↓

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
Threads older than 50 days are archived by MiszaBot II.

Contents 1 Kohl Automobile article 2 Fiat S74 fans? Article rescue help.. 3 Renaming articles with "car" in their title to "automobile" 4 Owners clubs in the external links section of an article 5 Redirects with funny names 6 Hi all 7 Naming of Lotus articles 8 People 9 Sad article needs dedicated editor 10 can someone give an outside opinion on a minor dispute? 11 Rewrite of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas, Inc article 12 Copyvio 13 Cole Motor Car Company: Article's historic focus collides with Indiana landmark theme 14 UMW Toyota Motor (Malaysia) 15 Volkswagen Polo (and others) 16 General issues : Crash testing ratings, scrappage rates and Top Gear 17 Garrett AiResearch/Honeywell and turbochargers 18 requested move of article - twin-clutch gearbox 19 DSG trannies 20 Halo Vehicle AfD 21 C1 Corvette 22 Complete list of Blue&Me voice commands

[edit] Kohl Automobile article

Could someone from the Project possibly look at the above article with an aim to improving the references for it?

My attention was drawn to it by a question on the Help Desk. However, I can find no references to this automobile online, despite an extensive search of Google News Search and Google Web Search, as well as the Wilkes-Barre Record Almanacs] on Ancestry.

If anyone here has knowledge of cars produced 1900-1902 (especially in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania) - particularly if you have access to local newspapers and/or local books, which here in the UK I don't have! - I would be grateful if you would see if you can improve this article.

I know nothing about cars (apart from the fact that most have 4 wheels, etc) - so I think that this article would benefit from some expert help!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The only Kohl mentioned in the comprehensive Beaulieu Encyclopedia (it runs to 1800 pages) was made in Cleveland, Ohio between 1900 and 1902 by an Edward Kohl. The company was registered as Kohl & Gates. They then moved to Whitney Point, New York as the Kohl Automobile Co for a year, made no more cars and vanished. At least 12 cars were made, all in Cleveland with single cylinder engines. Malcolma (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for such a quick response! Although the location is different, the other details tie in with what is mentioned in the article. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can readily access the encyclopedia (my local library doesn't have it, it costs over £400 on Amazon, or over £70 on ebay!) - if you have access to the encyclopedia, could you please add the details to the article - in case you need it, here is the citation you would use for the Oct 2000 version (obviously, if you use a different edition, then the edition/publisher/isbn/url will need to be amended): <ref>{{cite book|last=Georgano|first=Nick|title=Beaulieu Encyclopedia of the Automobile: Volume 1: A-L|publisher=Routledge|date=October 2000|edition=1st|isbn=978-1579582937 |url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beaulieu-Encyclopedia-Automobile-Nick-Georgano/dp/1579582931/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250935665&sr=1-1|accessdate=22 August 2009|language=English}}</ref> which would give "^ Georgano, Nick (October 2000) (in English). Beaulieu Encyclopedia of the Automobile: Volume 1: A-L (1st ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1579582937. Retrieved 22 August 2009."

