Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Policy Change

I wish to force at least a discussion on this one. Naming convention has us use the foreign name for a car if even one English-speaking country does this, although this can create problems. Here's my example for bending this rule in some cases:

Toyota Vitz - English-only search - "About 2,340,000 results" [1]
Toyota Yaris - English-only search - "About 16,000,000 results" [2]

I realise Google hits aren't everything but there's no way to dispute here that Yaris is far more common than Vitz. Is there a way to see what is typed into Wikipedia more? Thanks everyone Jenova20 08:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

On your substantive point, that's the trouble with prescriptive wiki-rules. The more you have rules the more you find occasions where they make no sense. Which I guess is the time to invoke wiki-common sense. I think I agree with you, but I don't feel too strongly about it as long as we have redirect pages to cover all the obvious names for (what to me too is) the Toyota Yaris. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, saves me some embarassment =]
I just like to keep the car articles neat and that becomes difficult when the Vitz article is huge and siphoning off everything from the Yaris article, it should be most common realistically to save the majority of people being redirected.
If a huge number of searches are redirected then that tells you something is amiss.
Thanks Jenova20 13:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that there are multiple Toyota models badged as the Yaris (or other things) for different markets. Being redirected just isn't really a major hardship. IFCAR (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I realise that, but what i'm getting at is how some car articles are named in ways where they end up with an unrecognisable name to the majority of people.
Thanks Jenova20 13:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Jenova, I feel like we have this same exact discussion with you about once every two weeks. Sure, Yaris may be better known to many than Vitz; but any rule is better than no rule or a rule which can be ignored after some arguing. And keeping the rule allows us not to have to spend hours and hours counting Google hits. In my eyes, being redirected does not in any way detract from the users experience (unless it is indeed a misdirect).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm 100% with you on that. Keep the rule, it works and is easy to understand and easy to apply. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The rule was made because we had so many fights over what to call vehicles that had different names in different markets. Toyota seems to be the worst in this regard and the Yaris/Vitz/Platz is the worst of the worst (for naming). Most arguments were basically "me and all my friend know it as XXX, we don't want to see it called YYY", quickly followed by "my country has more people than yours, therefore we win". The rule short circuits all that and lets us spend time on improving things instead of wasting time flip flopping between equally valid names. I vote we leave it alone - especially in the convoluted case of the Vitz.  Stepho  talk  22:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Jenova20, the rule is not perfect, we all agree here. The policy is better than the previous one, but getting one to suit every article is not feasible (but if someone can show otherwise that would be great). Please note the Yaris move would be okay if the Toyota Belta did not exist. Unfortunately the Belta sedan is causing dramas. I would encourage any editor with a good alternative policy to draft one, right down to the wording. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 05:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair point.
Like i said, i wanted to at least get a discussion on this since an English speaking country with a population of under 100 could force a foreign name on us all for something as common as the Fiat Punto or Ford Focus.
What i'm suggesting is common sense to this, but as a policy.
Whether this means by popularity, amount of countries using a name, or amount of population with a particular name available to them, i don't know.
Thanks Jenova20 08:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Which leads into the "my country has more people than yours, therefore we win" argument that I mentioned above.  Stepho  talk  09:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Discretion does co-exist with this policy (and I've suggested this since day dot of the policy being implemented). The Chevrolet Aveo article is an excellent example: it changed names multiple times in different markets (Daewoo Kalos to Daewoo Gentra to Chevrolet Aveo in South Korea; Daewoo Kalos to Holden Barina in Australia; Daewoo Kalos to Chevrolet Kalos to Chevrolet Aveo in Europe; and was sold concurrently in North America as a Chevrolet, Pontiac and Suzuki). Now some countries use the name "Chevrolet Sonic". The naming structure is a mess and the policy is not broad enough to cover situations like this. Other cases in include Volkswagen articles like the Jetta and Passat, which changed names for one generation in Germany and some export markets, but for the sake of continuity, the "offending" generations have just been included in the Jetta and Passat articles.
In the case of the recent Kia Carnival move proposal, the "Carnival" name was not obscure so no change was necessary in my opinion. While yes, North America and the UK do and always have used the "Sedona" name, Australia and New Zealand do not. Likewise, the home market of South Korea uses the "Carnival" name, South Africa did in the past, and most (if not all) of continental Europe does and always has as well. When I make a judgement, I do consider other non-English speaking markets where necessary. If a car was sold in every market under a single name, except in its home market (say Japan) and one English-speaking country (say Australia), I would almost certainly vote for the "common name" to be used. Where we draw the line is always going to be determined subjectively on a case-by-case basis. For me, it has to be a clear-cut example, but others are more lenient. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed OSX.
Good points raised although none of those comparisons you mentioned are quite like the example of the Yaris though since it didn't change names across different versions.
It's just a case of "this ones far more popular" for the Yaris.
The Jetta is how you describe OSX. In the UK it was the Jetta 79-92, then the Vento 92-97, then the Bora 99-06, then the Jetta 06> again.
You can just tell there will be or have been arguments over naming that one.
Thanks Jenova20 11:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture of two unidentified cars - worth keeping?

In sorting through orphan images, I came across this photo of two unidentified cars: File:S7300005.JPG - worth keeping, and if so, what cars? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a Vauxhall Omega, and Chrysler Voyager. It's a pretty crappy picture of the Vauxhall. Crop it and you have a semi-crappy picture of the Chrysler. Don't see a reason for keeping it TBH. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. No loss, but I guess deleting it also isn't necessary.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Plodge

I nominated Plodge for deletion. After mostly cricket noises the first time around, it's been relisted for further discussion. Can we get some interested editors to take a moment and weigh in? The more I think about it, the more I support one commenter's idea to merge it into History of Chrysler. —Scheinwerfermann T·C00:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Trouble brewing

Someone's on the warpath again. See Talk:Cadillac Fleetwood#Fleetwood is a Coachbuilder for Cadillac and not a Series of Cadillac. His post there makes it quite clear he intends to be as combative as possible and probably do what he wants consensus-be-damned. I don't really know what he means there, he may be right in the early decades but with the last one in the '90s, for example, I know of no other name for that car besides "Fleetwood Brougham." I suspect he intends to just blank half the page like he attempted to do on Lincoln Continental because he felt certain generations were unworthy of the name. I'd rather stay out of this one myself, I don't have the time or the energy to make arrogant know-it-alls understand how Wikipedia works and I've already had the misfortune of dealing with this troll once. --Sable232 (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I left a comment, and also don't understand his motivations.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, so he started. I reverted all his changes to that article and also to Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. Most of his changes were simply explained as "deleting irrelevant content" which is clearly not acceptable for edits which wipe out the Fleetwood name prior to the 1980s. Anyone want to weigh in? --Biker Biker (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Sadowski has been blocked for 48 hours for 3RR and edit warring. Cadillac Fleetwood is back where it should be, but I can't revert the changes to Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham or I'll be 3RR myself. What any of you choose to do to the article is up to you... --Biker Biker (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done. I don't imagine it'll last more than a few minutes past Sadowski's block expiry, though. —Scheinwerfermann T·C17:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Though I suspect his block will be reinstated very quickly if he does start arguing. And his argument is incomprehensible and bizarre. There are very clearly Cadillac Fleetwood and Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham models in existence during the years that he deleted - as evidenced by me posting the 1961 model year Cadillac range brochure from oldcarbrochures.com (to quote just one piece of evidence). --Biker Biker (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Aero swapping

