lets drop the old version and shows me the new version. I don't know why this is so, but it is. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Ok, thanks for the tip. I wanted to make sure it was just me before I edited the templates anymore, but since I'm using Firefox, I guess I'm good to go.--Flash176 (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC) WP:PURGE roguegeek (talk·cont) 04:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Scheinwerfermann, read my post again, please. At no point did I accuse you (or anyone) of anything. I was replying to your post above that one as completely as I could and I certainly didn't think that I was coming across as hot-headed in my tone as your most recent posting implys. Any physics professor will tell you, the abbreviation in3 is a valid abbreviation for cubic inches, but is it the most common abbreviation and is it appropriate for use in automotive writings? My main point is that in3 maybe fine for your physics report, but as I've shown above, six different ways to Sunday, that in3 is not used in automotive writings. Now is in³ the most common abbreviation for cubic inches? No, it is not. The most common and most universal abbreviation, indisputably, without a doubt is "cu in". Just for fun, check out these google searches 351 in³ vs. 351 cu in. The automatic google converter doesn't even recogise in3 (it tries to convert it as inches), but it does recogise and convert cu in to 5.75...litres. Also, compare the hits: 2,750 for in3 vs. 6.6 million. And guess what? As demonstrated by me, automotive literature uses this abbreviation. You ask me to explain why CID is better for this project over in3. This is the automotive project and it does appear that this project has a writing style guide that sometimes contradicts the main style guide that flash176 and roguegeek linked to (using cc and no commas in numbers). So I would think that the automotive way of abbreviating cubic inch displacement would be warranted and appropriate for this project. And the argument that an article should be written for the clueless just lowers the quality of the whole article. I can't imagine that someone would be so clueless as to not know what is meant by CID in an automotive context, especially considering that every time that they read it, it is accompanied by either cc or litre conversions-- 392 CID (6,420 cc). I think I've made it perfectly clear that in3 is a very poor choice for automotive writings and should not be used. That leaves us with the choice of most common abbreviation: "cu in" and the most automotive appropriate: "CID"! While I prefer "CID" in automotive contexts over "cu in", at least I can formulate an argument for using "cu in" in automotive writings. I can not do the same with in3. Oilpanhands (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC) "Just for fun, check out these google searches 351 in³ vs. 351 cu in. The automatic google converter doesn't even recogise in3 (it tries to convert it as inches), but it does recogise and convert cu in to 5.75...litres." That's because computers don't see text/numbers the way we do. You have to enter it as 351 in^3. "I can't imagine that someone would be so clueless as to not know what is meant by CID in an automotive context, especially considering that every time that they read it, it is accompanied by either cc or litre conversions-- 392 CID (6,420 cc)." Then you've never been around mechanically-challenged people. Unfortunately, tons of people don't have the first clue about cars and *might* make the jump that CID would equal engine size, but those who don't know anything about cars (and I'm guessing a significant percentage of these articles' readers) will have no idea what CID stands for. Whereas in3 is a basic unit that students are taught early in grade school and anyone should be able to recognize and understand it. Just like L for liters.--Flash176 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Oilpanhands, I'm asking you again to please mind your tone. You are being strident, shrill, and insistent. That's not a good strategy to win friends and influence people. Please read over this thread and pay attention to the difference between your tone and that of the other participants in the discussion. And let's please use the actual abbreviations we're discussing. Nobody's proposed using in3; the discussion is whether to use CID or in3.—Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Fact: "CID, cid, cu in" are the common abbreviations for cubic inch (displacement) in automotive writing. Fact: Not everyone knows what "CID" stands for ("cu in" seems like a basic unit to me, however; I think I've seen far more "cu in" in grade school than "in³".). Why not add a parameter to the Auto CID template that, for the first occurrence of the unit, will link the reader to cubic inch displacement? That way, not only will it follow the format of automotive writing, it will inform a reader who doesn't know what it means. That way, when they click on a reference or an external link and see "CID," they'll know what it means. --Sable232 (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Scheinwerfermann, it was you who asked me to come here and explain the reasons why the in3 should be changed. I did so and I even thanked you for pointing me to this discussion. Then, you replied to them by saying that I appeared to be arguing in bad faith, being disingenuous and bulldoze conventions. To which, I replied to that in a civil tone and explained how I wasn't and why I used more examples from Ford and I even provided two more examples from more reliable sources to off-set some of the less reliable sources. Then, you come back with this "tone down the accusations about who's running roughshod over what, because they really aren't productive. Let's all try to keep the discussion cool and rational" stuff. Which left me puzzled? I replied to that and I get more of the same from you. Shrill...no. Strident and insistent...that in3 is incorrect in this usage. Yes and I've given plenty reasons why. Am I insistent that my preferred method of CID in automotive writings be used? No, not necessarily, I think I've made a pretty good argument for using cu in as it is the most common abbreviation and it's used in automotive literature. Sir, I think that you were angry with me long before I ever typed a word on this page and you've let that angry come through by constantly saying that I am not using a civil tone, which just isn't true. It is your tone that has been different from everyone. Also, using in3 was a typographical error on my part--I forgot the sup modifiers. Oilpanhands (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sept 26 section break

This conversation is slowly losing its control and direction. Let's find some consensus here soon since it is such an important and widely used measurement on the vast majority of automotive related articles. Vote anyone? I'll go first. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC) CID roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC) CID, with my compromise (of sorts) above. --Sable232 (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC) CID Oilpanhands (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Roguegeek, are you trying to poll for a decision or just trying to figure out where everyone stands? If it's the latter, I don't have a problem with that, but if the former, please remember that Wikipedia isn't a democracy and polls are not binding. That said, I still prefer: in3--Flash176 (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Yup, I am aware of this. Considering the discussion collapsed above, I'm polling to see a comprehensive list of where everyone stands. Again, it's pretty important to come to a consensus quickly on this one. roguegeek (talk·cont) 07:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Gotcha. Figured it was such, just making sure. :) And yes, we do need to come to a consensus as soon as possible.--Flash176 (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC) in3 —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC) in3 - PrinceGloria (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC) (I never really voiced my opinion here, but from a layman's view that's preferable) in3 - --— Typ932T | C  07:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC) in3 OSX (talk • contributions) 08:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC) I'm really quite surprised by how many editors like in3. Just doing a simple Google search yields the following results: "350 cu in" - "350+cu+in" 24,800 results "350 CID" - "350+CID" 130,000 results "350 in3" - "350+in³" 2,600 results I know this isn't the perfect way to survey something like this, but I would think it's still a fairly decent way to determine what the popular conventions would be. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 09:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Solution that might satisfy both needs

Fact: "CID, cid, cu in" are the common abbreviations for cubic inch (displacement) in automotive writing. Fact: Not everyone knows what "CID" stands for ("cu in" seems like a basic unit to me, however; I think I've seen far more "cu in" in grade school than "in³".). Why not add a link=yes parameter to the Auto CID template that, when needed, will link the reader to cubic inch displacement? After all, if someone clicks on an external link or a reference they'll likely see "CID." If they don't know what it means, there's confusion. Looking at it from that perspective I'd say it makes the most sense to follow the style of automotive writing, and add a wikilink so those who don't understand it can learn. We do that with engine configurations, drivetrain layouts, etc, so why not with this? --Sable232 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC) I don't necessarily dislike or reject the idea, but I don't agree that it satisfies "both needs", and I regard it as inferior to the present in3 convention. This is primarily for reasons of simplicity; in3 is a basic, universally-understood unit abbreviation requiring no explanation, no linking, no elucidation of any kind. CID is a jargon term that does require elucidation by means of a link or parenthetical note. I think that in itself is a compelling reason to stick with the simpler, self-explanatory in3, and it is on that basis I am support in3. It also seems to me that enabling this flag would call for more work on the part of editors building articles — who must use the flag when inserting the relevant template — and additional work for those editors who will have to insert the (missing) flag as part of cleanup efforts in the many articles with no linked instances of CID. This is really just another aspect of the simplicity factor: do we keep the current convention which requires only one simple instruction ("We use in3") and permits uniform use of all applicable templates, or do we adopt a new convention which requires more complex instructions ("We use CID, and we link the first instance per article or section depending on article length and individual editor philosophy on how often to link, and then we deal with the resultant edit wars and talk-page squabbles when a once-per-article and a once-per-instance editor clash") as well as calling for more complicated template usage ("don't forget to set the link flag the first time you use the template, but not on subsequent uses")? With that on the table, I don't see this as a life-or-death matter, and I'm interested to know whether the link=yes flag could be easily integrated into all of the Auto and Convert templates used for engine displacement without causing new problems. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC) To me, the entire point of auto templates is for simplicity, so I'm against creating more modifiers for it. That's pretty much what convert is for. I am a little confused as to to the rationale used here, though. Ok, I understand CID is a measurement use almost exclusively in the auto industry and, therefore, would need some explanation linked to it. If that's the reason not to use it, it's inconsistent to why lb•ft was used over ft·lbf since lb•ft is almost exclusively used in the auto industry and ft•lbf is the more universally accepted term for torque. Could you clarify the reason for the discrepancy? Again, it's these little inconsistencies that I really have a problem with. roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I disagree with the premise of your question; I think you'd have a difficult time backing your statement that ft·lb is more universally accepted than lb·ft. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I did some reading and found this passage regarding displine specific units of measurement in the MOS: Since some disciplines use units not approved by the BIPM, or may format them in a way that differs from BIPM-prescribed format, when such units are used by a clear majority of the sources relevant to those disciplines, articles should follow this (e.g., using cc in automotive articles and not cm3). Such use of non-standard units are always linked on first use. This would fall inline with what we've been saying about the relevant sources not using in3 and ft·lbf. We can use CID and lb·ft because they are what are used in automotive literature. And as Sable and the MOS stated, they are always linked on first use. Therefore, Sable232's solution is reasonable to all. Oilpanhands (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Oilpanhands, I'm glad to see you're making an effort to engage in this conversation in a less combative, less strident manner. However, your assertion "Sable232's solution is reasonable to all" is inappropriate; it is not for you to presume to speak for others. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Scheinwerfermann. The manner in which you conduct yourself toward me is amazing! You're amazing! You really are! You must be a lawyer or politician in the real world. Is anyone else seeing this? Oilpanhands (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I'm neither a politician nor a lawyer, but our respective professions IRL aren't relevant to our activities here on Wikipedia. All it would take to look coöperative instead would be a minor change to how you phrase things. Something like "the proposal seems reasonable to me" would've been fine, but when you assert that something is "reasonable to all", that's presumptive and verges on implied incivility. Let's all please keep some perspective in mind: each of us is smart enough to operate a computer and gravitate towards an encyclopædia; none of us is dumb, we just have differing opinions. This isn't the forum for a shouting match or catfight; that won't resolve the question at hand. At the moment it looks like there's no consensus to change the convention from in3 to CID, and that may remain the case for now. These kinds of things work like that sometimes. Or, consensus may develop to change to CID, or to do something else. Harranguing and presuming won't move the ball in any useful direction. You've quoted a completely relevant portion of the MOS, but take note of the word may (not "shall" or "will" or "must"). That means Sable232's proposal would comply with MOS provisions if that's the way consensus develops, but we are not required to adopt Sable232's proposal. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Scheinwerfermann, Oilpanhands did some good research and found info that directly pertains to the issue we're discussing. Please remain civil and try to assume good faith. Now in dealing with the inconsistencies I'm finding in the torque and displacement discussions, here's my issue. In reading the discussion below on torque values, lb•ft is widely used in the automotive industry and it is for that reason that we're going with it. That same rationale should be used here. CID or cu in is the more widely used term and it is for that reason, we should be going with them instead of in3. These are the only two options I see us going with: 1. CID (or cu in) and lb•ft 2. in3 and ft•lbf Any other mixture and the rationale is inconsistent. roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I'm leaning towards putting in a WP:RFC right now to open up this discussion to a whole lot of non-automotive editors. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC) No, the rationale isn't inconsistent. Ft•lbf isn't a valid automotive unit and not immediately recognizable; in3, CID, cu in, and lb•ft are. Ft•lbf was confusing to me when I first saw it, as I'm sure it would be to many readers from (North) America. We're contending that CID could cause the same problem. As for bringing in other editors, I'm not sure. Part of me says it would be beneficial to have people with a fresh perspective, but the other side wonders if they would really be much help if they're not familiar with the subject matter. I also have a question. If we fail to reach a consensus about changing a convention, shouldn't it stay as it is, not be argued about until enough people can be found who want to change it? I'm not saying that's what you're trying to do, Roguegeek, I'm only asking because I'm far from an expert in Wikipedia.--Flash176 (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

