↓

Skip to table of contents

↓

Click here to start a new discussion thread

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Automobiles and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming

This page is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Project-Class) AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles Cars portal v • d • e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22
Threads older than 50 days are archived by MiszaBot II.

Contents 1 Naming of Lotus articles 2 General issues : Crash testing ratings, scrappage rates and Top Gear 3 C1 Corvette 4 Complete list of Blue&Me voice commands 5 Cimarron by Cadillac: A missed opportunity... 6 Illicit Chinese knockoffs in AKA field removed 7 merge request 8 HELP - STOP Car Maker Jokes! 9 Infobox usage (esp dates) 10 Ram brand timeline 11 Old car identification 12 Ram Trucks

[edit] Naming of Lotus articles

I notice some inconsistency in the naming of the articles about some of the early Lotus models. Specifically:

Article title	Article lead	How displayed in Template:Lotus
Lotus Mk1	The Lotus Mark 1 was...	Mk1
Lotus Mk2	The car that came to be known as the Lotus Mk. 2...	Mk2
Lotus Mk3	Lotus Mk3 was a single seated sports car ...	Mk3
Lotus Mk4	Lotus Mk4 was a trials car ...	Mk4
Lotus Mk5	Lotus Mk5 was...	Mk5
Lotus 6	...Colin Chapman introduced his first 'production' car, the Lotus 6, in 1952. The heart of the Mark 6, as it was called...	Mark 6
Lotus Seven	The Lotus Seven was a small, simple, lightweight two-seater open-top sports car...	Seven
Lotus Mk8	The Lotus Mark 8 (or Mark VIII) car...	Mark VIII
Lotus Nine	The Lotus 9 or more properly Lotus Mark IX...	Mark IX
Lotus Ten	The Lotus Mk 10 or Mark X...	(not in template)
Lotus Eleven	The Lotus Eleven was a racing car...	Eleven
Lotus 12	The Lotus 12 was...	12

I propose that articles be renamed as follows:

• Lotus 6 --> Lotus Mk6
• Lotus Nine --> Lotus Mk9
• Lotus Ten --> Lotus Mk10

and that the article leads and Template:Lotus be updated accordingly. Any objections/better ideas? DH85868993 (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No objections to the principle but I'd like to see the abbreviations gone unless they're exactly what Lotus used. Inconsistencies in the use of "mark" are extremely common in Wikipedia and I think they can be misleading and confusing – they also just irk me. We often see mixes within the same article of Roman and Arabic numerals, spaces ignored, random capitalisation, and all manner of unexpanded (unexplained) abbreviations, inc. (or is that incl.?) for example "mk.II", "Mk2", "mk ii", "mark2" and so on. I believe that unless the model actually uses some specific variant in official documentation, then we should stick to the conventional "Mark I" style, and just as we avoid confusing jargon elsewhere (per the style guidelines), we should avoid pointless abbreviations. I had quite a debate about this with one user a while ago, where his side of the argument was based on a stylised badge on the car, whereas I had several original period brochures and an owner's manual... anyway, it'd be nice to reach a consensus about keeping this sensible, not just for Lotus articles but across the board. – Kieran T ^(talk) 03:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, and certainly the most common usage currently, is that pre-Eleven the cars were known as "Mark ..." with the number given in Roman numerals and no abbreviation. For the Eleven onward the cars were simply known by their number, written in full text form. The Seven complicates matters as, chronologically, it was later than its name suggests (with the roadgoing Seven originating in 1957, after the 1956 interoduction of the Eleven, actually being based on the 1952 one-off Mark VII racing special built for Clive Clairmonte). From the 20 onwards the cars were known by Arabic numbers, officially. But of course, this being the days before ruthless marketing, sometimes the cars were known by other forms, which is why no the Lotus 18 is a far more common usage than Lotus Eighteen. I don't think absolute consistency is either sensible or appropriate between different manufacturers, cases ought to be judged on their individual merits. But for Lotus I think the correct course of action would be for the full "Mark VIII", "Mark IX", "Mark X" form for those cars. For the Seven, the later road car is much the best known, so the Mark VII should be included as a development stage for that car. For the 12, 16 and 18, although technically properly the Twelve, Sixteen and Eighteen, as they are extremely widely known by their Arabic styles there should be the article titles. Pyrope 13:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How about this then?:

• Lotus Mk1 --> Lotus Mark I
• Lotus Mk2 --> Lotus Mark II
• Lotus Mk3 --> Lotus Mark III
• Lotus Mk4 --> Lotus Mark IV
• Lotus Mk5 --> Lotus Mark V
• Lotus 6 --> Lotus Mark VI
• Lotus Seven stays as Lotus Seven (with an internal reference to the "Mark VII")
• Lotus Mk8 --> Lotus Mark VIII
• Lotus Nine --> Lotus Mark IX
• Lotus Ten --> Lotus Mark X
• Lotus Eleven stays as Lotus Eleven
• Lotus 12 stays as Lotus 12
• Lotus 16 stays as Lotus 16
• Lotus 18 stays as Lotus 18, etc

with corresponding changes to the article leads and {{Lotus}}. DH85868993 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; with additional redirects from the 12, 16, and 18 spelled out? – Kieran T ^(talk) 02:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I'll make changes as detailed above, including redirects for 12, 16 and 18. DH85868993 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] General issues : Crash testing ratings, scrappage rates and Top Gear

Some articles on cars give extensive listings of crash test ratings, usually along the lines of 'The car was given a poor rating by a 2008 survey' or some such. I think these sections are pointless and add nothing of value to an encylopaedia. Wikipaedia is not intended to be a buyer's guide ; there are other websites for such information. Furthermore, in most instances the sources quoted are very recent for cars many years old. Of what relevance is a 2008 survey of a 1982 Chevrolet Cavalier for example ? I think safety ratings should only be referred to if they were significant _at the time the vehicle was released_ - for instance, the first Chevrolet Aveo. The 1982 Cavalier was not particularly poor in safetty for its period, so the rating has no encyclopaedic value.

On some cars, such as on the Morris Marina, scrappage rates are given. Quite apart from the fact that scrappage rates for a 35 year old car are irrelevant anyway, of what value is this information ? This is really facetious and is really an opinion.

Some sections have information about Top Gear. This silly program is largely unheard of in USA (the largest English Wikipaedia audience) and will forgotten 3 weeks after it is taken off the air. It is not significant enough to be included in car articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.12 (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with your last point regarding Top Gear, although in some cases Top Gear testing results in actual changes being made to the car itself, the Koenigsegg, being an example. I disagree with the other two points. In the case of the Marina, the scrappage rate is sourced to a reliable publication and makes a valid point regarding the Marina's longevity. As for safety testing most the no information on the 1982 Cavalier is given, but there are some articles that sight recent Australian tests of older vehicles. I believe these tests give ratings based on age specific comparisons and are valid pieces of encyclopedic information regarding older vehicles relative safety. --Leivick (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the scrappage rates are NOT relevant. Giving scrappage rates on a 35 year old car says nothing about a cars longevity. Few cars live beyond 20 years and the average life in the UK is less than 10 years.

The point about the safety ratings is that they appear to be a sort of 'buyer's guide'. The Cavalier, as an example, not the only of its type is not only unnecessary but actually misleading. The safety of a 1982 Cavalier was not 'poor or very poor', it was really higher than the average 1982 car ! 203.26.122.12 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Top Gear is irrelevant. Published surveys and reports, especially those in recognised publications and by organisations such as JD Power, are definitely relevant. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep we dont need a mention of Top Gear in every car article, only it if has some relevant and meaninfull info, crash test results are IMO good info but those should be located in right generation sections. --Typ932 ^T·C 13:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding scrappage and safety ratings, if properly sourced they should certainly be considered. However, safety ratings MUST be discussed relative to similar-aged vehicles or they are meaningless.

Regarding Top Gear and Wikipedia... That the largest WP:EN audience is from North America does not mean that articles should be skewed in favour (sic!) of a N. American audience. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not a "North American" one. According to Top Gear the programme has a worldwide audience exceeding 350 million, and has been going for many years (with endless repeats too!) So, if Top Gear covers some aspect of motoring that is encyclopaedic, there is no reason why it should not be included in the articles. That said, the majority of Top Gear's output is no more encyclopaedic than many motoring magazines. Top Gear -sourced content should be judged on its own merits relative to WP policies and any problems should then resolve themselves.

EdJogg (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of skewing. Most of the Top Gear references are to facetious comments made by the presenters. That's fine in the 'Top Gear' section but its not encyclopaedic content for the car sections.

Autonews is not a 'reliable publication' but a high street magazine and the the piece referred to was a light hearted puff piece not a serious piece of research.