Thanks, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would do if I was certain that it is the same company. All the locations are different as is the company name. There is no mention of a fire in the Beaulieu Encyclopedia (yes I have a copy). Malcolma (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The creator of the article has added further information (according to that, Frank F. Matheson and Charles W. Matheson (of Matheson Automobile) obtained the staff and the surviving manufacturing equipment from Kohl Automobile.[2]. They relocated the business from Holyoke, Massachusetts to a neighborhood town of Forty Fort, Pennsylvania.) - I have no idea of the accuracy of this, as the cited reference doesn't mention Kohl Automobile, the fire, or the transfer of staff/equipment. To be honest, if I was to read the source, I would not connect it with the rest of the article (apart from the fact that the source mentions Wilkes-Barre, but in 1905). If no one here can find the connection, then I will remove the information from the Kohl Automobile article, as the citation given does not link the two. Anyone able to help? Thanks, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be doing a bit of research off-line on both Kohl and Matheson - but as I'm in the UK (in the outskirts of London), then I'm not very hopeful! If I find anything useful, I'll update the article(s) later in the week (or next week, depending on time!) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the resources I had at the main library in Croydon and found nothing. I found a bit about Matheson (and a couple of others that led to), but nowhere mentions Kohl at all. Incidently, the books I referred to were The Complete Encyclopedia of Motor Cars: 1885 to the present edited by G.N. Georgano (1982); Vintage Cars 1886 to 1930 by G.N. Georgano (1997); Encyclopedia of Cars edited by Chris Horton (1990); The World Guide to Automobiles - The Makers and their Marques by Nick Baldwin, G.N. Georgano, Michael Sedgwick and Brian Laban (1987). The original creator has indicated that they will not be working on it any further, as the notes from their Grandad (I think it was) that he was using have had interest shown in them for possible publication! I've done my bit, I think! Thank you for the comments. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the statement about Matheson, as this is not verified by the cited source which doesn't mention Kohl. I have also proposed it for deletion as non-notable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the Matheson link. The "Standard Catalogue of American Cars", edited by Beverly Rae Kimes and Henry Austin Clark, jr., of which I have the 2nd edition from 1985,lists a Matheson car, built by the above mentioned gentlemen, as follows: MATHESON - Grand Rapids, Michigan (1903)/Holyoke , Massachusetts (1904-1905)/Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (1906-12). There is aleady a wikipedia article Matheson (automobile) but this needs attention, too. Following that source, the Mathesons didn't buy the Kohl factory but the Holyoke Motor Works. It's an interesting story worth some investigating but without relevance to the Kohl question. My encyclopedia confirms what has been written about the Kohl & Gable company and further mentions a John Kohl carriage & Automobile Co. from Mason, Ohio, in 1912. Production is doubted. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fiat S74 fans? Article rescue help..

I came upon a horribly written article, Fiat S74. If there is any way to salvage the article, please do so. (I won't be watching this project, hit up my talk page if you have questions). tedder (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Pretty obvious hoax, 20 liter engines? Maybe in a Fiat freight train. --Leivick (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There was such car but the engine is 14,2 litres http://www.italiaspeed.com/2006/events/goodwood/historic_fiat_itala/1707.html --Typ932 ^T·C 08:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I going to go ahead and stub the article, using the link you provided as a source. --Leivick (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As Fiat (and other manufacturers) built several of these monsters, the facts here look correct. I will see where I can find confirmations and additional references. Another candidate about this subject is Fiat Mefistofele. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief tin cloud (talk • contribs) 12:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming articles with "car" in their title to "automobile"

I am proposing that we rename articles with "car" in their title to "automobile". For example, List of cars ---> List of automobiles; Car body style ---> Automobile body style; Car classification ---> Automobile classification; et cetera. This is inline with our recent decision to retain the name "automobile" for the article of the same name OSX (talk • contributions) 04:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. --Typ932 ^T·C 06:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, but with a need for some pragmatism. Would you, for example, rename Formula One car, Sports car or Police car? I hope not. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Formula One car: No; Sports car: No; or Police car: Yes. Things like mid-size car et cetera would also remain the same because these are official EPA classifications. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point there... we should make some list maybe? --Typ932 ^T·C 18:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Demonstrating how thoroughly subjective these are, in the list 2 comments above I'd say adamantly the opposite for "police car" but not necessarily for the others! This is better left alone, or it'll come down to a meaningless argument about Google hits. The two terms are so nearly synonymous it hardly matters anyway, so on balance, why upset the apple cart? There are better things to work on. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's done for uniformity. We had a discussion to retain the "automobile" name for the automobile article, so why have conflicting terms? Only in a few cases should the name "car" be used, which is "less formal" word. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Uniformity is good, but we must not (under Wikipedia conventions) create neologisms. Kit automobile strikes me as absolutely crazy. "Kit car" is the phrase, as evinced by the phrase used throughout the article. This one should be reverted. I'd agree with the above comments on "police car" too but that one may be a cultural (US/UK) difference. Kit car just isn't. Try Googling the two, for what little that's worth. The resounding absence of "kit automobile" makes the point. – Kieran T ^(talk) 03:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A desire for WP uniformity shouldn't by default trump WP:COMMONNAME. Within a set of parallel articles, parallel names make sense. But searching out substantially unrelated articles and forcing them into the pattern is overkill. Was this wide-ranging action mentioned at WP:REQMOVE? Even for a well-publicized discussion there, a week is standard length. How did we get from "we should make some list maybe" and then suddenly a lot of changes with no list or further comment? DMacks (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