1 October

I'm happy we're not using ft•lbf. lb•ft is a much more common term in the industry. This being the case, I'm very puzzled as to why cu in or CID is being rejected here in favor of in3. We chose to use lb•ft because it's a common abbreviation for foot-pound force and is widely used in the auto industry. Makes complete sense. Reapplying this same rationale and I have this. I choose to use cu in because it's a common abbreviation for cubic inch (as per that article) and is widely used in the auto industry. The same could be said for CID since the cubic inch article clearly states this is an acceptable unit. So with that rationale reapplied to in3, I have this. Although in3 is a common abbreviation for cubic inch, it is not a widely used abbreviation in the auto industry and, therefore, do not choose to use it. Am I missing something? Do I have to draw it out? Ok, I will. in3 cu in CID common universal abbr. yes yes yes common auto abbr. no yes yes And yes Flash, it shouldn't change if a consensus can't be reached. Also keep in mind I'm not the person that started this conversation by any means and I'm definitely not the only one thinking this needs to get changed. Ultimately, I think there aren't enough editors looking at this issue right now and I don't think they need to be automotive related to understand it. If we find we can't reach a consensus, I think the only way we can deal with it is putting in the WP:RFC. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Roguegeek, I'm sorry you disagree with my position, but please don't let that colour your perceptions, eh? If you'll please review the whole thread, you'll see I have never questioned Oilpanhands' faith, only his tone, and that even when I object to his tone, I have carefully avoided attacking him personally. I disagree with his position, but I stand up for his right to it, and in fact I'm the one who pointed him here to join the consensus-building process, and I did so knowing he and I disagree. Moreover, just earlier today — as you can see — I specifically stated that he'd read and cited a wholly relevant section of WP:MOS, and agreed that it clears the way for using CID if consensus develops to do so. I would scarcely call that incivility or assuming bad faith; that's affirming his research and his participation in this discussion, not dismissing it. I agree with Flash176 regarding your assertion that if we retain in3, we must also use ft·lbf. I wrote about the difference between the two decisions close to the beginning of this thread; please review. Of course you may disagree with me — that's anyone's prerogative — but I just don't see any basis for tying CID vs. in3 to lb·ft vs. ft·lbf. Remember, the MOS says we may use subject-specific unit abbreviations, not that we must or mustn't do so, and lb·ft isn't jargon (unlike CID). I see benefits and drawbacks to an RFC here. It'll certainly bring more eyes and more viewpoints! On the other hand, is it necessarily a good thing to allow "a whole lot of non-automotive editors" (as you say) to determine consensus on an aspect of the automobile project? We may want to look (and maybe sit and have a cup of tea) before we leap. I don't see this as a battle royal with deep, wide, or dire implications to the quality of the automotive project. If we change to CID, the sun will still rise in the East the next morning in my world and I'll happily carry on editing alongside you all. That's a long way of saying there are probably more pressing issues than this one. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Roguegeek, when did cu in become a third choice? I thought we were arguing in3 vs CID? If we're considering cu in, I'll have to take some time to think about it because, to me, it and in3 have similar qualities. Also, your table says that CID is a common universal abbreviation, as opposed to just being automotive related. Where have you seen CID used that wasn't in relation to engines?--Flash176 (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Scheinwerfermann, when I mentioned what I did about the RFC above, I meant I'm looking for a larger group of unbiased editors to weigh in on the subject. From what I see, there's only a handful of editor that are about to choose an abbreviation that appears in a very large amount of articles. I think the responsibility of this goes beyond the 5 or so active editors here. Who knows, maybe everyone does agree with in3. At least then there will be a clear consensus which is something that I don't think is possible right now. Furthermore, it will allow me, personally, to see many different viewpoint for in<sup3 where, right now, I'm only seeing one. Flash176, I see cu in being mentioned several times during this discussion, although it isn't mentioned in the title, so I can see where the confusion comes from. For me, if it's a choice between any abbreviation for cubic inch, it should be cu in. It very much an appropriate abbreviation for cubic inch and is very much widely used in the industry as well which was what I was attempting to show above. ("350 cu in" shows "350+cu+in" 24,800 results, "350 CID" shows "350+CID" 130,000 results, "350 in3" shows "350+in³" 2,600 results) Is this an abbreviation both you and Scheinwerfermann would be more inclined to use over CID? How about over in3? Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC) I know that you asked these questions of Roguegeek, but if I may interject some comments. I think, I introduced cu in to show that it is much more common in everyday life than in3 and that cu in is used in some automotive writings, whereas in3 is not. My argument above was that in3 is not appropriate in these articles, in the same manner that mi/hr, lb/in2, mi/gal, or rev/min are not appropriate. CID tends to be used when cubic inches are actually being displaced, such as in an engine or small hydraulic pumps ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19]) as opposed to an electrical box's volume ([20]). I think, given the subject matter, CID would be the best choice for engines. Back to work I go... Oilpanhands (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Roguegeek, since cu in was always mentioned with other examples, I thought it was just that, an example of how we could write it, not a suggested alternative, but that's neither here nor there. You never did answer my question about saying CID is a common universal abbreviation and where you've seen it outside of automotive/engine writings? For me, the jury's still out on cu in vs. in3. I honestly believe part of the reason we don't see in3 more is because it's so hard to replicate on a computer, so writers tend to use something easier to write out. I'm also still considering your proposal for WP:RFC and am currently leaning towards it.--Flash176 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

cu in — a new consensus?

CID isn't, from my experience, a common abbreviation to describe general volume, but the cubic inch article clearly states it is a proper abbreviation when referring to displacement and displacement is what we're talking about here. But I've had a change in mind about CID altogether. I would prefer to use cu in over CID since it's a common abbreviation for general volume and engine displacement. Out of in3, CID, and cu in, cu in is the only abbreviation that is common for both general volume and engine displacement. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Yep, while stuck in traffic this afternoon I found myself coming to your same point of view. cu in is an unambiguous and obvious abbreviation for cubic inches. It is widely used in general and in the automotive sphere. It would require no linking, and so would not complicate editors' lives. It would accord reasonably well with our convention to use cc for engine displacement when we're not using litres. For me, cu in bridges the gap between the benefits and drawbacks of in3 and those of CID, and so I would support a convention change to use cu in. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Very cool. I'd like to hear some of the other editor's chime in on looking at cu in as a possible abbreviation for cubic inch it would seem to fulfill both general volume and engine displacement. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC) To repeat what I said on the 26th: That leaves us with the choice of most common abbreviation: "cu in" and the most automotive appropriate: "CID"! While I prefer "CID" in automotive contexts over "cu in", at least I can formulate an argument for using "cu in" in automotive writings. I can not do the same with in3. I still feel that in automotive articles CID is the most appropriate, however, cu in is a step in the right direction toward the more automotively appropriate. (automotively...yes I think I just invented a new word) Just thinking outloud... the space between cu and in...which is better? Thin spaced   191 cu in (3136 cc) 191 cu in (3136 cc) Oilpanhands (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC) I agree, let's go with cu in. I think it's a good compromise. IMO, thin space is a little bit better.--Flash176 (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Well, we're moving forward, and that's good. I prefer the non-breaking space (&nbѕp;) rather than the thin space (&thinѕp;), for a multitude of reasons. The thin space is not a non-breaking space, so it can and will make ugly orphans of our abbreviation: the cu will be at the end of one line, and the in at the start of another. Also, the thin space makes the abbreviation look too much like "cuin". Keep in mind, we have a hard enough time getting people to use &nbѕp; rather than just hitting the spacebar; the &thinѕp; markup is even less well known and we'll be forever going back and fixing it, even if we alter the applicable templates. Furthermore, we are already on tenuous ground with the convert templates, as we are already deviating from MOSNUM with this convention; if we go agitate for the convert templates to spit out our cu in with a thin space, it could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back and get all our hard work washed away. See for example here. Let's see if we have true consensus for cu in and not get unnecessarily fiddly with special spaces, eh? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Didn't know the thin space was breaking. In that case, the non-breaking space would be better to go with, if, as Scheinwerfermann said, we have a consensus to use cu in.--Flash176 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC) The thin space can be placed within the nobreak/no wrap template {{nowrap|cu in}}, but is the extra work worth it? Maybe not, but it might be on a template level like {{Auto CID}}. As I stated, just something to think about. Oilpanhands (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC) No, I don't think it's worth the extra effort just to make the space like 1 or 2 pixels narrower.--Flash176 (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC) I don't care much for cu in but if that's the consensus I support it. Only potential issue I can see is if the two extra characters cause a line to get too wide for the infobox (creating a line break) but I don't see that happening. --Sable232 (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Sable232, I'm in the CID camp with ya, but at least we'd be going from terrible to tolerable. So, I guess all that's left to do is to pull the trigger... Oilpanhands (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC) I pulled the trigger. Oilpanhands (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC) I corrected your   to   per the present consensus and removed POV editorial comments ("...rather than the automotive standard...") not appropriate in a conventions document. I'll now go and revise the applicable templates so they produce cu in rather than in3. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No cubic inches after 1980? (Discussion to 15 Oct)