User:John Nevard has been adding engine swap info (suitably sourced, I acknowledge) here, with no discussion of his reasoning beyond "well-sourced". I removed it, since this sort of thing is a) not factory option & b) not found on any other model page. I suggest, unless he intends to add it, or thinks we should, for every single engine swap option for every single model page, it has no place on the subject page. I have no desire to edit war, but I find this is a pointless add. Moreover, he is accusing me of trying to make a point. If I have one, I've already made it, & I'm not the one deleting anything else, or adding this cruft. I invite him to demonstrate the utility of a single engine swap fact (omitting entirely every other engine option) on a single car model page. I also invite comment here. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And is now restoring other dubious adds, seemingly only because I've delted them.... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Engine swaps, unless its very common thing thing to swap certain engine to car, I cannot see as very relevant to article. This is encyclopedia, its not our goal to add tuning, service or other hobby stuff to car articles UNLESS its VERY COMMON thing and widely known -->Typ932 T·C 14:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Unnecessary/irrelevant. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree in general, but the Aero Willys has been a particularly popular subject of V8 swaps, because of its spacious engine compartment and light shell. Generally the car is very popular amongst hotrodders, and swaps are nearly de rigueur. I would consider this a possible exception to the rule (with which, as already stated, I fully agree).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually like knowing this particular fact, & if it was here or here, I would have no objection. However, the popularity of swapping into this particular car doesn't justify adding this IMO. What about the Anglias, Prefects, & Populars? The Willys 33s? Or the hemi & elephant swaps? (And that's just offhand...) It's a can of worms, because it's just begging for fans of particular models & makes to start adding swap info on non-custom/non-rod pages. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, John Nevard (talk · contribs) gives every appearance of being quite fond of adding non-encyclopædic content to various automotive articles. His engine swap stuff flatly doesn't belong, per WP:NOTMANUAL; the only exception might be if a particular engine swap is notable for being especially common and reliably documented as such. A bigger problem is POV-pushing (e.g., here). Mr. Nevard seems to have some difficulty understanding WP:NPOV and other core Wikipedia precepts. —Scheinwerfermann T·C17:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Collier Motors

A contributor, Jgera5 (talk), has nominated Collier Motors for deletion. This is a second nomination. Its deletion was suggested back in February 2006, and the decision was to keep (link: here). Since that time, this article has been expanded and references added. It is not an "orphan" and has a steady stream of views. Most importantly, Collier Motors in Pikeville, NC is a noteworthy example of automotive history in the U.S. It is an unusual case of an independent business continuing to hang on. This is in sharp contrast to the typical large corporate-owned dealerships of today. Moreover, in addition to mention in several enthusiast and travel webpages, Collier Motors has been written up (with photographs) in a book about collector car finds. See: Cotter, Tom; Martin, Keith. "The good, the bad, and the lucky: Pikeville Purgatory". The Corvette in the Barn: More Great Stories of Automotive Archaeology. pp. 239–234. ISBN 9780760337974. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |http://books.google.com/books?id= ignored (help) by BMI, a respected publisher in the automotive field. Furthermore, Jgera5 suggests deletion of the article and a redirect to the American Motors (AMC) article. Although this contributor has unilaterally done this without any discussion (see|here) by redirecting the page to American Motors on August 30, this does not provide a good solution. The article about AMC is already too long, and does not include the scope to discuss dealerships such as Collier Motors. Please express your thoughts about the proposal to delete this article here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Collier_Motors_(2nd_nomination). Thank you,CZmarlin (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Subject has a lot less going for it than, for example, Miller Motors, which gets only two paragraphs the Ypsi museum article. I think things like Collier would be of interest to some people, but maybe several belong in one article. Not a good name but the concept is car dealers who refused to take downt he sign. Bradkay (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Excessive fan-cruft and trivia at DeLorean DMC-12

Does anyone fancy having a hack at DeLorean DMC-12? It contains a ridiculous amount of fan-cruft and trivial content, mostly sources from completely unreliable personal website. I'm happy to start but if other people help then we can get a nicely balanced article for what is (in my opinion) a highly important automobile article. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons image sorting

In the commons there is some image sorting job (categorizing) if you have knowledge and time, some help would be great http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_automobiles -->Typ932 T·C 10:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've identified a handful but a lot more work is needed.--Pineapple Fez 03:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
huh easiest ones were almost done, and now there is new ones... -->Typ932 T·C 11:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Detroit Auto Vehicle Company

I came across these articles while copyediting: Detroit Auto Vehicle Company and Crown (automobile). Not sure if they meet notability requirements; there isn't much info on them nor is there much to point towards significance. If they are notable, they should probably be merged together. Just thought this would be the place to bring it up. HotshotCleaner (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest merging into Detroit Auto Vehicle Company, or at the very least, moving the company info from the car page to the company page. Warren (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I've now merged the articles into Detroit Auto Vehicle Company and attempted a copy edit. There are perhaps some gaps or clarifications needed in the new vehicle section... if 1904-1907 is your era do have a look. Warren (talk)

Flint Engine South name change

General Motors engine plant "Flint Engine South" in Flint MI changed their name to "Flint Engine Operations" in October 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.243.169.71 (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Arrinera Automotive

This is an article about a new Polish car manufacturer which plans to release a supercar in a year's time. I userfied it for the author, who thinks references could be found to show notability but does not want to do any more on it, so I have put it into the Incubator and am posting here in case anyone is interested in developing it. I am also posting at WT:WikiProject Poland. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

See pl:Veno (supersamochód). There's probably enough there to establish notability, as long as all the references aren't based on the same press release. JohnCD (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Bitzas, bits of this and bits of that

Wikimedia Commons has been given quite a lot of images of two particular cars. Both at a glance appear to be Bentleys. They may have been constructed from bits and pieces that came from wrecked postwar cars. They have been made to look a little like the now very valuable cars made in the 1920s. Should this type of rough-replica be noted on the images? In another 50 years few may know the difference and might have to refer to a reliable encyclopedia to find out. So they should be marked accordingly? Eddaido (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you know they are replicas or quasi-replicas, then that presumably should be stated in the description section accompanying the picture, on its "Commons" file. If you merely suspect they are replicas or quasi-replicas, then it's slightly harder, but presumably you should still wish to mention the fact, along with your reasons for thinking what you think, on the file, citing sources to the full extent possible. If you merely suspect it might not be what it claims to be ... well then each file has it's own discussion page.
It's not an exclusively Bentley question, of course. There used to be (maybe still is) a firm in Germany that made replicas of 1960s "Morse" Jaguars which were, as far as I remember, believed by some to be far more carefully screwed together than the originals and were priced accordingly. And there are lots of replica Porsche not quite 356s around in the UK these days.
I don't think Wikipedia can hope to protect gullible buyers of used cars in (if our planet lasts that long) 2061. That's surely above our pay grade. But we do have a duty to truth - most especially verifyable truth - and that's more than reason enough not to let a 1990s replica be passed off as a 1960s original, regardless of the market value of either at a given point in time.
Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The second one would seem to be either original or at least based on a pre-war Bentley; the semi-personalized plates clearly state "1937". The first one looks like the kind of special cobbled together by well-meaning but half-blind people in the sixties and seventies. Maybe a category for "specials" could be added? Or you could add it to Category:Custom Cars or just add {{replica}} to the page. And agreed, these kinds of cars should definitely be marked.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I've added two new sub-categories under Bentley vehicles, Bentley replicas and Bentley specials. I have attempted a definition by the heading of each of these new categories. I look forward with interest to improvements and re-classifications. Please regard what I've done as a beginning to a process. I understand there are now a number of near priceless Bugattis displayed in various places and they all have the same engine and chassis numbers . . . Eddaido (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I just now saw your response: the new categories look great and should minimize confusion. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Fleetline & Deluxe