I still think safety ratings should not be included unless 'newsworthy'. This is not a buyers guide - try Edmunds.com.203.26.122.12 (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] C1 Corvette

The C1 Corvette article needs some attention. I'd make the changes myself, but I'm not very good with wiki code, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes regarding the rules.

Anyway, the way the article is now, there are only pictures of the third version (1958-1962, "quad headlight") of the C1, and there is little to no mention of the first and second versions. The casual observer would think that the car looked the same from 1953-1962, which is simply not the case. There were many changes made to the body over the course of the C1's production run, both subtle and obvious.

The first version of the C1 (or as some refer to it, the C1.1), was produced from 1953-1955), and was very different looking from it's successors. The second version (C1.2, produced from 1956-1957) and the third version (C1.3, produced from 1958-1962) looked basically the same, except for their headlights. The 1.2 had two single headlights, whereas the 1.3 had four headlights, two on each side.

I encourage you to look at pictures of the three versions (53-55, 56-57, and 58-62) to see for yourself. I honestly can't believe that an article regarding a car as popular as the Corvette has such huge gaps in information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBustah (talk • contribs) 08:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Complete list of Blue&Me voice commands

I have been searching for a complete list of all voice commands available with the Blue&Me system.

My Nuovo Fiat 500 manual provides a few for some settings, but not all. It also advises that if you say 'help', all available commands will be read out to you, but I know this is not true as I have tried to use additional commands, such as 'music' with success.

The main reason for my question was a recent problem where all mp3's would play over and over, and I was forced to manually advance the tracks. After a fairly extencive search on the web I found that if I used the voice command 'loop off' it would fix the problem. This is not published anywhere.

As the Blue&Me system covers many different car manufacturers and types it would be advantageous to have a complete list of available voice commands on a global forum such as wikipedia.

Can anyone help?

193.5.216.100 (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC) LP

I would advise against such a list on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a manual, and should not be used a primary source of information. Instead, I would suggest adding an external link off the Fiat 500 page to another website with such a list, if and when one exists. --Vossanova ^o< 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cimarron by Cadillac: A missed opportunity...

The origin of the word Cimarron is Spanish, meaning runaway slave. The reference is to Yanga, an African slave elder, who started the Cimarrons in 1609, in the southern part of Mexico and who founded the city of San Lorenzo de los Negros near Veracruz. I wonder if the designers/marketers of this model knew that. And what was the intent for branding this model of Cadillac with such history? Clearly the subsequent poor design and negative reputation garnered by this model indicates that not enough research was done on both levels and a great opportunity for Cadillac was surely missed: the chance to break away from bulky, gas-guzzling road hogs saddled with pretension and arrogance and to show that the American auto had the vision and possibly the technology or beginnings of, even way back in 1982, to produce a new type of car with the gravity/reputation of 'Cadillac' and the courage and resolve of those 'Cimarrones' to challenge the status quo of the industry. Lofty and poorly written, perhaps, but makes you think - possibly? 67.180.196.127 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Illicit Chinese knockoffs in AKA field removed

Recently, an IP editor (Special:Contributions/78.43.180.34) added several Chinese cars to the AKA field in the infoboxes of several articles. Looking in to this it appears that the Chinese vehicles in question simply ripped off other vehicles and have no legitimate relation to the vehicles their designs were stolen from. Chevrolet Colorado had the "Huanghai Plutus" added, but this indicates that only the grille was copied from the Colorado, the rest of the truck's styling was stolen from others. There were also Pyeonghwa models added, but that article shows that those vehicles are based on something else. In fact, the edit on Toyota Tacoma seems to indicate that the allegedly related vehicle is indeed a knockoff and not a true rebadge of the Toyota. The Hyundai Santa Fe was alleged to be also known as the Pyeonghwa Ppeokkugi, but a Google search indicated that it's a Fiat Doblo. This all looks very sketchy and none of it is reliably sourced. I am reverting the lot of the IP's edits. --Sable232 (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If they are truly illicit knockoffs, then they belong in the related field. Toyota started out the same way - the Toyota AA was the Chrysler Airflow body with a Chevy Stovebolt engine and a Ford chassis. But of course, all must be properly sourced.  Stepho  (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends if the vehicles are based on other cars (i.e. legally by manufacturer agreement) or copies, such as the Chery QQ being a copy of the Daewoo Matiz. Cars made under license would belong in aka / related, but reverse engineered cars do not: they are best to be left mentioned in the article body. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/78.43.180.34 has, under several different IPs, been adding fabrications about the North Korean car industry to various different entires. Pyeonghwa has used the Ppeokkugi name for various different models; the Santa Fe is certainly not one of them but the Huanghai DD6480, which rips off the Santa Fe's styling, is. At the very least, this user has inserted false information into the following entries:

Pyeonghwa Motors

Mercedes-Benz W201

Hyundai Santa Fe

Pyeonghwa Motor Plant and related pages in the German Wikipedia

Tokchon Motor Plant in the German Wikipedia

I deleted his claims about the Hyundai Santa Fe and Mercedes-Benz W201 from Pyeonghwa Motors and he replied on my talk page with further inventions, and offered as a source his own fabrications on the German Wikipedia. I emailed Erik van Ingen Schenau, who wrote the book Automobiles Made in North Korea, and he assured me that this guy's claims about Pyeonghwa are false (and also pointed out his fabrications on the German Wikipedia). I don't want to get into an endless edit war of delete, revert, delete, revert, etc, so where do we go from here?--GagHalfrunt (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like this guy has several IPs at his disposal. Special:Contributions/91.89.159.182 is one, Special:Contributions/91.89.139.217 is another. Maybe a report at AN/I is in order. --Sable232 (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Erik has said the following in an email to me. It might be useful if you're contacting an admin.

"I think the guy

1. knows a lot of facts

2. selling these facts with a lot of mistakes

3. is filling in all his holes (and when you study the North Korean industry there are a lot of unknown things) with fantasies

4. creating a mix of assumptions, facts, fantasies all together, bringing it as the truth.

...

It is a pity, as he probably has worthfull and adding info, but from his entries you never know what is real and what is made up, and he probably will not deliver you any prove or source for what he is telling."--GagHalfrunt (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] merge request

Hi all. I've noticed two similar articles have a merge request on them since July 2009, but no action has been taken. The two articles are: Emergency Brake Assist (EBA) and Brake Assist (BA). I support the merge, but I would recommend the article be called emergency brake assist (lower-case, because it is just a 'generic' name for the technology, and not any kind of 'trade name'). As a note of caution, only one of the current articles has an activated talk page (Brake Assist); so it might be worth merging the EBA text into the BA article; and then renaming that one. Regards 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep just do it.. --Typ932 ^T·C 20:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the merger, but a quick glance around suggests that Brake assist might be the better title. Two of the three references in the two articles (including the two most reliable) use only "brake assist", not "emergency brake assist" [1][2][3]. Also, assuming we'd want to improve the referencing, Google Book and Google Scholar searches also suggest "brake assist" to be the most common name:

• Google book search for "brake assist" (657) vs "emergency brake assist" (123)
• Google Scholar search for "brake assist" (758) vs "emergency brake assist" (68)

Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Typ932 - I can't merge, it needs to be a registered user. Isn't it a big no-no to just cut and paste from one article to another? :-(

DeLarge - upon reading the existing citations, I agree with you - brake assist should be the correct name. On the EBA article, the 2nd reference which refers to "Emergency Brake Assist" is just a Ford dealership website which details the Ford nomenclature for said technology fitted to the Mondeo (but I'm not disregarding it - it is quite informatively written, so is a very useful citation). The 1st ref on the EBA page goes to a RoSPA - and whilst RoSPA are very highly regarded in the UK, their article on brake assist capitalises both words (which I personally don't agree with), and if you look at RoSPAs motor vehicle safety index page - they have a propensity to capitalise every word possible (Pop Up Bonnet, Electronic Stability Control, How To Adjust Your Head Restraint, etc). So yeah, someone merge and change to "brake assist", thanks. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HELP - STOP Car Maker Jokes!

• Hello everyone!

I would like your help. I have recently made a request to remove the Fix it again Tony redirect, which is a blatant attack on Fiat Automobiles company. I strongly believe such redirects Fix Or Repair Daily, Biggest Metal Waste etc. should not be promoted on Wiki. Please could you help my removal request by discussing under RfD here...Redirects_for_discussion#Fix_it_again_Tony. Thank you for your support on this issue. G87 22:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Since the above is a call of action, this can be construed as WP:Canvassing, a violation of Wikipedia policy. It is suggested that either the message be modified to that which cannot be construed as canvassing or remove the above message completely. 147.70.242.43 (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC) (who has paricipated in the first RfD at 147.70.242.54)
  • I dont see this canvassing , without this notice in the rfd would have only couple of discussers, this is just to get bigger audience to this case, you cant discuss or make concensus if only couple of people is discussing about the case. All normal people can make their own decisions. --Typ932 ^T·C 11:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying "Your contributions would be valued" is not canvassing. Saying "please help stop this blatant attack" is very much canvassing as the poster is trying to impose his/her own opinion. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but posting on the talk page for a WikiProject is not going to bring in just one side of the debate, so I think we're good here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox usage (esp dates)