While changing the convention at WP:AUN, I noticed that there is some type of prohibition against using cubic inches to describe engine displacement after 1980. Granted, many engines began to be "marketed" in litres after 1980, but the specifications gave and as I had shown in many of my examples above, continue to give displacements in cubic centimetres and cubic inches. To say that cubic inches shouldn't be used for displacement is very incorrect and this needs to be changed. Perhaps, what that note means to say or should say is that for engines that were once marketed based on their displacement in cubic inches and at a later date were marketed in litres should reflect this change in the naming of the engine. The example that comes to mind is Ford's 302. Which was later marketed as a 5.0 L (althougth the real displacement was closer to 4.9 L). And as shown by this example, sometimes the name of the engine differs from the volume being displaced. Oilpanhands (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Please re-read the convention, which does not say "no cubic inches after 1980". There's a template, Template:Auto Lrev, which addresses the issue you seem to be raising with engines engineered in English units but later redesignated with Metric units. The solution for the engine Ford fraudulently called the "5.0" is very simple: We are writing an encyclopædia, not a marketing brochure, so we report the engine's actual displacement: 4942 cc --> 4.9 litres. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC) I paraphrased that no cubic inches after 1980, it actually says, "We use cubic inches only for automobile engines originally so engineered and designated, such as pre-1980s American and pre-1970s Australian engines." This leads me to believe that only a displacement of 4942 cc should be used and not 4942 cc (302 cu in). A more up-to-date example would be "the vortec 5.3 L has a displacement of 5328 cc (325 cu in)..." My take on the passage is that it prohibits the (325 cu in) for some reason. Oilpanhands (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Pre-1980s is not the same as 1980. The Ford 302 was originally engineered and designated in cubic inches, which is why it is appropriate to give both units. The "for some reason" why it is inappropriate to call out the cubic-inch displacement of the 5.3 L Vortec engine is that it was never engineered or designated in cubic inches. The convention seems quite clear on the matter...perhaps you do understand it and just don't agree with it? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Inappropriate--that's debatable. We have to look at who says it's inappropriate. A rule on wikipedia or General Motors, Car & Drive, and Edmunds? Sources favour the use. Therefore, the convention seems ill conceived. Oilpanhands (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Well, yeah, everything's debatable, if someone comes along who wants to debate whatever it is we're calling debatable, eh! :-) —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC) The point is that this prohibition in note 2 needs to be removed as it is not in tune with current sources. Nowhere is there an argument for having this prohibition on this part of wikipedia. It's just there. This would be best left out of this convention. Oilpanhands (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Okay, let's see if your sources are both typical and uniform. You found a recent GM media release specification database which gave engine displacement in cubic inches. Can you find one from...Mazda? VW? Honda, Subaru, Toyota, Volvo, Saab, Nissan, Chrysler, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Citroën, Porsche, Renault, Peugeot, Skoda, Lada, Seat, Fiat, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Bentley, Land Rover, or Holden? I don't really expect you to go out and find anything even close to an answer for all those automakers, I'm just pointing out that GM and Chrysler are not the world, nor is Car and Driver nor Edmund's...but most importantly, we are global here; the U.S. and its auto market are not the world. So we do need to get some idea of how typical your sources are of current global practise. I am pretty sure they aren't very typical at all; Americans don't even buy their Coca-Cola in pints or quarts any more; they buy 1-, 1.5-, 2-, or (occasionally) 3-litre bottles. The exception is their 12-ounce can, which is not metric because it was standardised long ago and there is presently no reason to spend the money to change. Which is exactly how it worked in the American auto industry: Engines originally engineered and designated in cubic inches were simply re-designated with metric units, not reëngineered. So we have two designations for that kind of engine — the 318 (5.2), the 305 (5.0), the 231 (3.8), etc. But those engines' next-generation replacements were originally engineered and designated in only metric units. Engines from Europe, Asia, and South America have been engineered, designated, marketed, and written about only in metric units in the U.S. market for many decades; my "Can you find it for somebody else's cars?" question applies to road tests, too. If a decent sample of general practise shows I'm wrong and just haven't noticed that cubic inch displacement is generally and customarily given, then I'll support your position. Without that, I definitely oppose it. That in itself doesn't mean anything — Wikipedia is not a democracy; we're not voting on the matter here. But right now I believe the convention you object to is valid and proper, so there is (at the moment) no consensus to remove it — it needs to stay for now. Please take a look back at the previous discussion (in3 vs. CID) and see how the consensus-development process works; that was a near-textbook example of it. A disagreement, debate and discussion with no consensus reached, a new option proposed and discussed, consensus reached. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Aren't we experiencing a storm in a teacup? Marketing is also important, and I guess it doesn't hurt to refer to both displacements for engines designed in in3, but later marketed in cc. So, in effect I'd simply refer to it the first time as "Ford's older 302 in3 block, now markered as 5.0 L". I'd however refer it further in the article as a "5.0", giving precedence to official marketing. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Yes, I think we are experiencing a teacup storm. I don't think the convention as it presently stands needs further changes. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Coca-Cola shown in 8oz, 12oz, 20oz, 24oz, and 2L packages. No storms, no assumptions, just facts. Of some of the brands that Schinwerferrmann listed, many of them do list cubic inches when they list displacement in their publications and tech specs sheets and some did not list displacement at all. The ones that listed cubic inches were: VW, Volvo, Nissan, BMW, Audi, Ferrari, and Land Rover. I didn't include Ford, GM, or Chrysler because I've already shown above that those manufacturers include cubic inches when they list displacement values. I would think that that proves to be a decent sample. To be fair, Bentley, Lamborghini, Mercedes, Honda only listed cc for displacement values. Other automakers did not publish displacement values. Scheinwerfermann, your assumptions lead me to take a trip to the store today and buy some Coke. The only metric package that Coca-Cola is sold in is a 2-litre bottle. Coke is sold in 8 oz glass bottles and cans*, 12 oz glass bottles, plastic bottles*, and as you pointed out--cans, 20 oz and 24 oz plastic bottles and as noted a 2 litre bottle. I took a picture of what I bought. (*=I didn't buy these because they were in multi packs). As someone, (Bill Cosby?), once said, "Have a Coke and smile" :) and I am. Just like someone's height and weight, displacement is a measurement and for encyclopedic reasons, measurements should be converted between the systems. To prohibit a measurement that is used in the literature demonstrates a preconceived bias. As shown, this prohibition should be removed. Oilpanhands (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Interesting findings on your local Coke bottles. Perhaps it's a bottler-by-bottler thing; I've found metric bottles as described in various U.S. locations. I do note with some amusement that your VW link does list English-unit engine displacement...in in3, the unit abbreviation you claimed is absolutely not used in the automotive field. I also note that the Audi link does not appear to list anything but litres — 5.2 of them — and most of all, I notice all of the links you provided are to U.S.-market websites. The U.S. is not the world, and we are an international encyclopædia, so...can you please show us some current English-unit displacement expressions anywhere else in the world? For now, I remain unconvinced that the convention should change, but perhaps other voices will weigh in with different perspectives. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC) That's funny that the VW link uses in3. I've been following this conversation, but haven't chimed in partly because I don't understand what is being argued. Does the convention say that after the 80's, cu in is never used and we only use L/cc or just that after the 80's the format is L/cu in and not cu in/L?--Flash176 (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC) The former: No cubic inch displacement post-'80s. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Scheinwerfermann, you wanted examples and you'd support my position--I gave examples. Now the examples are not good enough for you because they're from the US. In the audi example, you must click on Detailed Specs. Also, here's a similar Audi website, but from Canada; again using '318 cu in'. And Jeep Canada, and Land Rover Canada. You claimed Coke was sold only in metric containers in the US except for the 12oz can, well a picture is worth a 1,000 words on that one. You're basically saying that this is an international encyclopedia and the USA is not counted toward that. Even for vehicles that are never sold in the US, we still use inches, mph, pounds and US & imperial gallons; don't we? In clickin' around, I've found that this prohibition is widely disregarded (no I'm not providing links). The argument for this prohibition is quickly coming down to, 'it should stay because I like it and don't like that' and is not based on facts and common courtesy. This prohibition blatantly doesn't belong. Oilpanhands (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Ahh, I see. I didn't want to get back in this discussion because I'm tired of the cubic inches argument, but since you asked, I do have to agree with Oilpanhands. You're right, Scheinwerfermann, that the US isn't the world, but it does make up a significant percentage. I suck at searching, so I couldn't find any lists showing the number of cars per country, but I did find Wikipedia's List of countries by vehicles per capita. It shows the US at the top with quite a few more vehicles than the next highest country. Also, in the US, cubic inches as a unit of displacement isn't dead yet. A lot of people still compare engine size by cu in instead of liters. For instance, when designing the third generation Dodge Viper, the lead person stated he wanted the car to displace 500 cubic inches and have 500 hp & tq. Because of the prolific use of cars in the United States and the continued use of cu in here, I support having cu in as an alternative secondary measurement.--Flash176 (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Gee, I am starting to fear for the teacup... I wasn't an active part of the cubic inch discussion, but did we actually ban in3? I believe it is OK or even advisable to have units "translated" one way or another in the infobox, to help readers accustomed to another measurement system get the idea. That said, I think in infoboxes, we just list engines more by what they are called than their technical characteristics, i.e. a list of "1.6 I4, 2.0 I4, 2.5 V6" would suffice. in the article, as I said, I would explain that an engine referred by manufacturer's marketing as "5.0 L" was initially designed as "302 CID" or something and be done with that. There is no controversy, is there? PrinceGloria (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC) No, the name of the engine is the name of the engine and it shouldn't be changed. However, the name of the engine and the measurement of the engine's displacement are two different things. The current displacement prohibition means that cubic inches are not allowed in the following sentence: The 5.4 L Triton has a displacement of 5,403 cc (330 cu in). Here's an example from an auto parts supplier in Canada, where they additionally describe engine size in cubic inches (ci). In the US, NAPA does the same thing but uses CID. Oilpanhands (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Oilpanhands, the Canadian and U.S. auto markets have been essentially one since 1967. Sure, Canada is an officially metric country...and yet recipes and stoves are in Fahrenheit degrees, because the Canadian and U.S. appliance markets are essentially one, too. Please can you think about the spirit of what's being asked, and find some recent cubic inch displacements from somewhere other than the American market? It's not that the American market "doesn't count" (I never said that — those are your words; please keep them out of my mouth, thanks), it's just that what you see in your particular corner of the world is not standard international practise, and so far you haven't come up with anything better than "is too!". We don't call out the furlongs-per-fortnight equivalent of km/h, either. ;-) PrinceGloria, yes, it seems we have banned in3, based in significant part on Oilpanhands' assertions (see collapsed sections of this discussion above) that it is not used in the auto field...which is what makes it kind of interesting that his own VW-of-America link from yesterday uses in3. I still don't agree with Oilpanhands that we ought to (let alone "must", "need to", etc.) change the existing convention with respect to which engines will and won't be described in terms of cubic inch displacement. It'll be interesting to see what consensus develops, if one develops. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Can we boil this back down to a discussion on the convention in question? What's the convention for in the first place? Is it meant for articles on engines? On automobiles? Both? The convention as it sits is rather unclear. I don't see the point in having it in the first place; I don't see how having a restriction on what a unit can be converted to making much sense at all. We add metric bore and stroke measurements for engines that were not designed as such, this isn't all that different. I can find no logic in forbidding the phrase "The 3.6 L CD36TH had a bore of ... for a displacement of 3589 cc (219 cu in).--Sable232 (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Sable232, That's what I'm talking about. Thank you Scheinwerfermann, so one site out of how many has used in3 and this is what you're running up the flag pole as "I gottcha"...please. Someone has already shown us a google search comparison. First you asked for a decent sample of automakers that use cubic inches to describe displacement values and you interwove how Coca-Cola is no longer available in non-metric sizes other than 12 oz cans in the US. I supplied you with a decent sample of automakers that do use cubic inches to describe displacement and I disproved your assumptions about Coke. Then, not being satisfied, you won't accept these samples because you don't like that they are all US market websites. Therefore, I threw in a couple of Canadian websites. Now, you still don't like it and won't accept this because you claim that the US and Canada are the same market--even through they are very different. N'est pas? Now, you demand samples from other parts of the world knowing full-well that in many countries the use of non-SI/metric units is prohibited and there would never be any example of cubic inches, let alone inches, gallons, or miles per hour either. By this flawed logic, Canada & the US are in a corner of the world that doesn't adhere to your standard international practise and therefore we should also ban the use of inches, pounds, gallons, and the like because the rest of the world doesn't use them. I, with your help and many examples, have shown why this is a bias part of the convention against a large part of the English-speaking world and your only defence of this is an 'I don't like it because the rest of the world doesn't do it like this' type of excuse. And no one uses furlongs-per-fortnight, so we'll skip that. Oilpanhands (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Just popping in to make the point that the cubic inch as a unit of engine displacement is mostly deprecated in Canada, now the domain of old fogies and yankee immigrants who never learned metric. Most Canadians haven't a clue how big a cubic inch is whatsoever. Anyway, pointless discussions like this are why I rarely contribute to this bureaucratic mess of a project anymore. Wheeeeeeee!!! --93JC (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Funny, because I grew up in the small city of Belleville, Ontario and am a product of the Hastings and Prince Albert School District (Go Chargers!). I certainly hope 30-ish is not a new designation for an old fogie.  :) Oilpanhands (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Having taken a couple days off from this discussion to think it over, I've decided my objection is more about oilpanhands' tone and tactics in this debate than it is about the subject of the debate itself. Oilpanhands, you have repeatedly made it quite challenging for me to assume your good faith. Nevertheless, my opinion of your behaviour does not constitute grounds for objecting to the inclusion of cubic inch displacement even for engines not originally so engineered and marketed, and we do universally give unit conversions for other (linear) measurements, so I am dropping that objection. However, I do not support the removal of note #2. Instead, let us improve the convention so that it contains uniform provisions for the use and priority of actual and advertised engine displacement. I propose that we adopt the following stipulations in WP:AUN: We express the metric displacement before the cubic inch displacement, except when discussing engines originally engineered, designated, and marketed in cubic inches, such as pre-1980s American and pre-1970s Australian engines. For engines originally engineered and designated in cubic inches but later given metric designations, use Template:Auto Lrev. Where conflict exists between the actual and advertised displacement of an engine, we treat the advertised displacement as a part of the engine's designation or name, placing it in italics or boldface as appropriate, and we also express the actual displacement. Example: The Ford 5.0 Windsor 4.9 L (302 cu in) engine —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Sir, I would take issue with your behaviour in this discussion at length, but this is not the forum to discuss your feelings or your behaviour--you may do so on my talk page/your talk page, where ever. I have no disagreement with your first bullet. It sounds fair; which is all that one can ask for. "The 6.1-Litre HEMI V-8 has a displacement of 6059 cc (370 cu in)..." I think the second may need a small adjustment in wording, but I think it is almost there.Oilpanhands (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC) What adjustment do you have in mind for the second point? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We would like to place the following bullet points into the convention:

• We express the metric displacement before the cubic inch displacement, except when discussing engines originally engineered, designated, and marketed in cubic inches, such as pre-1980s American and pre-1970s Australian engines. For engines originally engineered and designated in cubic inches but later given metric designations, use Template:Auto Lrev.

• Where conflict exists between the actual and advertised displacement of an engine, we treat the advertised displacement as a part of the engine's designation or name, placing it in italics or boldface as appropriate, and we also express the actual displacement. Example: The Ford 5.0 Windsor 4.9 L (4942 cc, 302 cu in) engine. Similarly, the Chevy Turbo-Jet 400 402 cu in (6.6 L) engine...

Are there any objections? Oilpanhands (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarification: the "we" referred to by Oilpanhands is him and me. We discussed and tuned the wording of the bullet points in private discussion. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There weren't any objections or further questions, so I've updated the convention. Oilpanhands (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ft-lbf

Since the three of us are in agreement for fixing this to ft-lb/lb-ft, I figured it would be best to start a new section. Wikipedia's the only place I've ever seen this and I work in the auto industry. The accepted format is either lb-ft or ft-lb, not ft-lbf.--Flash176 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be completely accurate, the correct form is lb·ft (note centre dot, not dash or slash or period or periods), a common and debatably acceptable alternative is ft·lb, and anything else is flatly not correct. The previous discussion is at WP:lbft; please read it and let's take it up from there. It's to be hoped we'll have consensus to add lb·ft as the correct English torque unit to WP:AUN. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I find that lb·ft and ft·lb are both used, although the former seems to be somewhat more common. For what it's worth, SI puts the unit of force first, then the unit of length (Newton-meter/metre). Can't say if that has all that much bearing on this, but it's worth pointing out. --Sable232 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Crap, I didn't realize I missed this discussion so recently. In regards to what Lightmouse was saying previously about "lbf" being universal, I disagree. I live in the US, and while I'm not familiar with how it is in other countries, ft-lbf is never user here in public. In fact, the first time I saw it on Wikipedia, I thought that it was a typo. Scheinwerfermann, in addition to your examples of where lb-ft is used, it's also used in calculating one of the forces of bullets when fired. As for ft-lb or lb-ft, I slightly prefer ft-lb for no special reason, but I have no issues with making lb-ft the default way if that's the standard as you say. Anything but ft-lbf.--Flash176 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I also had never seen ft-lbf until I read it on Wikipedia. Road & Track uses lb-ft. swaq 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the consensus then and now is in favor of doing away with "lbf", I think it's ok for us to go ahead and change it. Does this need to be the standard like it was before or should it go behind Nm in parentheses? Do any countries outside of North America use lb-ft?