On doing some minor editing on Chevrolet Fleetline I started to wonder if this page should be merged with Chevrolet Deluxe as they seem to be about the same range of cars, just different versions? Warren (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, what would the title be?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

I'd like to move the C3 picasso info from Citroën C3 to it's own article since it's not in any way similar. Thanks Jenova20 17:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation of "all-wheel drive", "four-wheel drive", etc.

WP:WPAC does not mention hyphenation, but it might be a good idea to add something about frequently used compound modifiers.

I have changed many cases of "four wheel drive" to "four-wheel drive", but it would be good to see what the consensus of this project is when the phrase is used adjectivally. The hyphenation is not controversial when "four-wheel drive" is formed by putting the compound adjective "four-wheel" in front of the noun "drive" (it's used as an example in the English compound article). But what about "I need a four-wheel drive vehicle."? The compound adjective "four-wheel drive" now modifies "vehicle", so I would write "I need a four-wheel-drive vehicle."

The Dash article says "In English, the en dash is usually used instead of a hyphen in compound (phrasal) attributives in which one or both elements is itself a compound", so some editors might favor that construction: "I need a four-wheel–drive vehicle."

Hyphen or en dash, or something else that I haven't thought of? Chris the speller yack 19:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Top Gear

I've recently been editing the Criticism of Top Gear article. I think I could use some more eyes on that page though, so since it seems to fall under your WikiProject I thought I'd pass it along. --cc 14:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I just note that cued by this paragraph I went and read the article and enjoyed all of it - but I am too far from the 'action' to contribute. Eddaido (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need this article? is this encyclopedia stuff? -->Typ932 T·C 14:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Good question. It's nominated for deletion at the moment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Top Gear – Kieran T (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Opinionated vandal help needed

Can someone keep an eye on the (disruptive) contributions of 123.3.163.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) please? It is clear from this user's edit summaries that he/she doesn't want to play nicely. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sporting Honda Civics

I just discovered that against all reason, the Honda Civic Si and Honda Civic Type R have standalone articles. I can't see how this is reasonable or good at all, except maybe as a sheltered area for fanbois to waste their time and not damage actual articles (sorry if I come across testy, had a rough evening). Anyhow, does anyone have any issues with merging these articles into the proper Civic generational articles? I will also post notices at Si and Type R, linking to the conversation here. Best etc,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the Type R having its own article. The vehicle itself stands out from the average Civic in looks, features and status and has done so for many Civic generations. Also, each generation Type R is closer in spirit to the previous generation Type R than it is to its current generation sisters. This is similar to how the Nissan Skyline GTR has its own article.
However, the Si does not stand-out in any great way. It has slightly better trim and mechanicals than the average Civic but has no real history or excitement to it. The Si information is also reasonable covered in the generational Civic articles.
I recommend keeping the Type R article but ditching the Si article (merging any unique information back into the generational Civic articles).  Stepho  talk  07:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Support merger of both articles. The Type R is no more unique than a Camry Hybrid. In fact, the differences are even smaller—same car with new wheels, different bumpers, higher-output engines, and specially-tuned suspension. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The Si is sportier than the average Civic, and the type R is sportier yet. In either case, the differences due to being of different generations are much more thorough than the labels used. There is very little particular continuity between different generations of Type R's, with the separate article detracting rather than adding to the overall Civic coverage (in my eyes).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason for separate articles. The most iconic performance variant (in Europe at least) is the Golf GTI, yet that too is merged into the main article. I would go further and suggest that articles such as BMW M3 and BMW M5 need not be standalone, and M-model info should be merged into the appropriate generation-specific article. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Support merger of any AMG or BMW M-type model. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Opppose any blanket merging policy on performance models. We need to be deciding this on a case by case basis. While it is true that some performance models amount to little more than a trim level. Some vehicles like the BMW M3 and many others, have a well documented history outside of their parent model. They have separate books written about them and have separate reviews in the automotive press. There is absolutely no way to merge an article like this without losing significant encyclopedic content. Merges and splits should be based on the quantity of content. If it can fit in the parent article, great, if not it should be split into multiple articles. The last thing I want to see is a purge of valuable material. --Daniel 16:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I never proposed a blanket policy, I just noted my support for all AMG and BMW M-type model pages as I don't believe any of them are worthy of retention.
In fact, no AMG model has its own article (with exception to the SLS AMG which is a standalone variant). I don't know why BMW M-type models are more deserving of their own pages, as we still have: M3, M5, M6, M Roadster, and M Roadster. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Support merger of both Civic articles. The Si article is short, the long sections of the Type R article can be easily tidied with no loss of essential information, and neither car is terribly distinct from the rest of the Civic line. (It's not as if they're a loosely related model that happens to be called "Civic.")
Because the Civic is already split up into generation articles, there's plenty of room to discuss the variants. IFCAR (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
yep there is no need to make separate article for top variants of any car, unless some splitting is needed because too long article, one obvius case is also Mazdaspeed3, which is mazda 3 mps in europe. -->Typ932 T·C 18:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Support merger of these articles. These are not distinct cars, but variants of the basic model. There are separate articles on all sorts of vehicles and models in the automotive press, but that does not mean there should be separate WP articles for the individual sedan, coupe, or convertible versions, as well as individual coverage the economy, luxury, or sporty types of the same car. There is plenty of room in each "generation" article to cover the "sport" versions of the Civic. CZmarlin (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Separate articles mean more coverage in reliable sources which means more encyclopedic content for us to cover. I don't have a problem merging these Civic articles as long as nothing of value is lost, since the Civic page is already broken down into individual generations I don't think having a sections for the Si and Type-R would be an issue, but I oppose any blanket policy regarding what models are suitable for separate pages. --Daniel 22:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Support As per User:IFCAR.
This reminds me of our previous mass article merge discussion (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_27#Mass_article_merger), where both the Type R and Si were intended to be discussed but never were.--Pineapple Fez 06:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Support The Si is a mere derivative of the Civic and no way merits its own page. It would be much more useful to have any pertinent info on the main Civic page. Warren (talk)