At first I agreed with this, but after seeing some of the names that would be changed and reading the 2 comments above mine, I oppose the change.--Ridge Runner (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems this needs more discussion, but I wonder when couple of reverters (and active editors) are very keen to articles concerning automobiles and editing automobile related articles very often they arent reading this project discussion at all...just saying undiscussed move --Typ932 ^T·C 07:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 'undiscussed move', if you aren't already aware of this discussion, a page move will come 'out of the blue', and is likely to result in a knee-jerk 'suspect vandalism' response, isn't it?. It would be polite to alert editors on the talk pages concerned that a move proposal is under way, and give them a decent chance to respond. Remember that you don't have to be involved in this project to edit an article relating to cars. It would perhaps help if there were a list of the proposed changes to review.

There are US/UK differences to consider, for example steam car would be conventional British English use, vs steam automobile (presumably) for US English, and the article has been happily called steam car for five years without causing any offence. There is a convention that text is not changed between British/US usage under normal circumstances. Should this not apply to article titles too? A blanket change such as has been proposed may result in many incorrectly-named articles. Also, simply searching for terms to compare eg steam car vs steam automobile may end up with US-English bias due to the larger US population and web presence. We should be looking for neutral terms where possible (which could be tricky), chosen by world-wide geographical spread of usage (which would be fairer), rather than frequency.

EdJogg (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Uniformity is good"

I'd actually put it the other way: an enforced uniformity is generally a bad thing, placing arbitrary "uniform" names over those that had already emerged by evolution through policy and consensus. Uniform policies on new names are good, as is a clear understanding of best practice in choosing names for new articles (and let's not underestimate the complexity of this). Once names have emerged, some may require individual improvement, as necessary.

The "one-size fits all" approach in globally renaming though is almost never right. Why would it be? What's the advantage to be gained by consistency? We use categorization for grouping, not pattern matches over the names. The ways in which we use names don't require us to enforce consistency, so why should we?

Article names are independent of other articles. Our policies and guidelines exist to get the best names onto each article, not to make them match. If "foo (automobile)" is a better name than "foo (car)", then the article would rename itself to that naturally, no matter what the nearby articles were called. I'm happy enough with steam automobile rather than steam car because my understanding is that most of these were from the auto-naming country, not the car-naming country - even though I've personally always called them steam cars myself. Conversely kit cars - kit automobile is the worst sort of wiki-generated neologism (and we surely do an awful lot of that, especially for categorization at Commons). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

All right guys, after three years of work here on Wikipedia my time is over. To be honest, I can't really fathom that after the amount of work I've done here, I am being vilified based on one bad decision. I apologise, I admit I underestimated the controversy that would surround these edits. But... these were done in good faith.

Now to a more positive note, most of the higher-profile editors at WikiProject Automobiles are really nice to work with; yes there are disputes, but these are mostly done with civility and without the slanderous tone of the current dialogue. To point the finger, I have no hesitation to name the user of the current discussion that has most influenced my decision: User:Andy Dingley.

Editing here should be something we enjoy doing; why should I do something that I don't enjoy, especially considering it's all work that I volunteered for?

So let this be a lesson: if you annoy people enough, most will feel little reluctance to leave the project. Thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear OSX, I'm sincerely sorry that you've taken this so much to heart. No one wants that, certainly I don't. No-one benefits from a witch hunt, there's no virtue in driving away contributing editors.

I didn't like the page moves you made, but I'm sure your intentions in doing them were for the best. Clearly everything would have worked better if they hadn't been so much of a surprise. Projects aren't as visible as we might wish, there are lots of editors (myself included) who have a peripheral overlap with a few of the pages in a project but not enough to really take continuous note of the overall project. EdJogg and I probably pay more attention to the "steam" in steam car than the "car".