Howdy all,

I'm curious what the consensus is regarding which entries to use in the automotive infobox, especially considering some are closely related? I'm thinking of things like parent_company vs. manufacturer, and production vs. model_years. Vegavairbob is doing a good job cleaning up the Chevrolet_Corvette article, but my personal opinion is that the infobox is kinda heavy. I would propose losing (only in the infobox) the General Motors reference and either the production or model_year. It's only two lines that would be saved, but its a start. The missing GM reference is easy to justify... the Chevrolet wiki article makes it clear that GM is the parent. The production vs. model_year is more tricky. You can find a multitude of use (and misuse) of these across the various automotive articles - in fact, it seems many articles are incorrect in their usage. Cadillac_XLR, for example, lists Production 2004–2009 when it should really be Model Year (since production started in 2003). Chevrolet_K5_Blazer uses both. My personal opinion is that production should not be used, and we just use model_year. But that preference could probably be swayed by a persuasive argument. Have fun! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly isn't obvious to English-speaking readers outside of the USA that Chevrolet == GM. That's why the parent field is useful. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the parent company field is not needed. You can click on the Chevrolet link and that article will then tell you of the GM parentage.

Model years and (calendar) production years is another US vs the rest of the world thing. Americans find it hard to think in terms of anything besides model years while the rest of the world find model years confusing and counter-intuitive. In many articles there would be edit wars where the production dates would be flipped between say, 2000-2007 and 1999-2006 as editors from either side would change it to their own preference. In some articles it became impossible to tell which set of dates was being used. This is why we compromised on having both fields. Americans can do what they like in the model years field while the production years field is strictly the calendar year of when it started and ended (ie July 1999 to May 2006 becomes 1999-2006). But many articles are yet to be cleaned up, so there remains some confusion in the short term.  Stepho  (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for using the "manufacturer" field for the brand the car was sold under. The brand generally doesn't build the car (although it's my understanding that that could be considered the case for some GM stuff back in they day, but I digress). Mercury doesn't build anything, they have a design and marketing strategy but the cars are built by Ford in Ford factories. I'd rather reserve the "manufacturer" field for the entity that actually produced the vehicle, and "parent company" only if necessary.

The model years vs. production years compromise was supposed to be where the production date would include the month or month/day so as not to be ambiguous, and the model years field would be used where the former weren't available (this is all for North American-market cars of course.) --Sable232 (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ram brand timeline

Template:Ram Truck Timeline

I believe this timeline should not exist by itself yet. 2010 is the first model year for the Ram brand, and so having a timeline for one year serves no purpose. It includes model years when the truck was under the Dodge brand, which can be confusing. I added "/ Ram" to Template:Dodge Truck Timeline so that both brands share the same timeline, for the time being. Unless sufficient arguments can be made otherwise, I think the Ram timeline should be deleted. --Vossanova ^o< 14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Ridge Runner (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the template for deletion. There's no sense in having a template for one year (for that matter, there's not point in having it until they drop a model or add one). --Sable232 (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Old car identification

Hello, can anyone here identify this old car? I want to add it to an article here, but I can't identify it. Thanks! Cerebellum (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a Belgian-made Imperia car from the mid-1930s - especially with the distinctive radiator. Perhaps as the photo was taken in Dutch-ruled Indonesia it would make sense to look at Dutch, Belgian, French and German cars of that era. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1935 Ford. Almost the same as the 1936 Ford except for the grill.  Stepho  (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ram Trucks

Can someone make a template for the new RAM division of Chrysler, like the one for {{Dodge}}, {{Plymouth}}, etc

And the Dodge one needs to move the vehicles that were shifted over to RAM to be put under "historic" production. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early for a Ram brand template, but if it's made I'll let it be. On the other hand, I think it will be confusing to put the trucks under "Historic" in the Dodge template. People may misinterpret that as the trucks are no longer produced. I'm starting to think that a combined Dodge/Ram template with the Ram trucks on their own line is a better solution. --Vossanova ^o< 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)