Chevrolet Spark

No just a chinese copy of the Matiz anymore, it's actually on sale in the UK. We need an article for this. http://www.chevrolet.co.uk/cars/spark/ Jenova20 15:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Daewoo_Matiz#Third_generation. Being introduced to a new market doesn't merit a second article discussing the same product. IFCAR (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I am surprised that the new Spark is on the Matiz page with a redirect from Chevrolet Spark as the new model is a significant change, and is promoted in most countries as a Chevrolet Spark. I would suggest that it merits its own article. And to add to my confusion, the Chevrolet Spark EV gets its own page. Warren (talk)
It's beginning to look as if a proper Chevrolet Spark article is in order, as the Daewoo name is being discontinued. Of course, there is still the "Holden Barina Spark" but I can't be bothered with the Antipodean reluctance to call things by their proper name: "Capsicum" for bell pepper, "sieve" for colander, "washing-up liquid" for dishsoap, and "Foster's" for beer. Heh.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Capsicum: yes, abbreviation of the scientific name Capsicum annuum (bell pepper?????), sieve: no, washing-up liquid: yes (along with "dish-washing liquid"), Foster's: not consumed within our borders (exports mostly). OSX (talk • contributions) 13:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Ha hah, I figured the "Foster's" mention would get a reaction. I once brought an Australian friend to an Outback Steakhouse and had him eat the Blooming onion, which was fun.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The Spark EV page is there because no one wants to try and argue with Mariordo anymore.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Eh, it's worth trying. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe something like the Chevrolet Cruze, then? I guess I wouldn't object to that in this case, and the precedent lines up pretty well in terms of the model history, but I think it's also fine the way it is. IFCAR (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
We could move the Matiz page to "Chevrolet Spark" as the latter is now the home market name as well. The two proceeding generations were also sold as a Chevrolet, so it would still be representative of all versions. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As i now understand the Matiz is no longer available in the UK (discontinued in 2010) and we now only get the Spark (2010>), so it should be joined with the Matiz article and the Spark EV added there too? Jenova20 13:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Spark EV merger

Proposal: merge Chevrolet Spark EV to Daewoo Matiz (or Chevrolet Spark if the Daewoo page is renamed and/or split-up). OSX (talk • contributions) 13:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Support: especially as it is still a prototype, and is promised to be on sale in 2013. Warren (talk)
  • Support; I also think that the 3rd generation Matiz should have it's own article under the name Spark with both the oiginal Matiz and Spark mentioning each other.--Pineapple Fez 05:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ferrari 250 GT Lusso

Hi guys, i have just translated Ferrari 250 GT Lusso from its FA version on French Wikipedia and i think of getting this to GA status, please give your opinions and suggestions on this. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a bad article, but the translation needs some polishing. A few sentences read quite oddly. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Cosworth Vega merger proposal

I have proposed that Chevrolet Cosworth Vega‎‎ be merged into Chevrolet Vega‎‎. Any discussion for or against would be welcome at Talk:Chevrolet Vega‎‎. TIA. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Help identifying this

Damsels
Dashboard, no doors!
Front view

My mother took two pictures of this peculiar little truck in Vietnam. I cannot seem to find anything online (searching for "Damsel" and "Vietnam" doesn't give me anything useful at all) but imagine it's based on a Chinese copy of a Japanese kei truck of some sort. Can anyone shed some light upon this little mystery vehicle?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? ... Bueller?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Intriguing! It clearly owes a lot to the Suzuki Carry but that may just be in the styling. The dashboard and single wiper aren't right, but who knows how much economising has gone into the copy... Also — two gear levers! Presumably this little thing is four-wheel-drive? The Carry was available in such a version. The Chinese Chery Automobile brand goes in for copies of small vans a lot, but I can't quickly find a list of historic models (and this isn't in their current range). Sorry. This is mostly a reply so you don't feel ignored! ;) – Kieran T (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
'Save Ferris!'
It reminds me of vans I have seen in China. Jin Bei is the brand that comes to mind but my memory is very fuzzy and unreliable on this.  Stepho  talk  22:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

55 Chevy & 57 Chevy

I am confused as to the existence of the 55 Chevy and 57 Chevy pages. Surely they are superfluous as the cars they refer to in specific years are already present and that these pages just confuse, and I am not aware of a Chevrolet that had this name on its trunk! Or is it that the model specific pages are not clear enough? And to make it even more confusing the 57 Chevy page includes much detail on the 55 Chevy. Warren (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, fer crumb's sake. No, there should definitely not be 1957 Chevrolet and there should even more definitely not be 55 Chevy, which in addition to being unsupportably narrow (a single make-model-year) flunks WP:NAME. An appropriate article would be 1955–1957 Chevrolet, and would cover all three subsumed model years. Looks like the content at '55 and '57 is in need of a great deal of cleanup to move the coverage up from gradeschool-fanboy level towards encylopædia level, too. Where else, specifically, are you finding coverage of the 1955, 1956, and 1957 Chevrolets? —Scheinwerfermann T·C17:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Other articles which duplicate or conflict are: Chevrolet Bel Air, Chevrolet 150, Chevrolet 210, Chevrolet Delray, Chevrolet Nomad, Chevrolet Beauville... There may be some merit in one article that deals with the core mid 1950s Chevrolet and its variants, but currently there is a lot of editing required! I suspect there is perhaps a problem in that there is one common model with common mechanics, but there is a bit of badge engineering going on within the one range. The timeline (Template:Chevrolet cars timeline 1950–1979) is perhaps clearer. In retrospect it is hard to believe that Chevrolet was, in essence, a one car company until the Corvette came along (not including trucks of course).
Initial observation would suggest only one article as suggested above, or max three of each derivative deserves a full article, instead of the six or seven currently found to exist: Chevrolet Bel Air, Chevrolet 150, Chevrolet 210 with the removal of the 55, and 1957 pages deleted and any pertinent information moved to the relevant page. As the Bel Air, 210 and 150 are well known names, then I would suspect three articles would be a good compromise. Warren (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Disagree with three articles. One article is appropriate. The differences among the models were trivial (trim, equipment, and price). One article for all '55-'57 Chevrolets with redirects from all the other individual year and model search terms. —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a crazy situation, mainly due to Chevrolet's confusing model range. I could actually see having an article for each model year only, since the badging only denoted equipment levels. But I would also support a single article for the 55-57 Chevys, as most would consider all of these simply variants on one car. Articles for badging could remain, but only as a bare-bones history and mainly to provide links to the relevant articles.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sales Figures

Can i get agreement on only adding sales figures with pointing out what they apply to? It's pretty useless to have sales figures if the person reading has to assume what they apply to (the total sold worldwide/ produced/ in certain markets) and it's not very encyclopedic either. Thanks Jenova20 09:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree on the proviso that the figures are also 100% referenced to reliable sources. Also, there is also a distinction that needs to be made between sales and production figures. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you point out the ones troubling you?  Stepho  talk  13:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming that was to me Stepho?
I'm talking in general because tonnes of car articles feature sales figures that are just lists of useless numbers and dates. The point im making is that these sales figures aren't encyclopedic without stating what they're for.
How can someone show yearly sales figures of 20,000 as good when they can't also state where they apply to? That 20,000 could just be America, it could be the world, china etc. That's my point
Thanks, have a nice day Jenova20 15:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your point 100%. I was just hoping that it was a few isolated examples instead of endemic. I've tried to keep the Toyota pages honest (marked as sales worldwide, US, Australia, etc) but I don't look much at the other manufacturers. If it really is endemic then perhaps I can create a small template that puts a {{clarify}} tag on the page and also adds it to a new category (say, 'Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification of sales totals'). That way we can simply browse the category to know which articles still need work.  Stepho  talk  21:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You could do.
My current problem is i have no laptop to see for myself what the references say about it and the Android OS is not ideal to edit Wikipedia, so i can only point them out for now.
Thanks Jenova20 09:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rover 100