If you'd accept an apology, then please, accept this as one. I over-reacted to an edit rather than an editor. Usually that's a good policy, but editors have feelings too and we should remember that. I forgot. Sorry. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame to see OSX overreacting by "retiring", he's made lots of good edits. The ironic thing is, I believe he's from Australia, not the US, so the "US-centric" argument to revert was moot. But no, we cannot do a mass rename of "car" to "automobile" in article titles. It may mean any four-wheel passenger vehicle that's not a truck or SUV in one country, but it can mean any four-wheel passenger vehicle in another. At the very least, the UK car articles should be left alone for that reason. I hate to say it, but the renaming may have to be agreed on for each individual article. You could start with the most general ones like List of cars, and ask, does this article feature vehicles in a country which uses "automobile", or if it features vehicles worldwide, can everyone agree on a term which makes the most sense? --Vossanova ^o< 16:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Time for WP:TEA methinks... --Biker Biker (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, a message to OSX, if you would reconsider, as your input and dedication is truly valued. We all could benefit from being more considerate of each others' feelings. Considering how contentious disputes have cost this project a number of good editors, perhaps we could adopt a 'respectful dialogue' recommendation towards one another. A little politeness goes a long way. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that OSX is leaving, he has been one of the key editors in this project also at commons --Typ932 ^T·C 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So, is anything happening with this? I just looked in after a couple of weeks away and, great editor though he was, some of the page moves were very misguided. --DeLarge (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've undone three of the most obvious ones, but there's plenty more where the "...car" title is the more common (using Google) by orders of magnitude. There's also the WP:ENGVAR issue; if the article was begun and/or expanded beyond stub status by editors who used "car", then I think we're obliged to shift it back. It might just be simpler to do as a mass revert of everything. --DeLarge (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the mass revert.--Ridge Runner (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I was about to do a revert, but noticed OSX is back. Are we still reverting or do we want to talk about this some more?--Ridge Runner (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since no one's responded, I'm going through with the previous plans of reverting.--Ridge Runner (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Owners clubs in the external links section of an article

Some of the work I have been doing to cleanup external links in the past few days has upset a couple of people - especially on the subject of owners clubs. One point that was made, which I do recognise, is that for cars which are no longer in production the owners club is now one of the few recognised authority on the particular model or marque other than what exists in print. If this is the case then I would say that the club itself is notable and should be the subject of a Wikipedia article - which could then be linked from any articles relating the marque/model. This has been done in the motorcycle articles, for example, with Harley Owners Group and BMW Motorcycle Owners of America.

I would therefore like to propose that no club be placed in external links, and that only clubs which have their own Wikipedia articles be mentioned at all. What do others think? --Biker Biker (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Previously the unwritten understanding is that, per WP:ELYES #3, an owners' site that includes technical data and other information beyond the scope of the article is desirable. A "club" that consists strictly of a forum isn't allowed, but a website (whether it calls itself a club or not) offering detailed information on the car should certainly be allowed. Purging everything from the external links would be harmful. --Sable232 (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've looked at WP:ELNO and I can't really see why owners club links should not be acceptable and they do often provide a source of information, normally authoratitive and particularly a number of photos that we can't use in the articles because we don't have copyright release. I think that unless there is a good case to the contrary, the links to major owners club should go back - this does not mean all links, as the ones to local groups of major national or international clubs can often be close to spamming. There is also a problem in limiting links to clubs that have there own articles. Last year (I think) quite a number of club articles were deleted as being non notable and I see that currently the MG Car Club, for one, is still tagged for importance which can be stage one of the deletion process. Until the criteria for a clubs inclusion are settled it could be a waste of time writing articles only to see them deleted. Malcolma (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Clubs which are not notable e.g. which are just owners clubs, which are not de facto authorities on the vehicle or marque, will fail on the very first criteria of WP:ELNO – they don't add anything which would be in the article if it were to reach featured article standard. Any club which is notable enough to have such information is surely worthy of an article in its own right and so would be mentioned in the body of the article. (Which is of course me going over previous ground). As to your comments about articles being deleted, I just took a look at MG Car Club and it certainly looks notable. With a little work the article could be improved, the problem tags removed, and it could become a model on which other car club articles could be based. I can't see why members of this project shouldn't work to protect from deletion any articles created about car clubs which are notable. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Clubs which are not notable e.g. which are just owners clubs, which are not de facto authorities on the vehicle or marque, will fail on the very first criteria of WP:ELNO – they don't add anything which would be in the article if it were to reach featured article standard."