BTW, Scheinwerfermann, all of the Wikipedia pages I'm able to find say foot-pound instead of pound feet. Are you sure that lb-ft is correct and not just a variation?--Flash176 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If we are gonna use this system it needs to be know its same in all countries, then we could also ask for change to convert:template maybe own variation to automobile articles, what about other conversions, the convention page says to use eg. 2300 mm instead 2,300 (and 2345 cc (2,345 cc) mm used in convert template, should we change the convention or ask also change for these? there might be some others aswell... I think we should get rid of auto templates and use general convert templates, if we can get such templates we are needing, there is no point to have two different templates --— Typ932^{T | C}  19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Flash176, the convention is to use both Metric and English units. Which one comes before the other is contextual; generally we give priority according to the market and timeframe in question. So a 1966 Plymouth Valiant is said to have come with a 170 cu in (2.8 L) slant-6 engine producing {{as standard equipment, while a 1999 Jeep Cherokee is said to have come with a {{Auto L|4.0}} straight-6 engine as standard. It gets to be less clear-cut in recent years in the US market; engineering and specifications are all metric, but common nomenclature is still English. So far there hasn't been a big war over the order of units; articles on US-only vehicles (e.g. Dodge Ram) don't spur many protests in favour of metric priority, while articles on international vehicles (e.g. Volkswagen Golf) prioritise metrics and may not even consistently show English units. As a general rule of thumb, prioritise the units in which vehicles and components (e.g. engines) originally engineered and marketed. It's not perfect, but it's generally workable.

Lb·ft is the most correct order of expression. Ft·lb is a widely-understood and generally accepted but colloquial variant. This is per just about every one of the (many) physics texts I've seen, which teach that torque is the product of the force times the length of the lever arm, not the other way round. It's true that you can find many instances of ft·lb (or ft-lb, or ft/lb, or ft. lb., etc.) on various Wikipedia pages. That doesn't imply correctness or accuracy; remember, the most common developmental stage of Wikipedia articles is "unfinished"! In any event, we've already got several pieces of good quality reliable support for lb·ft, in this and previous discussions on the topic.

Typ932, it's a little difficult to tell exactly what-all you're saying and asking, since there are a lot of thoughts kind of jumbled together and you seem to be missing some words. There are definitely convention issues beyond torque units, but in this conversation, we're discussing torque units. Let's solve one problem at a time. Eliminating the Auto templates and just using the Convert templates would definitely not solve any problems. In fact, doing so would create significant problems. To be more exact, it would re-introduce the problems solved by the creation of the Auto templates in the first place. Please re-read WP:lbft to see a good illustration of what I mean. This problem will not go away by our proceeding with consensus to use lb·ft rather than ft·lbf in automotive articles, but it will be diminished by the existence of templates like Template:Auto lbft. If we were to use your suggestion, we'd have the impossible task of convincing the whole of Wikipedia to change from ft·lbf to lb·ft. We might be right (probably not; there are probably subjects in which ft·lbf is correct), we might have a mountain of evidence to support our position, but it would still simply never happen. The best we can hope for is two conversion protocols existing harmoniously, and that is why we have the Auto templates. Rather than worry about the nonproblem of the Auto templates' existence, we ought to focus our effort on real problems like how to deal with Lightmouse (talk · contribs)' bots which do not distinguish between automotive and non-automotive articles, and are therefore likely to steamroll right over our lb·ft consensus.

At this point, I really don't think there's anything standing in the way of our adding a convention on English torque units. The relevant templates were modified long ago, and don't seem to have generated complaints. If there are no new sound/supported arguments to the contrary in the next half day or so, I'll go ahead and add the convention. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Car and Driver, Automobile Magazine, and Edmunds all use lb-ft or pound-feet. I support the use of lb·ft. I could ask my wife for her opinion (she graduated in physics), but she doesn't like Imperial units. swaq 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Scheinwerfermann, I just wasn't sure if on WP:AUN the lb-ft needed to go before or after N-m. It doesn't matter to me either way, I just wasn't sure if someone would object if I inserted lb-ft in what was perceived as being the wrong spot.--Flash176 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Convention lb·ft added

I have specified lb·ft as the correct English torque unit in WP:AUN. While I was in there, I took the opportunity to tidy up the convention and make it a little clearer, more explicit, and more readable. Let us hope this improves the quality of articles within this project. At the very least it gives us uniform provisions for removing ft·lbf from articles where we may find it. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Automobile

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New displacement template (Auto Lrev)

Flash176 (talk · contribs) and I noticed the other day an interesting problem with Template:Auto L: it doesn't work well for engines originally engineered and designated in cubic inches and later redesignated in litres. The template was spitting out 317 in³ rather than 318 in³ for the Chrysler 5.2, for example. This is due to rounding employed in the selection of the litre designation. I played around with the litre conversion factor and sure enough, there's no factor that can be used that'll make all engines convert correctly. When I bent the conversion factor to make the 318 convert correctly, it broke the Ford 351. When I fixed the 351, the 318 broke again. (I actually ran a couple dozen known conversions through it; the 318 and 351 are only examples). Clearly that approach wasn't going to work. Besides, fudging conversion factors is an ugly way to do things anyhow. I took a look at Template:Auto L and Template:Auto CID and devised a solution: I've created a new template Template:Auto Lrev. This is specifically to correctly display the displacement of engines engineered in cubic inches, but later redesignated in litres, and for articles about American vehicles sold in metric markets back in America's cubic-inch days. It's essentially the Template:Auto CID template with inverted output. You input the known cubic inch displacement of the litre-designated engine, and you get a correctly-converted, litres-first, dual-units display like this:

{{Auto Lrev|318}} yields 5.2 L (318 cu in)

I've deployed this template in Dodge Ram and a few other articles, and it seems to work perfectly, but please report any faults you may find. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

SSC Aero

Someone smarter than me edit the boxout, the SSC Aero is not rear engine. Wikipedia is full of noobs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor sponge (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was vandalized yesterday and no one caught it. I have fixed it now. Insulting Wikipedia editors is unlikely to garner support. By the way, please sign your comments with ~~~~. swaq 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

rpm/RPM

Currently there's no convention as to whether or not RPM should be capitalized. Pretty much all of the articles I come across have it spelled rpm, however, outside of Wikipedia, most, if not all, places that I'm aware of capitalize the initials. Do you think that there should be a convention as to the preferred spelling of RPM? Personally, I think it should always be capitalized since that seems to be the standard from what I've seen.--Flash176 (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, we probably ought to devise an uppercase/lowercase convention for mph (MPH), mpg (MPG), and so forth. I can't agree with a preference for uppercase based on your anecdotal observations. Grammar authorities seem to agree that noun abbreviations (NHTSA, RDA, IQ, THC, UFO, HIV, and so forth) get uppercase, while adverbial abbreviations (rpm, mpg, mph, and the regionally-preferred kph) get lowercase. See here, here, here, here, here (search page for rpm), here (search page for rpm), here (search page for mph), here (search for mph), and here (search mpg) for example. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Scheinwerfermann says above, particularly about anecdotal evidence: as it happens, an example of the danger of this kind of evidence is that I'm sure I've seen the opposite (lower case) much more often. Above all, this is one of those issues where we should consult or develop the Wikipedia manual of style, and definitely not have our own guideline just within this project. – Kieran T ^(talk) 17:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you've half-way convinced me, enough that I'll support a lower case convention. I do think we need to implement a convention for the above-mentioned initials.--Flash176 (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We've got support for lowercase over at MoS. I'll go ahead and add the convention. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There should have never even been a debate on this in the first place. WP:MOS always supersedes other conventions. It doesn't matter if it comes from an individual user or an entire WikiProject, WP:MOS is god as far as Wikipedia is concerned. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Facelift categories

There are some new categories made for facelifts see eg. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:2007_facelifts, what do you think, do we need these kind of categories?. IMO vehicles introduced in year xxxx category could be used for this. --— Typ932^{T | C}  17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, it looks to me like an answer looking for a question. The articles will say if the car has had a facelift and I have no interest in finding out, say, what cars received facelifts in 2004.--Flash176 (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone familiar with system could nominate them for deletion, if we reach consensus here... --— Typ932^{T | C}  18:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the person who is doing this has already added at least one incorrect category, as the 2004 Corolla never received a facelift.--Flash176 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: completely useless. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete facelifts on cars are a part of the industry, however, a category for faclifted cars would be a waste of time, because every car gets a facelift just about every two years, and how do we decide what constitutes a facelift and what doesn't. That soulds like an edit war just waiting to happen. What about research efforts to classift facelifts for cars of the past, such as the '55-'57 Chevy Bel-Air, or the Ford Mustang of the '60s. This category needs to go away.(Regushee (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

• Comment most of the categories currently in auto articles seem pointless. I can't imagine anyone having any use for any of the extended lists of articles beyond cars from a certain brand or vehicles of a certain type. I'd delete this, but current precedent for categories would seem to suggest that we keep it. IFCAR (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IFCAR actually has a point here. Really how important is Category:Sedans et cetera? Most cars are not exclusively sedans, so when you go to an article in this category (for example Audi A4) you often get an article about a vehicles available in three body styles. Another category that kind of baffles me is Category:Australian cars. How do you determine whether a car is Australian. The Ford Laser was made in Australia until 1994, but it was a Japanese design. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Added it Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 23, dont know if I have to put every category to deletion or is the main cat enough --— Typ932^{T | C}  07:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The title is also too non-specific to be of any use as it just says Facelift. Facelifts of what? Should ageing Hollywood stars also appear? Malcolma (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Chevrolet Cavalier, Malibu & Impala Need Subcategories

On the Wikimedia Commons, we have got to do subcategories for those three aging Chevrolet cars (the Cavalier is discontinued). Cavalier has got 82 photos, Malibu with 83 & Impala with 136. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are you seeing all these pictures at? I count 10 Cavalier, 12 Malibu, and 29 Impala pictures in the articles.--Flash176 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As he said: on Wikimedia commons. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I also think we need a standard for category names. Here is a varying list of how categories appear over at the Commons.

• Commons:Category:Honda CR-V (1st generation): generation in parentheses.
• Commons:Category:Ford Taurus (1985–1991): production years in parentheses.
• Commons:Category:Subaru Outback III: generation written in Roman numerals without parentheses.
• Commons:Category:Toyota Camry XV40: generation code written without parentheses.
• Commons:Category:Holden VE Commodore: model code written without parentheses in between make and model fields.
• Commons:Category:Honda Accord (2007, North America): year of introduction and market in parentheses.
• Commons:Category:GMT911: stand-alone model code, without make and model fields.
• Commons:Category:Lancer Mk2: model and generation (as Mk), without make.

As can be seen the standards are quite chaotic. While it is not suitable for every car to be labeled the same, I think some sort of standard should be set. Both the make and model should be present, and the model code should be used in favour of "generation". OSX (talk • contributions) 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors on the Commons do not tend to recognize decisions made on a Wikipedia, so this is probably the wrong place to have this discussion. IFCAR (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I also count the Commons:Category:Toyota Highlander Hybrid category for hybrid vehicles. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Power templates TfD

FYI, {{Auto bhp}}, {{Auto Nm}}, {{Auto PS}} and {{Auto ihp}} are up for deletion. Discussion here. DH85868993 (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I originally nominated these, but have since retracted the nomination. roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ford Thunderbird

Take a look at the section headings. I've heard "Aero-Bird" before, and I can see where "Torino Bird" comes from. However, a lot of the rest is questionable ("Birds of a Feather?" What?) and it is all unsourced. Even if it were sourced and notable, I doubt it belongs in the section headings anyway.

I would simply remove it all, but I'm not thinking I can deal with the fanboys alone on this one.

Thoughts? --Sable232 (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bullet Bird is definitely used a lot, and I've heard Glamour, Retro, and possibly Aero before, but some names, specifically the Birds of a Feather, sound arbitrary.--Flash176 (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

EDIT - After a quick search, the only site I found specifically referring to the '77-'79 T-Birds as Birds of a Feather was this site, which was written on August 20, 2008, so I suspect she used the Wikipedia article as a source. Every other reference I see to "Birds of a Feather" in regards to the T-bird is a picture of 2 or more T-birds or clubs/owners groups.--Flash176 (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Gone. All of them. Whether or not anyone has heard this one or that one, or seen the other one "used a lot", this is an encyclopædia, not a misty-eyed retrospective or an enthusiast website, and cutesy nicknames have no place in it unless they can be thoroughly and reliably sourced. Any fanboys decide to whine about it, I've got your back. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What's your background?

Perhaps this is a bad idea, and if so, I apologize, but I thought maybe it might help us understand each others' viewpoints a little better if we knew what countries the other project members were from and our backgrounds.

I'm from America, born and raised, specifically Tennessee. I've always been an automotive enthusiast and attended WyoTech where I learned how to work on all the mechanical components of vehicles as well as design and build frames/roll cages and high performance engines. I received an associate's degree in automotive repair and business management and began working as a mechanic where I worked on cars sold by all the major companies in the US. Right now I'm going back to school to get degree in mechanical engineering and hope to either get a job designing trophy trucks or as a DSS agent after I graduate.