This redirects to a disambiguation page between two cars: Rover P4 + Rover 100.
Surely i can get this changed?
There's gonna be far more 100s than P4 100s (since the P4 is from the 60s).
Howmanyleft:
  • Rover P4 - No info (so probably none on the road, but some off road)
  • Rover 100 - 7,158 left on the UK road as of now.
There's also the fact that if people want the P4 they will type P4, if they want the P4 100, they will type that, but the vast majority of Rover 100 searches will want just that.
Any arguments against this or am i ok to:
  • Delete the disambig page and move the main 100 article there.
  • Create a new redirect for Rover P4 100 linking to Rover P4.
Thanks Jenova20 13:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. It isn't about how many are left, both were called the Rover 100 - although the newer model was only called the 100 for a time having previously been called the Metro. I really don't see what the issue is, what exists is perfectly adequate. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I also strongly disagree, this seems a sensible disambiguation page to have. I've changed the wikilinks on the redirect page to take you more directly to the relevant sections in each article. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Also strongly disagree. The present set up seems to be reasonably straight forward to navigate. The "how many left" website is not always easy to interpret especially since the recent "improvement". It seems to mix up all the Rover models called 100. I think it indicates that there are around 550 P4s still on the UK roads. I suspect that in a few years time there could be more P4s than the later 100s surviving, but as Biker Biker states above, the number survivng is not really relevant anyhow.Malcolma (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
If it helps, add thumbnail images to the disambiguation page as per Toyota Yaris. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Association of Global Automakers, proposed article review request

At present there is no article for the U.S. trade group Association of Global Automakers, although I believe its notability should be readily apparent. Global Automakers' history traces to 1965, and it currently represents 15 international automakers who manufacture and sell vehicles in the U.S. It has been a key player in trade issues for decades, and has itself been the subject of significant coverage by major U.S. newspapers such as The New York Times and trade publications such as Automotive News.

I have written an article of medium length about Global Automakers, which is available in my user space here: User:WWB_Too/Association_of_Global_Automakers. Under different circumstances I would boldly create it, but in fact I have a client relationship with Global Automakers and have written it at their request. I have written it with great care to be neutral, verified and encyclopedic. Because I am mindful of my potential conflict of interest, I would greatly appreciate another editor's review. If you agree this is ready to become a new article, please initiate the move or let me know if you think I should do so. However, if you have any questions or concerns, I am happy to address those, too. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look too bad, except that it is (naturally) lacking in criticism. I am curious as to AGA's role in blocking grey-market imports in the late eighties, and would also appreciate knowing what their stance is on a global alignment of safety and emissions standards before I support the creation of such an article. And do be aware that once there is an article here, there is nothing to stop anyone else from editing it to their liking - something which may or may not be to AGA's advantage.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you've made a nice summary. I added a little bit if only to show that I read it. The unanswered question, now, for me is "Who is Michael Stanton?" You may not have enough for an entry on him, but just an adjective would help give the fellow context. Or how about something like "...the former journalist / corporate lawyer / racing car designer, Michael J Stanton ..."? Or whatever. A name without further elaboration may be enough for his family and friends, but the rest of us are left wondering. But (of course) you are under no obligation to agree with me. Success Charles01 (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate both of your comments, Charles and Mr. Choppers; I'll respond in reverse order. As to Michael J. Stanton, I aim to take nothing away from him when I say I don't think he's notable, and certainly to my knowledge not a racing car designer. Now to Mr. Choppers' note about Global Automakers' role in gray-market imports and safety and emissions; it's not something I've looked at closely, but I'm willing to do a bit more research and see if there's anything relevant to be added. I'll be back soon. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It has taken me a little bit of time to research and add some new info, but I have done so now. Mr. Choppers, you can see in this diff where I've added new material on Global Automakers' up-to-date positions on emissions standards, particularly CAFE, plus text-messaging. (I didn't find anything about gray-market imports.) Charles, as mentioned before, I don't think there's a great deal more to say about Mr. Stanton that would be relevant here. Meanwhile, I'm not opposed to discussion of lobbying in the article (in fact I used the term in Current era) but I do think your addition is partly redundant—those services are described in the previous paragraph. So in this diff I've added a piped wikilink to "advocacy services", which I think makes sense especially as "lobby group" redirects to "advocacy organization". Thoughts on the current draft? WWB Too (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Noted. Interesting. To my eye "advocacy group" sounded like a euphemism, and I hate euphemism. However, I cannot tell how far that results from my personal dislike of euphemism and how far it reflects a difference of nuance between (my) mostly British English and (your) presumably mid-west English. I don't feel strongly about it, but having had a reaction I thought I'd share it. The other thing about the term "advocacy groups" is that for some reason it makes me think of lawyers before I remember it could also be a euphemism for lobbyists. Again, it's no big deal, but, at least to my eye, it distracts from clarity of meaning rather than enhancing it. Clearly, for many readers both "lawyers" and "lobbyists" are terms that carry a whole lot of lot of baggage: maybe that's sufficient reason to apply euphemism in discussion of either concept. But from the point of view of a wiki-entry, where baggage attaching to a word cannot be avoided, then I guess one should try and imply appropriate suitcases. I've no idea if you'll see what I mean, but if you did, thanks for struggling with it. I had intended to look again at the entire entry before reacting to your comment, but have not yet taken the time to do so: I still want to and might get round to it, however! Success Charles01 (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
As it stands, this is certainly better than many existing articles - the only problem being the lack of any genuine criticism and your (stated) links to the organisation. While I won't recommend deleting such an entry, I also won't raise a finger to protect it. This is since you and your organization are apparently unwilling to acknowledge AGA's less than savory role in blocking gray-market/private imports to the US. I choose to wash my hands off of this whole endeavor.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, my concerns regarding emissions/safety had absolutely nothing to with CAFE itself and was only concerned with AGA's apparent opposition to a global alignment of such standards.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Charles, thanks for the reply, and I'm glad you're OK with the change. Mr. Choppers, I'm disappointed that I couldn't answer your questions satisfactorily. I assure you it is not a case of being "unwilling to acknowledge" anything—indeed, I have searched for the organization's name + phrases such as "gray market", but I have found no reliable sources. (In fact, as of now the top Google result for the combined phrases is this discussion page.) Similarly with regard to global alignment of emissions and safety standards, I'm afraid that I've also not been able to turn up any source material. I'm certainly not opposed to other editors adding reliably sourced, encyclopedic language in the future. Nor do I expect you to go out of your way to defend it. At least we can agree that, like any Wikipedia article, it's a work in progress. I'll go ahead and move it into the main space. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

WWB Too, thank you for being candid in stating that the Association hired you to write a Wikipedia article about them. That's important. It can be seen as unseemly, and it must be kept front-and-centre in mind as we look at this article and its issues. Mr. Choppers asked some very apposite and relevant questions about the very plausibly likely involvement of AIAM in activities, events, lobbying, and adopted positions which, wherever they might have come from and whoever-all might have fomented them, have exerted substantial, ongoing, and controversial effects on the US auto market.