That's a non sequitur. Any source might hold some nugget that justifies itself under WP:EL. If it does so, then it's justifable as a WP:EL. WP:Policy already covers us perfectly well for this.

That argument is also edging back to a recent canard of using non-EL policies in relation to ELs, which has no justification.

ELs have to meet WP:EL, they don't have to meet WP:RS.

Equally ELs have to meet WP:EL, they don't have to meet WP:N.

Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects with funny names

FYI: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_19#Fix_it_again_Tony , add your comments and opinions there, do we need this kind of redirects? --Typ932 ^T·C 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hi all

Hi,I'm new to wikipedia.I'm an automobile engineer and have various books on Automobile Engineering with me.Shall i create/edit articles using informations from those books?? I mean I will not reproduce texts as it is in book ,but will write the concept in my own words.The concept would be the same,but I would put it in my words.Should I enter the name of book in reference?? Does it violate any copyright? Just clarify me!Hope you all wikipedians help me! Vatsan34 (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Vatsan34

Hi you can use those as reference, borrow some sentences straight but mostly you should use your own words. Some help here Wikipedia:Copy-paste --Typ932 ^T·C 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! To add, the books you cite can listed using Template:Cite book and <ref><ref/> tags for the page numbers. See WP:FOOT for more detailed info. SynergyStar (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear - never, ever 'borrow sentences straight' from your sources. Always re-write in your own words. Copyright violation is a serious matter, and although sometimes there is only one way to say things, it is dangerous for Wikipedia as a whole if you cut and paste even short snippets into the encyclopedia. 4u1e (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

have you some source that says you cant make quotes with mention of the source? I would like to read that info --Typ932 ^T·C 20:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right - with the exception of fully sourced quotes. Apologies I wasn't clear on that, but equally it wasn't at all clear that was what you meant, 932. 4u1e (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] People

Should auto inventors, designers, engineers etc have this project banner added to their talk page? Qzm (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely.--Ridge Runner (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sad article needs dedicated editor

The article for Cadillac Cimarron needs a total rewrite. It has to be one of the worst vehicle articles I've ever read to go along with what a terrible car is was. If anyone wants a challenge try reworking this bad boy back into a decent article. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 02:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a sad little car that should have never been built. It demonstrates the practice of badge engineering so well and serves as a reminder why the American auto industry is struggling with its much deserved reputation it currently has. (Regushee (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

[edit] can someone give an outside opinion on a minor dispute?

Subaru Impreza WRX STI

Subaru has recently made available the Subaru WRX STI A-Line - a model that is currently only available in Japan and has an automatic gearbox. So, I added 5 speed semi-automatic to the list of available transmissions - which promptly got removed by an editor who claimed there was no such option.

There were a few reverts and a little drama, in the end I found some sources and that seemed to solve the issue.

Until about a week later when the same editor decided that the A-line was a special variant and as such "didn't count", removing the 5 speed semi-auto from the list of transmissions.

I don't see this as a special variant, it is not limited edition, it just happens to be a model only available in Japan - it is like saying the ZR1 isn't a Corvette because it is a special variant - when in fact it is a Corvette ZR1.

Can some fellow car fans take a look at the article and give some input please? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap that article desperately needs to be split up! I'm not sure whether it should be included or not (probably should), but there's no such thing as a "semi-automatic" transmission. It's either automatic or manual.--Ridge Runner (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure but it seems to be automatic with paddles in steering wheel?, anyway it can be listed in infobox as its official model, but it should be mentioned in article that its only available in certain countries (Japan) or in paranthesis in box --Typ932 ^T·C 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, it's an automatic with paddle shifters.--Ridge Runner (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ridge Runner, you might want to nominate Semi-automatic transmission for deletion then! ;-) – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, Kieran T; I nominated it for deletion. Just kidding. ;) I stand corrected, I thought that all paddle shift cars were just a standard automatic that shifted at the driver's command. Thanks for showing me that.--Ridge Runner (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That article could be deleted or merged... there is huge mess with those gearbox articles see also "Electrohydraulic manual transmission" which is about same... --Typ932 ^T·C 00:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas, Inc article