Again, I'm not trying to be nosey or anything, I just thought knowing each others' experience with cars might help us understand each other a little bit better.--Flash176 (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the United States and have been learning as much as I can about cars for fun over the last fourteen years or so. I've been subscribed to Road & Track for over eleven years, as well as some other automotive magazines. I like doing things myself so I've been trying to teach myself to do my own car work. I enjoy driving. My occupation is not related to cars. swaq 02:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm from Cape Town and pretty much a car enthusiast. I got into cars by watching Top Gear, and always browse the South African motoring websites for the latest news and launches. My interest lies more in European and Japanese cars, American cars having not featured much in our country until recently. I drive a Honda S2000 if that makes me seem more interesting :) I'm always on the lookout for poor articles (and there are plenty!) which could do with a rewrite. I like clearing out an article almost in its entirety and rewriting it from scratch as a coherent piece (examples on my user page). I will most likely annoy people by doing this but tough, I don't think my rewrites have degraded the quality of any article that I've touched. I'm currently chipping away at convertible, having just merged about 6 articles together. I'm STRUGGLING to find references in order to write a coherent History section. Work commitments means I edit FAR less than I used to a couple of years ago, although I do try to comment on Talk pages now and then. Zunaid 08:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A car nut from North Europe, always been intrested of different cars, I read lots of magazines, follow Tv shows etc. Personally intrested about Italian cars but dont dislike any brand. I ll try to make english wikipedia more international with different conversions, also trying to clean nonsense, POVs and other nonwikipedia stuff. Also sourcing is one of main intrested here, there are lost of articles without any sources. I want also that every details are right so no hp is enough I want to know the standard what its represents to make comparison easier --— Typ932^{T | C}  10:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely by looking at someone's user page you can see where he/she is coming from to the extent he/she wants you to know. And if you then look at their contributions you get a pretty sufficient understanding. Or? But since you, Flash176, sort of asked ... I started following matters motoris/zed in English language motor magazines in the 1960s, notably Motor, Car (possibly Small Car back then) and Car and Driver (a couple of months in arrears, but the European and US market were more separated back then so the delay didn't much matter). Although (British) English remains my mother tongue, I have considerable experience of working also in American (English) and try, where possible, to restrict myself to words that work in both languages. Otherwise it's a question of following the rules and / or in cases of residual doubt figuring out which version of English is most likely to be the mother tongue version for the majority of readers for a given entry. I've also acquired a reasonable working knowledge of a few other western European languages - enough to understand the motor magazines (especially the pictures and data tables) though probably not enough to contribute poly-clausal sentences to non anglophone wiki-entries. I drive, much of the time, a Seat Toledo TDI which is (or in 2001 when I got this one was) a sort of cut price Golf IV with a smidgeon more style and firmer dampers: a sort of cautious compromise between sensible and self indulgent. I don't think they sell it in the US and even in the UK I read that the used car market doesn't see enough Toledos to 'understand' them which correlates with lousy residuals and a suspicion I will keep it for ever. I also keep a 1991 petrol engined VW Polo for when the diesel runs out and an old Toyota mpv for family reasons. My contributions on the wiki car entries have concentrated perceived gaps that I am relatively competent/capable to/of fill(ing) - ie on translating entries from French and German wiki on cars that don't appear, otherwise, to have much info in English wiki. I've also taken to uploading images, trying to concentrating on older images of older cars, since most folks seem to concentrate on newer images of newer cars, and I am sufficiently barking to have been photographing unusual cars in the street since several decades before anyone had heard of wikipedia.

I follow the discussions on this page with interest and generally resist the temptation to jump in with both flippers. As a general comment, we sometimes seem to confuse standardisation with quality. Well, certainly there is an overlap. But I think quality is more important than standardisation. I think that if you try to over-standardize you will lose quality in the process of editing out bits that don't conform. The other problem with standarisation, is that the further you attempt it, the more you will fail. Either that, or you will reduce the number of your active contributors to approximately one, and your entries will become very dull and the information they impart very restricted. I am not opposed to standardisation. Intellgently applied, it enhances communication and undertanding, and that's presumably core to what we're about. But not at the expense of intelligence and quality. Quality is more important. Getting repetitive, now...Charles01 (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll play. It's kind nice seeing where everyone comes from and why they edit here. Insight never sucks. Been living in Southern California all my life. Professionally, I currently work for the largest automotive photography studio in the world as a production manager, senior digital media specialist, and product specialist. Worked in the automotive industry for over 10 years and have driven over 5500 different vehicles within that time. Member of the Motor Press Guild. Personally, I'm an avid motorcyclist, auto-geek, and photographer specializing in panorama photography. Currently own two Camaros (come from a big Camaro family), a Honda CBR600RR, Suzuki GS500E, and just bought a Honda S2000. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a California native out of beautiful Santa Cruz, California. After highschool, I spent a year lounging around UCSC because they wouldn't let me into Stanford, some how I managed to get good enough grades to transfer and began studying mechanical engineering and planned on entering the world of automotive engineering. Three years later I'm still here and have fallen all the way down the engineering ladder, stopping for a time in the world of product design finally landing in the world of studio art focusing on photo and planning to graduate this coming June. Photo has always been a hobby and I have worked in the photo lab as a lab tech, but now it looks like it may end up being my career and I can't complain. I've come to realize that while I am interested in the engineering of vehicles, I really don't care for actually doing the calculations and modeling myself. Despite dropping my aspirations of automotive engineering I still can't get enough of cars, currently I have a Mazda 6 (hey at least its a 5-speed) as my daily driver and a Porsche 944 Turbo that I pull out on the weekends. I might be selling the Porsche in the next year or so as I have my eyes on an Alfa Romeo GTV and with the art major I probably wont have the money for the Ferrari 308. --Leivick (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Too Much Clutter?

I was looking for articles to fix/add templates to and went into the Jeep Commander. User WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat has rigged the infobox so that you can view engine specs. I was going to remove it to make it like all other infoboxes, but decided it was unique enough to post in here to get your opinions. Thoughts?--Flash176 (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the extra content is unique, and I also agree with you that it overloads the infobox, which most of us agree in general is perpetually on the verge of being overstuffed even in standard form. Too, there are problems with the extra info. Per convention, we state an engine's displacement in cubic inches only if the engine was originally designed and marketed that way, and even if that were the case for any of the engines in the Commander — which it is not — the litre displacement would come first. What's more, engines do not get any particular fuel mileage; vehicles do. And we've already discussed (to death) the question of fuel economy in infoboxes and decided against it. The entire article doesn't need to — and shouldn't — be crammed into the infobox; let's keep the infoboxes in line with the content and formatting standards as they've evolved. IMO, of course. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What is more, WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat (talk · contribs) seems to be disregarding other conventions as well, as evident from his contribs. It looks like an advisory note on his talk page is in order. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the show/hide would work very well in dealing with our cluttered infoboxes. We should use it for dimensions. IFCAR (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If we were to make a new category, "Dimensions", and put height, length, wheelbase, curb weight, etc. into it, then yes, that could be beneficial to the infobox - especially on these articles with the lengthy dimension lists.--Flash176 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the extra content needs to be there. Bore and stroke are on the engine's article. Fuel economy... we've been over that. Power and torque figures are put in the prose or a table, which is more efficient anyway.

As for dimensions, it isn't a problem for most articles. It's usually a problem for pickup trucks. I've been working on trying to find different ways to fix that situation. --Sable232 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ford press images: free or no?

As some of you may have noticed, a number of Ford press images have made their way onto the Commons and then into a number of Wikipedia articles. But from what little grasp I have of what is acceptable or not on Wikipedia, it seems these fall into the category of "unfree creative commons" and therefore should not be used here.

Example: Ford Flex image uploaded to the Commons via Flickr, where it had this tag. According to this, it doesn't seem to be right. But hopefully someone else who's more familiar with these policies can address it. IFCAR (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I to noticed that someone had uploaded some Mustang images from what appears to be Fords PR flickr page so I thought I would try my hand at uploading some needed images, however an admin deleted them on the wikimedia commons as it was thought that they were uploaded using "flickr laundering." My experience with fair use and creative commons licensing is tpo weak at this point so I also hope some can answer whether these images are free or not. --Leivick (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm able to very easily cross-reference images like this due to a very large press photo database I am capable of accessing. The easiest thing anyone can do with images like this is to nominate for deletion. This is the arbitration process for photos over at Commons. What I do, usually because it's very easy for me to determine whether or not something is press, is I'll just change the permissions on the image and then nominate for deletion. roguegeek (talk·cont) 09:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

They're obviously press photos, but they were uploaded by Ford to Flickr using a Creative Commons license that the Commons seems to accept. But the English Wikipedia seems to have tougher restrictions. Again, I hope someone with greater understanding of this can clarify. IFCAR (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

These photos are not acceptable on Wikipedia, and the ones at Wikimedia Commons will need to be deleted. The license on flickr states they may not be used for commercial purposes, and sadly Wikipedia disallows that, in case they want to sell their content. Edit-self: Ah, I see somebody's added this: "Please note: This image was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons licensed as noted below. The Flickr user has since changed the licensing to be more restrictive. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. See the Creative Commons FAQ on revoking licensing." Confusion. Disregard my previous comment. ;-) – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The image permission directly from Flickr says it's for non-commercial use only, which is not allowed on Commons. The user who uploaded seems to have changed the permission to allow usage on Commons. I will be nominating for deletion based on this premise. roguegeek (talk·cont) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but the implication from the tag added (and quoted by me, above) is that the original upload to flickr was done with acceptable, less restrictive permissions, which it is implied were still in place when the image was copied to the Commons. Since those rights are, says the commons, non-revokable, it leaves Ford the victims of a mistake, but the victims nonetheless. Although I'm sure it's a grey area if Ford didn't do the transfer to Commons... Don't get me wrong though; I'm not advocating use of these images, just trying to answer the questioner. I'd personally err on the side of caution and not add them to articles, since they're likely to disappear. – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...I donno about that "victim of a mistake" thing. This smells funny to me: "Oops, gee, golly, boy, someone here at Ford sure messed up there with that licence...now I guess we're stuck with our slick promotional photos on Wikipedia, darnit! That means Wikipedia viewers will see high-dollar pro photos of our exciting new models, but only amateur snapshots of our competitors' cars...now what are we going to do? This is awful, just terrible!" Regardless of intent, in effect this looks to me like a tapdance around the spirit and intent of Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's image requirements. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If Ford intended to release these images to the public domain for promotional purposes, I see no problems in using them. In some cases these promo shots offer very high quality images of older and sometimes less popular vehicles that are very hard to obtain through the traditional method of photographing vehicles in parking lots. The question is, what was the intent when these images were uploaded. --Leivick (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My question would be what the difference is between a fair use promotional image and a manufacturer photo under Creative Commons. Aren't both available for all uses with attribution by any rule but Wikipedia's? IFCAR (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out this discussion I'm having with editors over at Commons about this issue. Join in if you can. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How about the scenario of this image, where the license on Flickr remains one that seems to be acceptable by Wikipedia standards? How would this one be different from standard fair use? IFCAR (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Too bad, so sad. We snagged them when they were free, CC states no backsies, so we should use them to help improve articles. Ford had a chance to review CC before dumping images onto Flickr; i'm surprised that a company with a ton of Lawyers could make such a monumental gaffe like that. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. A difficult-to-replace fair-use promotional image can show up and people go berserk thinking the maker is going to sue Wikimedia for all it's worth, but here we've got images of questionable copyright status of brand-new vehicles that won't be scarce for quite some time, and yet that is OK? --Sable232 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sable232: The Automotive image guidelines state that in order for a photo to be "useable" on Articles, the car must be the focus of the picture, and the best photos desired as ones that have little to no "background clutter." Lets pull the Ford Focus image from Ford, and the one currently on the article for the North America Version:

• 
  Ford Motor Company Picture
• 
  The current Focus Pic on the article by IFCAR

Ford's photo is obviously shot in a studio background, with a simple light cloth background with nothing on it, which puts the focus on the....Ford Focus. It also shows the "front ¾ view" of the car also outlined in the guidelines. Angle wise, thats debatable.

IFCAR's photo is shot in a wooded area, and has been sufficiently cropped so that the image is focused on the....Ford Focus. It also has the "front ¾ view" of the car also outlined in the guidelines. However, notice that there is two trees just above the bonnet, which sorta distracts the image abit. Also the angle looks....off. To me, the shot also looks like it tilted towards the back for some reason, like it was shot on a slope.

And since it was brought up, the Ford Flex:

• 
  Ford Motor Company Picture #1
• Ford Motor Company Picture #2
  Ford Motor Company Picture #2
• 
  The current Flex Pic on the article by IFCAR

(Yes, I know the first FoMoCo Flex pic was cited, but I also grabbed the other ¾ shot by Ford on Commons.)

Now this is where I think it get's sorta tricky. FoMoCo's pics look great, but there's the problem of the "front ¾ view" viewpoint. It looks like your either squatting, or approaching the Flex from a hill or some other incline in the first pic, and I don't think the second one satisfies the "front ¾ view" due to it being shot from the side and looks distant. IFCAR's again has the problem of background clutter, only this time we have several SUV's, a Chevy Express Van, and a Mitsubishi Fuso Reefer. Plus you have a guy in the driver's Seat of the Flex. Which are distractions.