Your response is that you "searched", presumably on Google or similar, and came up empty-handed. That looks to me a lot like 2 + 2 = 3 (for extremely small values of 2) and gives the appearance of questionable convenience. You, having been hired by the Association to write "their" Wikipedia article, can reasonably be assumed to have much more direct and complete access to information germane and responsive to those questions than can be had by anyone with a web browser pointed at Google. You pick up the phone or you send them an email and you ask them the questions. If they can't or won't answer, you report that. This isn't difficult to understand and it shouldn't really need to be explained to someone who implies full understanding of issues surrounding articles written by editors with a commercial, financial, or other interest in the subject of the article. Naturally the Association hired you with the express or implicit understanding that the article you'd write for them would omit or gloss over whatever which of their machinations, activities, and involvements might tend to cast unfavourable light, but that desire on their part is of less than zero consequence here; this is an encyclopædia, not a mouthpiece for the Association's rosy, golden, selectively favourable perception and promotion of their own history. No, sorry, something doesn't smell right here. "I searched and came up with nothing" is just plain not good enough. —Scheinwerfermann T·C05:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to thank me for being candid. As a matter of principle, I agree with your point that a single editor, especially one with a potential conflict of interest, cannot be expected to write the most neutral possible article. This is why I brought the matter to this discussion page first, and why I sought to incorporate feedback from uninvolved editors.
However, I disagree that I was hired with the "express or implicit understanding that the article ... would omit or gloss over whatever which of their machinations, activities, and involvements might tend to cast unfavourable light", but I can't well prove that, except by working openly with the community to arrive at a reasonable version. I hope you will recognize that I am trying to do so.
Speaking of which, I agree with you that Mr.choppers asked relevant questions, particularly his initial response:
I am curious as to AGA's role in blocking grey-market imports in the late eighties, and would also appreciate knowing what their stance is on a global alignment of safety and emissions standards before I support the creation of such an article.
As previously noted, the problem we have lies in identifying identifying reliable, third-party sources. You are correct that I did a Google search on these topics, including a search of Google News archives; I also searched the Lexis-Nexis newspaper database (Nexis.com). Unfortunately Nexis.com is not, to my knowledge, linkable, but I can at least share the following results:
The first two searches turn up nothing topical; the latter two bring up a) pages on the Global Automakers website, and b) this discussion page. The results on Nexis.com are much the same; especially regarding the first, "No Documents Found" is the clear result. Perhaps you can see why, at this point, it feels like I'm being asked to prove a negative.
Meanwhile, I'm afraid your advice that I "ask them the questions" and if they "can't or won't answer, you report that" is misguided; Wikipedia forbids original research, is not a vehicle for breaking news, and as noted above, depends on the availability of third party sources.
At this point, I'm not sure what else should be included in the article. In any case, I see another editor has made some changes to the current article, and I'll post up a comment there momentarily. Best, WWB Too (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's remember to assume good faith, please and thank you (see, you're not alone; I, too, can point you, too, to policies with which you're already at least nominally familiar—shall we both cut it out now?). My advice wasn't misguided, it was misinterpreted. The suggestion to report the Association's responses was made with reference to these present discussions taking place outside of article space. As you surely know, the results one gets with a search are highly contingent on the exact words and phrases upon which one searches. While answers directly from the Association themselves aren't suitable for inclusion here, they're very suitable as a basis for you and other participants in this discussion to make more fruitful and productive searches for material in acceptable 3rd-party sources.
You deny that you were hired with an express or implicit understanding that the article you're being paid to write will cast the Association in the most favourable light possible. Okeh, that's challenging for me to imagine, but either way, my point in bringing it up is not to skewer or impugn you. Rather, it's to bring to your attention that your conflict of interest is not "potential", as you carry on phrasing it. It is actual and real and not only will it receive a great deal of scrutiny in its own right, but it is also a lens through which your contributions will be scrutinised. That just goes with the territory of making paid contributions to Wikipedia, no matter how scrupulously you strive to balance your two conflicting interests and write an article highly compliant with Wikipedia policy. Speaking of which, please refute (and link) me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear to me that you reported your conflict of interest at WP:COIN in accord with the guidelines described here. Why is that? And are you aware of Jimbo Wales' statement on the matter of paid editing? Fact is, you will need to be prepared for your bought-and-paid contributions to be viewed with particular skepticism at least, and you will probably want to be careful about how and how often you attempt to seek shelter from it by naming bits and parts of Wikipedia policy; it is almost easier to make things worse (or at least make them look worse, which is functionally equivalent) than to make them better this way. —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's a cute one - AIAM assisting in blocking California's attempts at state-specific clean air measures. In any case, I do not really want to deal with this obvious conflict of interests, and I don't think that the automobile project page is the place to do it. I would recommend bringing it to a higher instance.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Innocenti Mini merger proposal

There is a separate article for the Innocenti De Tomaso which is basically an updated Innocenti Mini. I was planning to improve the latter article but I think they should be merged first.--Pineapple Fez 07:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Only at first. Halfway through its lifecycle, it switched to a Daihatsu platform with the same body. --Pc13 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
They should definitely be merged - although perhaps a separate Innocenti Minitre page should be created and the DeTomaso content divided accordingly. The "Innocenti DeTomaso" was never more than the sporting version of the Bertone-designed Mini/Minitre and as it stands, the IM article confuses matters. While all Innocentis with Daihatsu engines were built under the aegis of Alessandro deTomaso, his name only appeared on the sporting ones. The Daihatsu-engined models were introduced as the "Minitre" (for obvious reasons), so this would make a suitable name for an article on the facelift version, if such a division is indeed necessary.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Support - confusing spread over two articles. Many models share one page over different generations, and only split off where detail gets too cumbersome, which is certainly not the case here. Warren (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Done; and also expanded massively. I think the Italians might want to visit to find out a thing or two...  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of foreign language references

I reverted an edit on Brilliance Auto due to the use of a foreign language reference with no english translation on the website, but the editor has reverted back. To avoid an edit war, I thought it might be useful to get some guidance on the use of foreign references on the English language Wikipedia. Warren (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If nothing else is available (unlikely for Chinese sales numbers, at least for a month or so), then foreign-language will have to do. Usually Google translate can tell you enough to figure out whether the reference is bunk or not. Fleetham does have a habit of edit warring as well as misreading things, but when it is as basic as sales numbers I don't see a problem. I also often use foreign references but will be happy to provide translations should anyone feel the need for it.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The WP policy is at WP:LINKS#Non-English-language sites. Basically it says English is preferred but foreign languages are okay if required. The {{cite web}} template has a trans_title parameter that should be used to display an English translated title so that English only readers can know whether it is something worth passing through a machine translator or just skipping over.  Stepho  talk  17:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge of rebadged vans