Just did a re-write (this time with citations) of the Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas article. Assistance, critique and commentary are appreciated. Sahrin (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a balanced article with good citations. I removed some double spacing between paragraphs. The automobile project normally uses calendar years (we have an international audience and the US model year is a source of misunderstanding to the rest of the world), so the production section will need changing into calendar years. We could do this as a table with columns labelled 'Calendar year' and 'Models'. The citations would be better using {{cite}} (the wikicite program is good for this). I'm not keen on the 'City of San Antonio' banner because a case could be made for putting heaps of similar banners on every page and clutter things up. A link to San Antonio somewhere in the lead does the job just as well with less clutter. NUMMI needs to be linked. Excellent job. Stepho-wrs (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

The section on the Ultramatic pushbutton control appears to be a literatim copy of Flory, American Cars 1946-1959 {Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Coy, 2008}, p.1020. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the book, so I can't comment on the copyright status. But feel free to rewrite it in your own words with a reference to that book.  Stepho  (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I am a Packard aficionado for over 30 years, and owning a Packard with Push Button Twin Ultramatic I gladly offer my assistance if needed. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cole Motor Car Company: Article's historic focus collides with Indiana landmark theme

I spent much time to improve an existing article on the Cole Motor Car Company. When I began, there were very few facts about it's history which I widely extended, covering almost every model they produced (information I got about some of the eldest is spearse). Unfortunately, I was not aware that the main focus on this article was on the former Cole manufacturing buildings, which seem to be of importance as an Indiana landscape monument. It was absolutely not my intention to damage that article. My questions: What can be done to solve the Cole history article AND the landmark article? The ladder is linkedto several sites and I ant to avoid more damage. For the same reason I didn't remove any facts about the landscape theme. Is it appropriate that the landmark article is exactly titled like the company's name was (that fact led me to write my article there), not referring that the building is meant and not the company? I hope that the landmark article and my work are saveable. Surely, the ladder would improve by additional pictures that I can't supply --Chief tin cloud (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think both data can be in same article, but another infobox for the carmaker would be needed. I would put the manufacturing company in the first place here and historical buildings to second as the article title says... --Typ932 ^T·C 18:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Meantime, I re-arranged chapters and put the building chapter at the end. Further I added a small info box. The article is still needing pictures and the make's logo, and the info box is the best I could do as I have little knowledge and no experience. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] UMW Toyota Motor (Malaysia)

Can somebody suggest where UMW Toyota Motor (Malaysia) be merged to, if not what shall I do with this article as I can't see anything notable about it as all it is is nothing but promotional tit-tats and a high CSD candidate, only that it has a offical Toyota name to it. Donnie Park (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hard to say, but I think the Toyota assembly part could be merged to main Toyota article, rest content Im not sure what to do... --Typ932 ^T·C 18:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Volkswagen Polo (and others)

I was alerted by another user to some changes made to the articles of several Mitsubishi Motors vehicles recently by an anonymous editor who seems to know their way around, IP:79.69.31.179. I didn't see any of the edits being beneficial (a common theme was to add a second image to the infobox showing the rear of the car), and several were factually incorrect, so between the two of us they were all reverted. I then had a quick glance at the user's edit history, and some very major changes have been made, including merging all the generations of the Volkswagen Polo into a single, enormous article. The IP's talk page has a message requesting clarification for these WP:SIZE-violating edits.

I don't know if this user is connected to User:Teutonic Tamer, aka IP:78.32.143.113, who has previously edited mostly VW Group-related pages? Not that it really matters, but I wondered if others believe the changes should be reverted? Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I've just noticed that as a different anonymous user from the same ISP, IP:79.69.5.140, a similar blanket redirect was made to Mitsubishi Mirage, and edits made to Mitsubishi Colt. I'm tempted to maybe undo that, given the car's history in Japan (according to official MMC documentation, the Mirage's successor was the Lancer Cedia, and the new Colt is a step down in class). More opinions here would be appreciated. --DeLarge (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