Now seriously, which images would you prefer?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI. I want to clear up what a ¾ view really it. It's generally when the front-most tire and rear-most tire of an image line up with each other. The Ford image above of the Focus is most definitely a front ¾ shot. The first Ford image above of the Ford Flex is not, but the second definitely is a front ¾ shot as well. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Ford press images are very high quality, as they are professional images I would have to go with them, not to diminish the work that IFCAR has done in the field of automobile images. --Leivick (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So, the images are free (despite FoMoCo "backsies") and they satisfy the Automotive Convention Guidelines for Images. Can they be put on their respective pages, or is there anymore objections?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the WikiProject Autos image conventions is that images be placed as close as possible to relevant text. That's the reason the photo of the 2009 Focus currently resides in the second-generation section of the article, so readers can compare it to the 2008 version. IFCAR (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Then again, your pic ain't exactly "quality" as stated above. I rather see Quality vs. Quantity. Also, the grouping of both two images and an infobox in the Ford Focus article and smashing the text may also be construed as an Accessibility violation.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to love quoting policies that you don't seem to have ever looked at. Grass and a tree is somehow a distracting background (though the page you link two lists sample images featuring similar backgrounds), and nothing on the page you linked to now in your allegations of "accessibility violations" says nothing at all about stacked thumbnails. Sounds so threatening, until you find out there isn't anything to it. You'd make a fine corporate attorney.

And it's not about quantity, it's about using the images to illustrate the article, as described in the first policy you linked to but seem to have ignored. IFCAR (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the best available image belongs in the lead info box. In the case of the Ford Focus the best image is the Ford press image, with all due respect IFCAR, it is a professional quality image, while the image you are attempting to put in the lead info box is amateur quality. It has less than perfect exposure and contains serious JPEG artifacting, it has nothing to do with trees in the background. --Leivick (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Info box image captions

Anyone know how to display image caption in automobile info boxes? Other info box templates have a caption line, but when added to auto info boxes, captions do not appear. Some images could use clarifying captions any thought? --Leivick (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The only way I know of is to add the caption in the "image" field after the image like this:

|image = [[Image:Aptera Typ-1 Wallpaper.jpg|250px]]<br>Jason Hill's final Typ-1 design rendering. (seen here)

Automobile infoboxes don't have a "caption" field for some reason.~ Dusk Knight 05:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The captions appear when you put your cursor over the image. There's no need for a separate line. IFCAR (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the image title that appears with the cursor over the screen and this is not always very informative. For example, in the one quoted above the description says "Aptera Typ-1 Wallpaper.jpg" which is not too bad but some will just say something like abcd1234.jpg. Adding an informative heading after the Image description seems to work fine. Malcolma (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes is is good to have some explanation if the image shows something different than the title says, eg special version or something else, usually this happens when you dont have exact picture of what the title says. I usually use italic text in captions like that, you need to add break
or space after the image tag that it works ok. --— Typ932^{T | C}  11:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolma, you add the caption within the image listing to make the hover-over text something other than the image name. Like this: |image = [[Image:abcd1234.jpg|250px|Jason Hill's final Typ-1 design rendering]]. Another line isn't needed. IFCAR (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with IFCAR. Image caption here is already at a useful capacity. Having it visible all of the time just makes no sense. roguegeek (talk·cont) 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the captions appearing. The tooltip which appears when the mouse hovers is by no means reliable, depending on the browser being used. – Kieran T ^(talk) 14:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Leivick, could you give an example of where you feel a hard caption is needed? Just want an idea of what we're trying to work with here. --Sable232 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Something like Porsche 924, the lead info box shows two vehicles a Turbo and a non Turbo, it would be good to clarify this with a hard caption. --Leivick (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not really a good infobox picture according to our convention :D PrinceGloria (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Ok, right, how about Porsche 944 I just uploaded a high quality image to the info box, however the image is of the Turbo model, it would be nice to clarify this in a caption. --Leivick (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm neither for nor against a caption, but I think perhaps a good example of where one could be utilized would be vehicles with differing body parts depending on their trim level and year. For instance, the lead image on Toyota Matrix is of an '04 XRS model. [This] image that used to be in the first gen box is what a base model for the same year looks like. The current first gen infobox image is what an '05+ base model looks like. Anyways, that's just an example I thought of where a caption could be beneficial.--Flash176 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Let us not "overinform" the reader. The lead image is to present the subject in question, so one should be chosen that represents the overall population the best - if it does not, it should be swapped for something else. I'd reserve any "specific" images for thumbnails in the article body. Standard title (visible while hovering the mouse over the pic) should be enough IMHO. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not that easy, if you have car that has many different body styles it is sometimes good to inform the reader if the it is not so obvioius but for general sedan sw styles it is quite easy....or if the image angle is not so good to reveal the version. But for model years or engine versions it is not needed --— Typ932^{T | C}  19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's trivial to add a "caption" field which would allow a caption to be shown, as I just implemented. I don't see why this should not be optional for those images where a caption may be useful. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that (since you inferred there is no opposition). This is a gateway for circumventing the image quality rules, and another way to clutter the infobox IMHO. Just choose the best-quality image representing the most "standard" version possible. All information can be contained in the standard description, they are here anyway. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham, yes, a caption box is trivial, but so are electric range, fuel economy, etc. I think what bothers people the most is continuing to add sections to the infobox and making it unwieldy.

PrinceGloria, I don't see how adding a caption box would become a gateway for circumventing rules. The rules still apply, Chris and the other users are simply wanting to make it easier for readers to know about the image. You've been on Wikipedia for more than a week. I'm sure you realize that getting high quality images of vehicles, especially standard versions, is sometimes easier said than done. There's also the instances where one version of a vehicle is just as common as another.--Flash176 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I see a great need for a caption box, for example, where the only suitable (or only, totally) image is of a nonstandard, prototype, etc., version of the car. In these cases, no caption may confuse the reader further. It's no different than adding captions to any other images. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 17:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the same way, its good to have sometimes, but it should not be used for example telling model years or trim levels, what engine is in car or such things, only if there is good reason. For example body style if it is not shown good enough in picture, maybe facelift model info? if there arent pictures enough for main article or other generation box to show the differencies in body and such things. --— Typ932^{T | C}  18:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The caption field seems fairly standard on Wikipedia infoboxes, and we can always include something in the documentation and guidelines to discourage unnecessary use. For the images that do warrant an explanation, it's better for the caption to be permanently visible rather than hover-text.~ Dusk Knight 04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So what's happening with this? —Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement - Lincoln Continental

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:IMG 0339 Desktop.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sister projects question

Is there some set way for defining our sister projects? I'm just wondering because some of the listed projects, such as WikiProject:Space Missions and WikiProject:Airport don't really seem to tie in to our project. I'm thinking about reorganizing the list to appear like this, but wanted to see if there were any objections.

Also, the 4 I have listed in other (aircraft, rockets, ships, and trains) - should they be listed at all as sister projects?--Flash176 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure I see the value in having such a list anyway. The only people I can envisage it helping are keen editors with spare time — and they can easily search for their favoured topics. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ident needed

Anyone know that car this is? Bidgee (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Might it be a Packard? I recently uploaded a picture of a Packard (it had Packard written on it) which easily might be a year or two newer version of the one you found. Take a look and see what you think. Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Try asking at http://www.jalopyjournal.com. --Flash176 (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a late 30's Chrysler of some type. That's a Chrysler hood emblem and badge on the side. Chrysler Airstream? roguegeek (talk·cont) 03:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Car classifications

I know this is kind of an old and tired issue, but it still seems pretty unresolved to me. I'm still finding a lot of auto articles with classifications of "supercar" and "hot hatch". I thought these were terms we were staying away from since they really aren't all that encyclopedic. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. It would make more sense to me if we took cars classified as such (or any classification within a level 2 subsection of the car classification article) and simplified it by classifying them under the more general class of "sports car" or any level 1 section of the car classification article. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick additional note, I'd like to attempt to pull out as much subjectivity to that article as possible so it could be used as a real classification guide for the infobox since it does point to that article as a references. Or what about having the class attribute wikilinking to a guide that could be found on the conventions page? Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been removing the "supercar" classification whenever I've come across it, usually replacing it with "sports car". swaq 15:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What about other classifications? What about any sub-section of sports car? roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what to tell you about other stuff, but hot hatch is ridiculous and I think that supercar isn't arbitrary enough to be used.--Flash176 (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Hot hatch is rediculous. So are most of the classifications on car classification. So I think it's important that, as a group, we bring some convention to vehicle classification and how it should be used in the infobox. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

They're all often dubious. The difference between a saloon/sedan and a hatchback are often dubious (with lifting rear screens, or indeed non-opening ones); between a hatchback, an estate, or an MPV/minivan often non-existent (depending on some arbitrary angle of c-pillar!?); and coupés are anyone's guess, really, with some being more like shooting breaks. And there are downright differences of definition for things like liftback, notchback, panel van... I'm not happy about it but I've come to the conclusion that it's only safe to say "it's a car" and explain what body styles are available elsewhere, not in the intro. – Kieran T ^(talk) 23:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's different, though. You're talking about body style which is, in my opinion, at least a little more objective. I'm talking specifically about car classification. roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for going a bit off-topic. I guess it's because we talked at length, in the past, about taking the two related topics together and cleaning up the relevant articles. I thought we'd agreed to use the verifiable classifications of official bodies (Euro NCAP, ACRISS, US EPA)? We should, in order to avoid original research. When it's not available, it can't be verified so should be left out, and then we only have a problem when two of those systems offer conflicting ideas. – Kieran T ^(talk) 23:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get two things out of this. 1) An immediate answer to my first question. What should I do with vehicles listed as "hot hatch", "supercar", "muscle car", "pony car", or any other class listed under "sports car"? Since they are all a part of the "sports car" class, I'd rather just change them all to "sports car" to keep it a little more generic. 2) The other more long-term thing I'd like to see is gauge editor's interest in trying to bring some conventions to the car classification for infobox. Help and thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then, here's my opinion in a nutshell.

• Hot Hatch --> Hatchback
• supercar --> sportscar
• muscle car - tentative keep. while not always arbitrary, this term is well used to describe vehicles
• pony car - same as muscle car--Flash176 (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the first two (with the spelling "sports car"!) but would personally prefer the removal of the last two altogether because they're very subjective and tend to get added to people's favourite cars, rather than being based on anything I've seen adequately pinned down to do with engine or body. – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pony car is pretty well defined and tends to only apply to the Camaro/Pontiac Firebird, Ford Mustang/early Mercury Cougar, AMC Javelin, and Plymouth Barracuda/Dodge Challenger. It's basically a smaller muscle car with a long nose/short deck lid.

Muscle car, however, is hard to define before the 1964 Pontiac GTO, because the term applies to some older cars, but it didn't really come into being until around that time. The book I'm currently reading, " Muscle: America's Legendary Performance Cars" by Randy Leffingwell and Darwin Holmstrom, defines muscle cars as being mid-size (for the time) cars with high output engines. Basically a lot of power in a lightweight body. Because of that, they state that cars like the Chevrolet Impala don't technically fall under muscle car because of their weight and size.--Flash176 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

pony car

I'm having a discussion with CZmarlin right now specifically about the term, pony car, and would like to see other editor's comment in if possible. I might be completely wrong there and just need to see other point of views. Help requested. roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Production year vs. model year (again)

Not to get this started again, but...

Sorry to bring this never-ending discussion up again, but concerning Model year vs production year, I just had an idea. What if we were to change Production to Sold or Years Sold? Would that help to alleviate the confusion by being a bit more specific or is this a bad idea?--Flash176 (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really help. In many cases cars are sold for long after they're made – or marketed – because of stocks. This varies from country to country and even gets messed up by main dealers doing dodgy things with early or late registrations of individual cars... it can make over a year's difference to the "sold" dates, which would be quite confusing if the car wasn't really being offered by the manufacturer any more. How would we verify? – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the discussion title so it can be referenced more easily. I missed the discussion in September, but there seemed to be two potential resolutions. 1, leave Production in the infobox as-is and adhere to its rules, or 2, add a Model Years field, with the understanding that model years are used more often for North American models, and use either Production or Model Years when appropriate.