Three stub(like) articles of pretty much the same van (through a badge engineered joint venture). Anyone support a merge of these? Thanks Jenova20 09:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: as they are very minor rebadges. Would Renault Trafic be the most appropriate title as it includes prior generations as well? OSX (talk • contributions) 10:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Support: and Opel Vivaro too. I was under the impression it was predominantly a Vauxhall/Opel project (certainly the factory in the UK is), but if someone found out the better selling one? Same issue for the Renault Master/Opel Movano/Vauxhall Movano/Nissan Interstar. Warren (talk)
We could merge them into the Renault Trafic article.
I don't have sales figures but i have Google hits to show Trafic as the most common name:
  • "Opel Vivaro" - 622,000
  • "Vauxhall Vivaro" - 1,060,000
  • "Renault Trafic" - 1,800,000
  • "Nissan Primastar" - 820,000 (done with "English-only" exact wording searches)
So what do you think of combining it all in the Trafic article?
Thanks Jenova20 15:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
According to a Renault press release, the Trafic was "designed by Renault's Corporate Design Department based within the company's Technocentre outside Paris, [and] developed by the engineering team of Renault's LCV unit at Villiers St Frédéric near Paris. Manufactured at the IBC plant in Luton - beside the GM version, Vivaro - it is the first Renault vehicle to be built in the UK for over 30 years." This to me suggests Renault designed the van and "Renault Trafic" should be the title used.
I am unable to find information on the entity responsible for the design and engineering of the Renault Master and its Movano twins. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I've made a start on the merge - Nissan Primastar now included with Opel Vivaro. I'll someone else merge the Renault Trafic with Vivaro page - not so easy as the original Trafic was not the same joint venture! Warren (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bentley Motors Limited

Would it be a good idea to start a new article called Bentley Motors Limited (VW) to cover that business after VW's acquisition? Is it a good idea to replace the discursive information under Modern Bentleys into a table like below? References would be provided for the sources.

Year Profit Staff Total

sales

USA

sales

China

sales

Europe

exc UK

UK

sales

Other

sales

1998 1500 414
1999 1001
2000 1469
2001 1429
2002 1157 36
2003 1017
2004 7411
2005 8627 3654 500
2006 137 9387
2007 155 10014
2008 10 7605
2009 (194) 3500 4616 1433 489 897
2010 (245) 5117 1525 910 776 982 924
2011 4000 7003 2021 1839 1187 1031 925

Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a shame to split the article. Companies often change ownership, but remain in one article so you can understand the history. Also I would prefer that significant issues are dealt with in prose and a table as above not really required. Warren (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Lately it seems like automobile companies change ownership more often than some people change their underwear. Splitting the article every time this happens just makes the information disjointed. Much better to keep it together. Look at articles like Jaguar Cars#History.
Prose is good for mentioning when certain markets started (eg first exports, or when a new market like China started). But a huge string of numbers is very hard to read as prose, so sale figures are much better as a table. with a bit a prose to mention special events (eg starting/closing of certain markets). Many existing articles have sales tables (eg Toyota Corolla#Sales numbers).  Stepho  talk  22:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a split is helpful to anyone, as per Stepho and Warren. The table could be useful, although it could really use some more content first. Also a suggestion: use different background colours for the "profit" and "staff" columns, to make it clear that these are not sales numbers.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
While there are certainly advantages to splitting an article up with ownership, I think the cumbersome navigation that results is something that we don't want. Just take a look at how "Daewoo" is split up:
Not easy to follow. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for your thoughts folks. I do support your thinking but would like to note WP is one of the first places I'd go to check detail when shopping for a replacement car so I have mixed feelings about the 'history first' layout. I don't know how to give background colour to columns (rows OK) so anyone please fix if they can. Another difficulty with the table is that it is as full of info as I can make it. The gaps themselves (2004, 2006, 2010) are very much part of the story. Except for annual profit (loss) and total sales the 2010 numbers supplied are there by calculation from 2011 numbers. I'll put the table into the article but does anyone have access to VW annual reports that might supply other missing info? I'll wait a day for further suggestions before making any amendment to the article. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Merger of Mercedes-Benz CLC-Class to Mercedes-Benz C-Class

C-Class SportCoupé
CLC-Class (a facelift of the above)

Yesterday, I merged Mercedes-Benz CLC-Class with Mercedes-Benz C-Class. The CLC-Class article detailed the 2001 to 2008 Mercedes-Benz C-Class SportCoupé and the 2008 to 2011 facelifted version that was sold as the Mercedes-Benz CLC-Class.