the Polo article is way too big , should be splitted --Typ932 ^T·C 11:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, given that, the fairly clear guidelines at WP:SIZE (justified by the lengthy load times I got when I edited the page), and User:Letdorf's comment on the IP's userpage which indicated unhappiness at the edit and the size of the reulting article, I've boldly reverted the boldness [sic] for now. It'd be nice to see some discussion on the matter at Talk:Volkswagen Polo in future, I think... -DeLarge (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(resetting indent) FYI, I'm pretty sure I remember a big hoo-hah about this several years ago when there were several articles, all of which muddled around the Polo as a whole before detailing one of the "marks". The merger, if I remember rightly, was to keep the details "in synch". I've not dug around in the logs to illustrate that because this is a flying visit from free wifi ;) But whatever happened in the past, perhaps if it's too long we should consider whether all the info is actually encyclopædic, rather than splitting it apart? – Kieran T ^(talk) 20:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the merged article (apart from the Trivia section) seems reasonably encyclopedic to me. I left a comment on the IP's talk page as I like to see at least some discussion before major merges/splits like this are done. By the way, is having two photos showing front and rear three-quarter views such a bad idea? Letdorf (talk) 22:05, 18 October 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)

[edit] Garrett AiResearch/Honeywell and turbochargers

I have added a template for WikiProject Automobiles to the Garrett AiResearch article because Garrett played a very important role in the development of automotive turbochargers. I know something about Garrett AiResearch but very little about turbochargers, so I leave to others any further additions to the Garrett AiResearch or Honeywell articles related to turbochargers. But I also note that the WP article on Turbochargers hardly conveys the extent of their use in the automotive industry (and doesn't mention Garrett or other major producers of automotive turbos such as BorgWarner).--Mack2 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] requested move of article - twin-clutch gearbox

A request for someone to move the existing article Twin-clutch gearbox back to an iteration of its original article title of Dual Clutch Transmission. This article was created 4 September 2005, under the article name of Dual-clutch gearbox (initially as a redirect, but then with appropriate text). But then in 20 April 2006, it was moved to 'Twin-clutch Gearbox' (and subsequently corrected with lower-case lettering - the talk page shows this history better). However - the term 'twin-clutch' is NOT widely used in the formal sence - 'twin-clutch' is actally just part of the trade name of the Mitsubishi-only transmission - Twin Clutch SST. The formal and 'generic' name used is actually Dual Clutch Transmission (or dual clutch transmission), abbreviated to DCT - as is supported here: http://www.dctfacts.com/ and here: http://www.zf.com/corporate/en/products/innovations/7_speed_dualclutch/7_speed_dualclutch.html. My second comment is that the two clutches used in these transmissions are not actually 'twins' - they simply have two clutches, and dual is massively more appropriate than twin. This article should really be reverted back to a more appropriate 'generic' term - I don't mind either way if they are capitalised, but it should NOT be hyphenated - so dual clutch transmission would also be entirely acceptable. Comments/discussion please. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree, so under WP:BOLD it is now moved to Dual clutch transmission. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow - many thanks for your promt action! :-) 78.32.143.113 (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DSG trannies

Like most VW/Audi pages on wikipdia, the VW Direct-Shift Gearbox page is full of blatant spam and endless propaganda. I'm not sure if VW employees people to promote their products here or if VW fanboys just do it for free and can't control their biases.

Regardless I feel certain issues need to be addressed under the DSG advantages and disadvantages section. Terms like "Extremely fast" are inappropriate. And mainly the quoted shift times (corrected by me to upshift times as downshifts have to rev match which adds time). The DSG quoted upshift times are from sources directly parroting off VW literature. Autozine does little more than rewrite press materials and journalist reviews to suit the webmaster's point of view.

Other manufactures like Mercedes quote ideal upshift times of 100ms for their dual clutch transmissions, Nissan did not include a shift time in the GTR's press materials but when asked they estimated upshift times of 200ms. These are over 12 and 25 times what the VW specific DSG article falsely asserts. I'm only aware of a single magazine that bothered to test shift times, Modified Mag, and the DSG GTI needed 400 ms to upshift a far cry from 8 ms, the DSG is indeed fast but not 25 times faster than other transmission types. [1]

This needs to be corrected as the VW propaganda has no purpose other than to create a massive competitive advantage that does not exist. I posted this discussion here instead of the main page for greater and less biased comments. Dabbaman (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Have at it! swaq 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree --Typ932 ^T·C 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Halo Vehicle AfD

FYI, VegetativePup has listed Halo Vehicle for deletion. swaq 17:12, 2 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