I am one of those who supports the latter, having either Production (calendar years) or Model Years in the info box. It's mainly about being consistent with the rest of the article. The first year of a North American model, for example the Lincoln MKS, will be referred to as "the 2009 Lincoln MKS" in the article. There are also often timeline templates at the bottom of the article, where the cars are displayed by model year. I can understand how it can be confusing to have one introduction year in the timeline and another introduction year in the infobox. A European model could and probably should keep "Production" years in the box. As for a model sold in both markets, you could have both under Production (e.g. "1988-2004 (MY 1989-2005)") - or just go with the one used most often in the home market (e.g. Europe for a BMW, Japan for a Honda). --Vossanova ^o< 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have twice (or more, I'm losing count) suggested having both fields in the infobox, together with a convention stipulating that each article's infobox uses only one or the other, not both, except in special circumstances by consensus. Each time I've suggested this, it has gotten lost in the noise. Perhaps this time round we can try and build consensus for it. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Leave production in the infobox, referencing actual production. Use model years, whenever appropriate, preferably wikilinking to model years the first time the concept is mentioned in the article. Simple as that, I don't see why should we put the teacup in danger again. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Using only model year is confusing, many people wants to compare the cars from same actual manufacturing years, not some marketing point of view, in the end you could be ending comparing cars from very different years --— Typ932^{T | C}  21:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to using calendar years or a mix of both? That's the whole point of this, that North America goes by model year and it's already confusing to apply calendar years to this system.--Flash176 (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scheinwerfermann. I don't see a reason why both can't be represented in an infobox and when either is referenced in the article body itself, it should be referenced with proper identifiers such as "calander year" or "model year". Most of the time, it write it as, "...was introduced in September 2007 for the 2008 model year." Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well.--Flash176 (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you two are agreeing with me. I do not think both model years and production dates should be used in infoboxes. I think both fields ought to be present in the infobox template, but only one should be used in any given infobox, except by consensus in special cases. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Well I guess I'm not agreeing with you. ;) Ok, partially. I think both could be represented and clarification could be made with an attribute called "Production" (wikilinking to calendar year) and "Model year" (wikilinking to model year). roguegeek (talk·cont) 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I understood what you were saying and agree with it, Scheinwerfermann.--Flash176 (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the solution of adding a "Model year" field. --Sable232 (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As much as I personally hate model years, I recognise that they are important to Americans. I'd like to see production years as mandatory and model years as optional. It wouldn't be a problem for vehicles that are mainly sold in one market but it gets really hard for multi-market vehicles. As an example, I can see trouble if the Corolla E100 was labelled with a model year and its E110 successor was labelled with a production year. Even worse when we look at the Vibe/Matrix debacle where it could appear one was produced a whole year before the other. Stepho-wrs (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would the Matrix and Vibe appear to be made in different years? They're both North American vehicles and GM/Toyota use model year to classify both of them.--Flash176 (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

eRUF

According to this report, a new electric car has been created by RUF so shouldn't there be an article on it? Simply south (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made a redirect for now. swaq 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Timelines

A couple of weeks ago I created Category:Toyota timeline templates and added all the Toyota time lines I could find into it. I also noted that most of those time lines were specific to North America, so I created these global time lines:

Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1935-1954

Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1955-1984

Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1985-date

I choose the year breaks to match significant turning points in the company history (1955 for when the long running Crown replaced everything else and 1985 for when most Toyota's went FWD). Do these time lines pass muster? If so, should I update the Toyota entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Templates#Toyota_2? Should I also replace the N.American time line that appears in many Toyota articles (eg Toyota) with one of my new global time lines? Stepho-wrs (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions. On Template:Toyota_road_cars_timeline,_1985-date, don't have so many categories. Keep it simple with just Sub-Compact, Compact, Mid-size, Full-size, and Sports car. If the cars fall into a sub-category, the reader will find that out on the article. Splitting up cars from the same class is a little confusing (to me). Doing this will also eliminate some of the redundant links, like having Corolla listed in Sub-Compact and Sub-Compact wagon. Also, with regard to redundant links, is it necessary to have so many instances of having the same links right above and below each other, but with different names? This also makes the page longer than it needs to be and simply saying something like Corolla II/Corsa/Tercel in the links would make it easier to navigate. Especially when you're linking to an article name that's not even included in the list (Toyota Tercel). Definitely remove the Limited Edition and Flagship sections, as they're unnecessary and the Century isn't the flagship for all countries (i.e. Avalon is in North America). Speaking of which, you seem to have left Toyota Avalon off of the list completely. Also, your link to Voltz is going to Toyota Corolla E120 when it should be directed to Toyota Voltz. However, the Voltz is based off of the American Toyota Matrix, and not the other way around. As such, the Matrix should be on the list instead, or again, you could simply do Matrix/Voltz. I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but it seems that you've taken a North American-biased list and turned it into a list biased towards all regions except North America. You may plan on doing this later, but on cars like the Corolla, where you have the generation number listed beside the name, please link to the specific page for that generation, not the main article. One last thing, this is by no means set in stone anywhere that I'm aware of, but most car timelines run about 30 years - from 1980 to 2010. By starting the timelines at a specific year instead of a significant change in cars, a person is able to see when the change includes switching class, like from Sub-Compact to Compact.

As for Template:Toyota_road_cars_timeline,_1955-1984, are you planning on splitting up the cars for their release dates? That needs to be done. Also, I notice that on this timeline the Corolla is a compact, but switches to sub-compact on the next timeline, even though the body style stayed the same.

That's all that I'm noticing right now. Just please, as I said, don't replace one biased timeline with another and trim the list some. Hope this helps and thanks for your work. :) --Flash176 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1985-date was based heavily on Template:Modern Japanese Market Toyota cars, which explains the huge range of models (the Japanese market typically has nearly all possible models in all possible versions), its lack of N.American specific models and why it differs so much from the other two time lines (which I created from scratch). I will try to merge some of the N.American models back in. I will also endeavour to merge multiple variants back into common groupings (eg Voltz/Matrix) and other rationalisations. This will probably take me a couple of weeks of spare time. The earlier time lines need a little more work to split the models up by release date (eg Corolla E10, E20, E30, etc) but this should only take a couple of days because I am very familiar with the pre 1985 models. Stepho-wrs (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. :)--Flash176 (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ta da! One down. Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1955-1984 It's still a bit cluttered but Toyota simply made lots of models. I left off some model names like the Levin and Trueno because they are really just short names of the Corolla Levin and Sprinter Trueno. Stepho-wrs (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ta da! Two down. Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1935-1954 Only changed the decade dividers. But the third timeline is going to take a loooong time to fix :( Stepho-wrs (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect images

I've seen some articles lately that have images identified as the wrong year (or even the wrong model) of car. I know not everyone can be expected to be able to tell the exact year at a glance, but I think whoever puts the pictures in should do a little bit of research first? That's a glaring error, as the picture is one of the first things someone looks at. Maybe you folks could set up something where other folks could positively ID a car before it goes into the article? That'd also help by being able to show an exact year rather than just a range. —Olds 403 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Olds 403, can you point out some of these articles? I have had to fix numerous edits by User:Bull-Doser who has lately been entering a large amount of photos over the last week into articles that are inaccurately identified. Some are just year inaccuracies. Some are entire vehicles. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Olds 403, just went through your edits. They are Bull-Doser's images you've removed or edit. Strange, I didn't see that one coming. This has actually been a long time issue I've had with this particular user. I can't even come close to putting a number to the amount of unsourced and completely incorrect information they have added to Wikipedia, but it's a lot. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarification: you are slamming the wrong editor. The editor whose behaviour is objectionable is Bull-Doser (talk · contribs), spelt with an s. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Opps. Well now who's the inaccurate one? Typos fixed above. roguegeek (talk·cont) 06:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

ID me please

Saw this car and thought it might be useful for an article [21], but I can't tell what it is. Any ideas? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 04:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ford Model B (1932)#1934 Ford Stepho-wrs (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Pontiac Vibe debacle

I would like to unearth one of the WikiProject's pandora's boxes that I have stumbled upon lately, namely the Pontiac Vibe vs. Toyota Matrix thing. We did discuss it earlier, during some of the infobox debates, but for those less familiar - the Matrix is something of a North American equivalent to Corolla Spacio (JDM) and Verso (EUDM), a compact MPVish counterpart to the Corolla, marketed as a blend of hatchback, wagon and SUV. The Pontiac Vibe is its GM counterpart, built under the Toyota-GM agreement.

The Matrix is built in Toyota's Canadian plant, while the Vibe is manufactured by NUMMI, a Toyota-GM joint-venture in California (which also builds e.g. the Corolla, and used to build its identical twin, Chevrolet Prizm). The Vibe and Matrix share most of the interior, and looked similarly on the outside at least in the first generation (although no source was ever given to assert the sometimes-held notion that they actually share some sheetmetal).

There are now two debatable issues:

1. Are the Vibe and Matrix "related" or "aka"
2. Who is the manufacturer

As concerns 1, I do believe they are still "related". This is not a case of an IDENTICAL vehicle being sold under two brands, the models are differentiated in the way e.g. Peugeot 104 and Talbot Samba were. I think the tendency to think of them as "akas" by some North American editors stems fro mthe tradition of outright badge engineering among American automakers, and NUMMI itself (see Corolla/Prizm example). That said, as with many GM vehicles who evolved past their "clone" stage (look at the W-bodies or Epsilons now compared to 1980s Roger Smith-era cars), I'd say the Matrix and Vibe have enough of an indentity each to be treated separately (if you are unfamiliar with them, do read their, rather short, articles to find out about some of that).

I would also say that if the vehicles are akas and are only produced simultaneously without other uses of their nameplates, it would only make sense to merge the articles.

As concerns 2, I was duly pointed to our infobox description, but I still believe we might reconsider it. Is Vibe's manufacturer Pontiac? Is Pontiac a manufacturer at all? It is now merely a brand of General Motors, has no dedicated manufacturing capacities, design and engineering facilities etc. (which some GM divisions used to have in their own time). Secondly, the vehicle is indeed built by NUMMI rather than Pontiac, GM or Toyota.

I would appreciate if the members could weigh in, especially those previously not involved in the debate. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

These vehicles are definitely different. Just look at the third-rear windows of each. If I wasn't told that these cars were related and both were placed side-by-side, I would assume they were completely individual cars, sharing some visual cues only. These articles should remain separate.

Also, I would probably replace "Pontiac" from the "manufacturer" parameter to "NUMMI". OSX (talk • contributions) 05:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking I would use the brand as manufacturer (it has ordered the assembly) , and use assembly field to tell if the assembler is different than parent brand . --— Typ932^{T | C}  08:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Toyota is a master at making more versions of the same car than can be counted. In fact, that is how they differentiated themselves against the US big 3 back in the 1950's - by production methods aimed at multiple custom models instead of sheer volume of a single model. To me the Vibe and Matrix are the same car with minor variations (hanging panels, trim and the C pillar) that are no more surprising than the differences between sedans and hatchbacks. Toyota and GM set up NUMMI for the Toyota Corolla E80 and the GEO Prizm. Toyota and Holden also set up UAAI for the Toyota Corolla E80 and the Holden Nova. These all have their own pages but also point to the other versions. The manufacture is listed as according to the badge. I would stick to the same method. Stepho-wrs (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think the Vibe/Matrix issue is a can of worms, I'm trying to figure out if the bB, ist, Vitz, Platx, Belta, Funcargo, Ractis are all the same car or not. Some of them look radically different but they are all based on the XP10/20/30/60 chassis. I guess I'll have to spend more time looking up chassis codes and comparing pictures. Stepho-wrs (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Holden Novas were in fact based on the Toyota Corolla E90 and Toyota Corolla E100, not the Toyota Corolla E80. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. But it still makes a good precedent to follow. Stepho-wrs (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

PrinceGloria, you already know my position on the aka, so I'll let others address that, but why are you so adamant about changing the manufacturer from Pontiac to NUMMI? You've seen the Infobox conventions. It says, "the brand name, marque, division or automaker. That seems pretty clear to me. If we were to list the manufacturer as the factory, we would have to change practically every vehicle article here.--Flash176 (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, for those of you who are only going by the pictures on the article pages, I would ask that you look at the interiors of the Matrix and Vibe.--Flash176 (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of using AKA, which it certainly could be classified as save for different sheetmetal and plastic, shouldn't it be listed as "related" instead for arguments sake? For example, the Ford Focus is related to the Mazda3, and the Chrysler Crossfire is related to the Mercedes-Benz SLK in terms of the common platform being shared. There is probably an effort to cast the Pontiac Vibe in a negative light as just a warmed over Toyota Matrix, which the first generation certainly was, similar to the Geo Prizm as just a reworked Toyota Corolla. The manufacturer is Toyota/GM, and retailed by Pontiac using Toyota content, because the manufacturing facility (NUMMI) produces multiple products sold by different retailers (Toyota Tacoma, Toyota Corolla, Pontiac Vibe) . The powertrains used are identical.(Regushee (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

Replying to some of the comments above:

1. I am happy to hear at least some people do agree with my belief that Vibe and Matrix are separate phenomenons, regardless of their mechanical similarity. I am also happy that somebody else has pointed out the fact that "akaizing" the Vibe and Matrix is, in a way, negative POV, even if not entirely deliberate.
2. As concerns the "manufacturer" field, I would actually propose to change its description/utilization, as it is of little informative value to mention that a Pontiac is "made by" Pontiac, Scion by Scion, or Smart by Smart. Personal infoboxes usually do not state that a John Doe is "first name: John", "family name: Doe". This is pretty obvious.
3. Secondly, Pontiac's aren't actually made by Pontiac, or Scions by Scion. Those are brands which they carry, but the manufacturering company operates by a different name, be it General Motors, Toyota, NedCar, NUMMI or whatever else. I'd say, just like with "production" that should refer to actual production years IMHO, the "manufacturer" field should mention the actual manufacturer, not the brand.
4. The "parent company" field was introduced, IIRC, for cases like Volvo, where some members found it worthwile to mention the company controlling the manufacturer, while also putting an end to debates as to which name should go in there in such cases.