However, this has been reverted by Hektor based on the fact that a new, unrelated CLC-Class is said to be launched later in 2012. Since the SportCoupé/CLC-Class is merely a three-door version of the C-Class sedan (W203), I believe this information should be kept together. If the new CLC-Class model does come to fruition, an easy solution would be to recreate the CLC page with a very brief paragraph on the 2008 to 2011 model that directs readers to the relevant section at Mercedes-Benz C-Class for full details. See Chevrolet Cruze for an example of how this would work, where the 2001 to 2008 Cruze is only briefly mentioned with full details at Suzuki Ignis. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Reject merger. The CLC class was never a C class except in name in some countries. The substantial differences from C class in engineering, engines, trim, and markets, along with the complication of Benz’s apparent impending plans, leaves me solidly against. WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR are irrelevant because the page was not named on rumors or original research in the first place; it was named because of the CLC designation extant at its creation. Strebe (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The CLC was a facelift of the SportCoupé, and the SportCoupé was little more than a three-door C-Class. The front-end was the same, except for the different grille insert, the interiors were mostly the same; only the rear-end was changed, so engineering-wise this was no different to the C-Class wagon which also had unique rear-end sheet metal. For the CLC, Mercedes-Benz updated the front with W204 reminiscent styling, and updated the rear without changing much besides the boot lid. Engines mostly align those of the W203 C-Class for the SportCoupé and the W204 for the CLC. I don't believe a separate article is required to detail trim or different markets (which is mostly down to where the CLC was not sold, as the C-Class sedan is sold just about everywhere).
WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR are completely relevant because the new CLC-Class has yet to be announced officially. Spy shots are definitely not reliable sources. The "new" CLC-Class is said to be quite a different model—a front-wheel drive coupe-esque sedan based on the B-Class platform. The previous model was simply a three-door C-Class with different front-end styling, even sharing the 203 series model code with its sedan donor model. Because these cars would be related only in name, I have suggested we separate the two articles if and when the new CLC is revealed, utilising an article layout similar to how Chevrolet Cruze deals with the 2001 to 2008 model at Suzuki Ignis. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It is puzzling what you are not grasping here. The current article title was not named on original research or rumors of some new model. It was named on the model designation. Therefore you cannot reasonably argue that KEEPING the name has some relevance to WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR. Plus, you go on to refute keeping the CLC name on the grounds that the new one will be completely different—a reason which at this stage is WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR based on what you yourself already called unreliable sources. How does that make any sense? It is you who are engaging in WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR. IF such a model arrives on the scene THEN we can discuss how to deal with it. This article has been functioning for years as-is just fine.
My comment about “market” is not limited to geographical regions; it means the people who bought it and the reasons they bought it. Also, having owned both a C SportCoupé and a C class, it is quite clear that the differences you want to make sound trivial really are not. Yes, many platform components are the same, but again, many are not, and the differences go deeper than sheetmetal. The literature supports this: Benz themselves went to great lengths on the debut of the SportCoupé to describe how much of it was independently engineered. Observations from the press corroborate that. Given the differences in engineering, market, componentry, history, styling… it just makes no sense to try to merge it all into another article to make some giant überarticle whose readership is going to want information about one or the other submodel but rarely both. Strebe (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
What am I not grasping? I said we should not mention the new car until "if and when the new CLC is revealed", therefore the current speculation should remain deleted as I have done. When I said that the new CLC is supposed to be a completely different concept than the original, I was simply quoting the speculation and that also should not be included. When the existence of a car is based on pure speculation, it is a bit hard to debate it using anything but speculation.
Having a CLC-Class article dealing with the 2008 to 2011 model is not speculation in itself, but it is when the unannounced model 2012 model is appended at the end. In your original reply, you opposed the merger because of "the complication of Benz’s apparent impending plans", which is speculative. Until the new CLC is announced we should not be reporting on it.
According to Drive, "the CLC is essentially a reworked version of the C-Class Sports Coupe that went on sale in 2001." Moreover, "Mercedes says the transition from Sports Coupe to CLC involved 1100 “newly developed or enhanced” components, though the new model carries over much of its predecessor’s sheetmetal and cabin design."
Mercedes-Benz hype and spin have no weighting no matter how much of it you believe. Broadly-speaking, 1,100 new parts is nothing remarkable. Mercedes-Benz quoted 2,000 new parts for their 2006 update the W211 E-Class, and according to Drive the company characterised the E-Class midlife update as a "new generation", which is also spin as the sheet metal is unchanged [1]. Likewise, the recent update to the W204 C-Class also involved more than 2,000 parts being changed [2]. Despite this, both the C-Class and E-Class updates are dealt with in the same articles as their pre-updated predecessors. To use another brand as an example, we have a BMW 3 Series article that deals with the sedan and coupe, and the the last two generations of 3 Series coupe (E46 and E92) have shared no sheet metal with one another, yet they are covered in the same article. The C-Class SportCoupé is much closer to the C-Class sedan than the E90 and E92 3 Series. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
“Mercedes-Benz hype and spin have no weighting no matter how much of it you believe.” I don’t believe any of it. I don’t care about it. It is irrelevant. That is why it makes no sense whatever for you to propose merging the article on the basis of the rumored new CLC class being so different from the old.
“Having a CLC-Class article dealing with the 2008 to 2011 model is not speculation in itself, but it is when the unannounced model 2012 model is appended at the end.” Then delete the speculation. I don’t care. I don’t know who put it there and I have no interest in it. It is irrelevant to the proposal to merge the articles, which is what this discussion is supposed to be about.
“In your original reply, you opposed the merger because of "the complication of Benz’s apparent impending plans"”. No, I opposed for many reasons, of which that was merely a supporting one and not even primary.
“What am I not grasping?” This: The current article title was not named on original research or rumors of some new model. It was named on the model designation. Therefore you cannot reasonably argue that KEEPING the name has some relevance to WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR. Plus, you go on to refute keeping the CLC name on the grounds that the new one will be completely different—a reason which at this stage is WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR based on what you yourself already called unreliable sources.
The article has stood on its own for years. The article is long. The information in it is distinct from the information in the main C-class article. Merging the two articles would make a much longer article. All the similarities you state concerning the C class and C SportCoupé are irrelevant given that articles are supposed to get separated when the amount of material exceeds the recommended length of an article. 05:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking over the history of the edits, I think I see where the misunderstanding arises. In Hektor’s reversion of your original merge, the only rationale he stated was that of the upcoming CLC class. But that is not the only reason by any means. It’s not the reason I reverted your merge and it’s not a reason I care much about. But then when you reverted Hektor’s reversion, the only rationale you gave was that the new CLC is speculative, leading me to assume that that was your reason for the article merge. I think I understand now that your original reason for the merge was not related to the upcoming CLC.
The reason I reverted your merge is because you have no business merging articles before a proper discussion between concerned editors has been conducted. Strebe (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
“That is why it makes no sense whatever for you to propose merging the article on the basis of the rumored new CLC class being so different from the old.” No, I my argument has been that the existing CLC is merely a three-door C-Class and should be merged for that reason alone. What I did say was that if the much speculated front-wheel drive model does eventuate, then we could create a new article for this model and briefly mention the old CLC in a paragraph, linking back to the C-Class article for full details.
“What am I not grasping?” This: The current article title was not named on original research or rumors of some new model. It was named on the model designation. Therefore you cannot reasonably argue that KEEPING the name has some relevance to WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR." It is you who is not grasping it. I said it is speculative to have reference to the alleged next generation CLC. That's it, nothing more! There is nothing speculative about a CLC article on the 2008 to 2011 model—nothing. I never mentioned, implied, or stated outright that having a CLC page was speculative. Please stop throwing words down my throat that never came out. I'll repeat it once more to make it 100 percent clear:
CLC article on the 2008 to 2011 model — ok because it can be reliably sourced. Despite this, I believe this page should be merged with Mercedes-Benz C-Class
CLC article on the speculated future model — not ok because it cannot be reliably sourced
Too much lashing out and not enough reading. No sir, you put the words in your mouth, as I explained above as the origin of the misunderstanding. Kindly read your own rationale for restoring the merge here. I understand now that you did not mean that as your explanation, but as a matter of record, that is your original explanation and the origin of the misunderstanding.
"Merging the two articles would make a much longer article." Well, then let's create a separate page for the W203 series C-Class (including coupe and wagon) to make the main article shorter. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I will consider what that means. Strebe (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Studying the articles in question, I still oppose the merger. I don’t think moving it all into the W203 article is a terrible idea, but neither do I think it is a good idea. I don’t see what problem we are solving. The CLC article’s content does not duplicate C-class content with the exception of two sentences. There is enough distinct content for the article to stand alone, which is why it has been separate for over four years now. The SportCoupé’s history diverges quite a bit from the mainstream C-class. Benz themselves split the car off from the C class by their own designation with the advent of the CLC, and from that time, while sharing a lot of W203 componentry, the automobile ended up being a W203/W204 hybrid. Meanwhile WP:SIZERULE does not like the length of the merged W203 article (71kb = Probably should be divided). So I repeat: What problem are we solving by merging these articles? Strebe (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I did not revert because of the new model, I reverted because there had been no prior discussion which would give the opportunity to agree or disagree with the merge. And btw, I maintain that a new CLC-Class, completely different from the C-Class, since it will be based on the platform of the B-Class, is expected to be presented within the next three months, maybe in Geneva 2012. This car is well documented [3]. The article would then have to be unmerged. Hektor (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
My above proposal accounts for the new CLC. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I just couldn't be asked to read all of this. Now I have, and it is clear that the 203-series "CLC" belongs either in the C-class article or in a separate W203 article (preferred). A future CLC article should briefly mention the CLC/203 with a hatnote redirecting to the W203 article. Easy as pie.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22toyota+vitz%22&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=637&num=10&lr=lang_en&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=
  2. ^ http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22toyota+yaris%22&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=637&num=10&lr=lang_en&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_30&oldid=1151394496"