I am looking forward to reaching a conclusion on both the Vibe/Matrix thing and the infobox field use in this discussion. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Some examples for when AKA would be appropriate : Nissan Cima/Infiniti Q45, Mazda Millenia/Eunos 800/Xedos9, Toyota Camry/Daihatsu Altis, EDM Ford Capri/USA-spec Mercury Capri. (Regushee (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

A few more precedents to look at:

1. Mazda 323, Ford Laser, Ford Meteor (related)
2. Vauxhall Viva, Opel Kadett, Isuzu Gemini, Holden Gemini, etc (related)
3. Vauxhall Viva, Holden Torana (mentioned as 'had its origins in' in the article text but nothing in infobox)

It could be argued that the Ford Falcon, Fairlane and Mustang share enough parts (including the floor pan in some versions) to be the variations of the same vehicle but this would be pushing it a bit far. Although Ford did exactly this to get homologation numbers for features like Fairlane based rear disc brakes to be used in Falcon race cars back in the mid 1970's. Similar arguments apply to all the US big 3 manufacturers with common platforms shared amongst many divisions. Seems to me that 'related' is the way to go with links and redirections between articles.

As for the manufacturer, I'd try to match it with the dealership that an owner would typically take it to for service and parts. It's also worth considering whether the multiple versions are built on the same production line (like Corolla and Holden Nova) or if one company bought the design and then constructed their own production line with differences (like the 323 was made in a Mazda factory in Japan while the Laser was made in a Ford factory in Australia with different rear sheet metal around the tail lights). Stepho-wrs (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I do bear some responsibility here, because I changed the infobox entry some weeks ago. At the moment, not looking at the history or my contribs, I don't even recollect which direction I changed it!

I think we may want to look at a new approach to the aka/similar-to question. I have already commented extensively on the matter in last month's discussion, as did a good number of other contributors, and I respectfully ask that we all take a couple moments to review that previous discussion so we can shorten and quicken this present discussion.

All aka vehicles are related to each other, but not all related vehicles are aka as each other. That is: aka is a subset of related. The problem still lies in trying to define the demarcation between paired vehicles that are aka as each other, and those that are merely related to to each other. This is one of those questions (like another perpetually contentious one here in the project that I will not mention by name) that will never have a simple answer uniformly applicable to all cases. Leaving aside the easy cases of pure, obvious, unadulterated badge-engineering, There is a large enough element of subjectivity that what falls under aka to me might well fall under related for someone else, and we could both make an equally cogent case. That means we'd effectively both be right, and that means endless debate here on the talk page.

So, how about if we redefine the terms of discussion? Let's eliminate both the aka and the related to fields, and replace them with the single field Twins. This is a term tight enough to signify close relationship, but not so tight as to define exactly how close the relationship is. That way, the burden of pinning down an ever-shifting demarcation line simply evaporates. We let the encyclopædia do its job; anyone who wants to find out exactly how closely the Nissan Cima is to the Infiniti Q45 can just click on the relevant link in either article's lead infobox (in the Twins field) and learn all the details that way. Same goes for Matrix/Vibe, Aspen/Volaré, Prizm/Corolla, and every other such pair. Some people will read the Matrix and Vibe articles and decide they're the same car, also known as each other. Some people will reach the conclusion that they're related, but not essentially identical. Both conclusions are supportable and valid; trying to enforce one over the other via the inbox is futile.

If we don't like the field name Twins, then we could leave it as Related and simply eliminate the aka, which — remember — refers to a subset of vehicles related to each other. The field name isn't very important. I proposed "Twins" in case anyone's emotional attachment to the issue prevents them supporting a merger of the two existing fields into one if it means losing one of the existing field names.

As for the question of how to nominate the manufacturer: We're dealing here with the question of how to handle joint-venture manufacturers. It is a question that will only grow more pertinent and pressing as all the world's automakers seek strategic alliances and joint ventures. I think our best, most straightforward, most informative way forward is to identify the JV as such in the Manufacturer field. If the JV itself has an official name, we use and link that. If the JV itself has no official name, we name and link the partners in the JV. Examples:

• Manufacturer: Diamond Star Motors (JV)

• Manufacturer: Toyota + GM (JV)

This way we convey all the pertinent information, and we're not forcing ourselves to use the name of a production facility in lieu of proper reference to the manufacturer per se. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Aka is same car with different name or same car with very minor difference its not that hard, related cars are using same platform, there is no need to change anything --— Typ932^{T | C}  22:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Typ932 put it more bluntly above

Scheinwerfermann, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, but have to remind you that:

1. The aka field is primarily for listing alternative names of the very same vehicle, not necessairly "corporate twins" (i.e. Chrysler Town & Country is sold in Europe as Chrysler Grand Voyager)
2. Why do we need to single out JV manufacturers? The respective page linked to will contain a full explanation. In case two or more manufacturers build the vehicle independently, we just list them all, I don't think this is a problem...

I actually think it was late, wasn't it? PrinceGloria (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-- outdent and 2x EC) I see the aka/related fields differently:

• aka refers to the different names the same car is sold in across the world (e.g. Mazda Miata/Mazda MX-5/Eunos Roadster), so I'd advise against eliminating that parameter. In my eyes, it's for those cases when you have X different names but only one article. You shouldn't need wikilinks in this field for that reason.
• related—in my experience—is most frequently used for listing cars which share a common platform. But since we already have a "platform" parameter, and the field value usually wikilinks to an article which lists all the cars using that platform, I find the related field to be redundant and usually bloated too. If the VW Polo, Seat Ibiza, Audi A2 and Skoda Fabia are all related to each other, list them together once (at Volkswagen Group A0 platform#A04 (PQ24)); repeating the same list four times on four different articles is inefficient. Ask anyone who builds relational databases for a living; they'll tell you to compile one list and link to it four times to avoid redundancy a la templates. [Disclaimer: for older cars from the pre-platform sharing days of yore, I think the related field is useful, but I don't see the point of both fields. I'd prefer related to be an optional parameter, available only if platform is left blank.]

Manufacturer... For me, using the name of the company that the general reader associates with the car adheres most closely to the principle of least astonishment. If we want to mention the name of the company in charge of a car plant, the assembly field seems most logical. Why split "NUMMI joint venture, Fremont, California" across two different fields?

And if we're overhauling the infobox (again), do we need the parent_company field? It may be relevant to the manufacturer, but I don't see how it's significant to individual vehicles (off the top of my head, cf. Jaguar XK—the car itself didn't change one iota when Ford sold the brand to Tata). Articles are supposed to be about the car itself, not the corporate structure of the company which produces it; that's what Jaguar is for. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Noise, Vibration, and Harshness" or "noise, vibration, and harshness"

Earlier, I proposed that Noise, Vibration, and Harshness be moved to noise, vibration, and harshness, since NVH is merely a term, rather than a person, place or thing. However, Greglocock asserts that because the capitalized version is more widespread, we should retain the capitalized title. Since I "lack experience in field and have misapplied policy" I thought we better get a broader project view. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Lowercase would be more correct (as you said). But leave it as whatever it is now, create the other version as a new topic and redirect to the old version. Also make sure NVH redirects to the old version. Stepho-wrs (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually agree with keeping it upper case. NVH as an upper-case phenomenon is rather different from noise, vibration and harshness as such. It is a specific study field of automotive engineering, and when one refers to Noise, Vibration and Harshness, it is usually in a different sense then when one would refer to noise, vibration and harshness as such. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison data

I'd like to hear everyone's though on this specific subject. I come across a lot of statements within auto articles that compare a vehicle against another vehicle. This could be in terms of several aspects, but the one I see the most is performance. I usually just remove the comparison or try to balance it as much as possible. I tend to feel it's WP:OR and WP:POV because statements could be shaped to put whatever subject in a positive or negative light depending on what the editor is trying to come across with and still be technically correct.

Examples

• "From 0-110 mph, the Ford Flex is 6 seconds faster than the Honda Pilot 30.2 seconds."
• "From 0-60 mph, the Honda Pilot is .3 seconds faster than the Honda Pilot at 8.1 seconds."
• "The Ford Flex is faster than the Honda Pilot."
• "The Honda Pilot is faster than the Ford Flex."

So they are technically all correct statements, but misleading. I could come up with more examples, but I think you get the idea. Just something I was able to pull together quickly from Car and Driver stats. I suggest that comparison data of this kind is removed except in cases where the comparison is the article such as Top Gear Test Track. The reasons for removal are, to me, the same reasons we decided to remove the "similar" attribute from the infobox. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While I don't see the point in this particular example (the Flex is faster than the Pilot - who cares?), as long as it's properly cited and not slanted towards a particular vehicle, I see nothing wrong with it. Comparisons help people to understand how a vehicle performs if they're able to relate it to a vehicle they're familiar with. Also, sometimes comparisons are relevant to articles. For example, if someone properly cited a statement saying that the new Challenger does the 1/4 mile in, say, 12.1 seconds and the new Camaro makes it in 12 flat, and both have a 0-60 of 5.2 seconds, I would find that relevant to the article.--Flash176 (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I opened up the first magazine I had on my desk and it had a comparison between the Flex and Pilot, so I pulled those numbers because it was the quickest thing I could find. The Camaro examples you stated are fine because they're not comparing anything. Now if it said something like "the Camaro performs 0-60 mph in 5.2 seconds, 0.7 seconds faster than a Mustang," that's where I'd see the problem. roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would base the decision on whether it is useful to the reader. Most comparisons of that type are pulled either from a magazine comparison article whose purpose is to compare similar current (at time of print) models or from advertising whose purpose is to say "ours is better". Neither sits well in a encyclopaedia. Stepho-wrs (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't faulting your example, Roguegeek. I thought you had pulled that from the Flex or Pilot articles and was just saying I didn't see why anyone thought it was a big enough deal to include in the article, but I understand what you were saying now. BTW, I didn't realize, but on my examples, I meant to say Camaro and Challenger. Oops. :)

I don't know, maybe it isn't a good idea. However, I do think it's acceptable to do a comparison if you are writing about a vehicle that people wouldn't usually see as performing well, but does. For instance, the last paragraph of the Toyota Matrix XRS section mentions that the car has a lateral acceleration of .83 g. This is a very good number for a tall wagon. The comparison between it and the .86 g a Celica pulls is to show readers how well it actually handles. Am I making any sense?--Flash176 (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that really important and relevant? Perhaps it also has a glove box of 25 litres and all... I mean, some of this data is of borderline notability and would better be suited for a specialist site, not a general interest encyclopedia. As concerns outright comparisons, this is a very gray area and allowing or encouraging it opens a huge Pandora's box of POV-pushing. I could easily see the Ford Flex vehicle becoming dominated by comparisons intended to show in an "encyclopedic" way how the vehicle is superior/inferior to selected "competitors". I'd say such comparisons should be limited to when the COMPARISON itself is notable, and I cannot think of an example where it would actually... PrinceGloria (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we dont need comparison data on articles, everyone can find it by himself. I think also we should make convention to use manufacturer data for performance details and use magazine values only after the official data or use for missing data. Here are lots of articles with only some values taken from different magazines. Those values can vary very much its like reliability data everything can be found --— Typ932^{T | C}  07:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What Typ932 said. Essentially data from comparison tests conducted by magazines are HIGHLY variable, being influenced by temperature, humidity, altitude, road surface etc., none of which can be controlled. However, manufacturer's claims are also problematic, they are not independent and sometimes car publications are unable to reproduce the claimed times. I think we should stick to the manufacturer's claims and label them as such, without making comparisons between various models. Where magazine tests have been unable to reproduce the figures, and where such irreproducibility has been multiply cited in reliable sources, it should be included too. We should of course highlight the car's market segment competitors, but not make any sort of comparison of manufacturer's data between the two. e.g. it would be inappropriate to baldly compare the Nurburgring lap times of the Nissan GT-R and the Porsche 911 Turbo (it's direct market segment target) without context, however it WOULD be appropriate to mention it WITH context and to mention the fiasco that has broken out with Porsche claiming that Nissan used slick tyres when setting the time. Zunaid 09:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with using manufacturer data is that it's a primary source. Wikipedia is to be built on secondary sources. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia" manufacturer who claims very different than in reality doesnt do that very long... --— Typ932^{T | C}  23:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You forgot, "...but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." There's also, "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources..." That being the case, Motor Trend or Car & Driver's (or whatever secondary source) data is considered by Wikipedia to be more valuable than a manufacturer's (primary source) data. On top of that, most manufactures don't report performance numbers. This is kind of getting off topic, but the main point I'm trying to make is that comparison data can be manipulated, yet still remain true. It's dangerous and I think it should be left off articles altogether. Thoughts on this? roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to drag this out further or stray off topic (by the way I agree with Roguegeek and others that comparisons should be avoided), but if we want to talk about original research comparisons we should take a look at Nürburgring lap times which uses a hodgepodge of sources to make a ordered list of road car lap times. I tried to remove it a while back, but couldn't get any traction on the talk page. --Leivick (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been on that article a lot the past couple of months. I feel a little differently about it because the article's subject is that very famous race track's recorded lap times as opposed to a vehicle article who's subject is far less restrictive. Still, I wouldn't be sad to see it go if we could just agree on how to deal with comparison data. roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20