Archives
2005-01-01 - 2008-05-30 2008-05-30 - 2008-09-26

[edit] {{convert}}

I'm seeing a couple of places in the conventions where it's completely discouraged to use {{convert}} or not even mentioned when it very much can do the conversions properly and, going through the archives, I don't see a discussion about this. Is it an oversight or was an executive decision made without discussion? roguegeek (talk·cont) 06:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been no discussion about this, I prefer using convert template, if possible, and we can always ask them make it suit better to our needs if needed --— Typ932^{T | C}  07:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I, too, prefer to use convert, but am definitely starting to see the value to the auto templates. I think both should be represented. Editing should be easy enough the recreational editor with more advanced options available to the more advanced Wikipedian. The combination of both convert and auto templates provides this flexibility. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 05:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For me, the auto templates are easier to use.--Flash176 (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreement here, too. Can you point out the language that discourages use of {{convert}}? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

English: 215 lb·ft (not ft·lbf — use Template:Auto lbft rather than Template:convert) roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah...that one's my fault. I should've looked before I leapt; it seems {{convert}} can in fact do lb·ft. The last time I checked, which was admittedly too long ago on which to have based convention language, {{convert}} did only ft·lbf. Please stand by for a repair to the convention text.—Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So if {{convert}} does the same job as an auto-specific template, and does it better (can auto templates do American/international spelling?), why do so many auto templates exist? Aint it simpler to standardize so that editing a car article doesnt mean learning a whole new set of code. I didnt know {{convert}} could handle "lb·ft" so I thought {{Auto lbft}} was a great idea, but what is the point of {{Auto kg}}, {{Auto mm}}, {{Auto in}} or {{Template:Auto lb}}? The other advantage of standardization is that you will get more input at talk pages (like Category talk:Conversion templates) because more people will use them. We shouldnt be trying to ringfence ourselves as a clique of our own. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed User:MrDolomite said pretty much exactly what I was thinking in the section above (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Category:Automotive_conversion_templates). Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The auto templates are easier (shorter) to type, and they get their respective jobs done fine. Deleting these templates will create an enormous amount of makework in articles that currently display correctly; Someone'll have to go back into each and every one of those articles and replace each and every one of those template instances. The articles won't display any differently, so all that work will have been generated for zero net benefit. Presently, the conventions allow either type of template to be used. That doesn't constitute ringfencing ourselves or behaving like a clique; the problem/crisis Chryslerforever1988 seems worried about does not exist. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Chryslerforever, that was my thinking for a while and still kind of is, but I'm starting to see the value of auto specific templates. The auto templates are easier to use, although my preference in any of my edits is always convert. Even so, editors deserve that ease, especially if they're bringing newly introduced knowledge to any article. My only concern with them is the MUST be maintained as much as convert is. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start working on a section within units for conversions to follow under the conventions. The subject seems important enough to detail out some sort of documentation. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Started section with examples. I only put some more widely used and automotive-specific examples up (i.e. keeping length and weight example off). Not too sure if I like the structure, but the info is good. Maybe this can be worked in smoother. I don't know. Definitely looking for feedback. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] bhp

I'm seeing an inconsistency between the way {{auto bhp}} and the way {{convert}} uses bhp. Conventions say {{auto bhp}} should only be used to represent British horsepower I understand bhp could be used for British horsepower, but it seems to be bhp is far more used in articles for brake horsepower due to manufacturer rating meaning such. This being the case, I suggest we:

1. use {{auto bhp}} exclusively for brake horsepower to match the usage of {{convert}}
2. create another template such as {{auto British hp}} for British horsepower
3. change the wording in conventions to explain the difference in usage

Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The standard definition of BHP is brake horsepower, the brake being the device that measures horsepower. I can't understand why there's a convention for British horsepower since it's the same thing as regular horsepower. We already use Hp, kW, and PS, I see no reason to have a 4th unit.

I vote for the first choice of matching the templates for brake horsepower. I've never heard of British horsepower, but I admit that's likely due to the fact that I live in America.--Flash176 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I though bhp are same in both meanings see User_talk:Scheinwerfermann#hp.2Fbhp, so there is no difference in conversions? One thing I dont understand is also why is PS chosen to represent metric horsepower? Is it for reason the original measurement is from Germany or some other reason? --— Typ932^{T | C}  07:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

PS isn't chosen to represent metric horsepower. kW is the one listed in WP:AUN, or are you talking about somewhere else?--Flash176 (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Its on the convention same way as most of others (somebody has changed the convention page, but it was there earlier),

"Note 1: If metric horsepower is the original unit (as for many European vehicles), we will use the unambiguous PS instead of the ambiguous "bhp" or "hp" and will translate as per above."

not all of these are "chosen" , kW is official standard in EU nowadays, but most magazines etc. still uses hp (DIN), as older people and so on are not familiar with this new system --— Typ932^{T | C}  09:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

bhp would have the same conversion formula under both brake horsepower and British horsepower, but they represent different meanings. The ways it's written in WP:AUN is say that it should only mean British horsepower. I'm saying it should not and that bhp is more commonly referred to brake horsepower. I'm saying let's, at the very least, take out the restriction on the meaning of bhp meaning British horsepower. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CRYSTALBALL

I have had a lot of occurrences in the last year where I'd have to nominate an article for deletion because it was about a vehicle that did not exist. Editors would make pages for vehicles that were speculated by the media as coming soon. Sometimes they would. Sometimes they wouldn't. Whatever the case is, I think it's important that we enforce WP:CRYSTALBALL. I'm going to throw the following statement somewhere into the conventions page about creating articles that have not been officially announced.

In accordance with WP:CRYSTALBALL, articles about future or speculative vehicles that have not been officially announced by their manufacturer should not be created. If an article is created about a speculative vehicle, it is to be either deleted or redirected to an article whose subject is most relevant to the redirect's subject.

This shouldn't be news to anyone, but a reminder is definitely in order and it would be nice to point automobile editors to wording that relates the automotive industry and Wikipedia's policies. roguegeek (talk·cont) 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Years, part 2

I made a suggestion back in 2006 here regarding using production dates with months were known, and avoiding end dates. There seemed to be agreement on this, but it was never added as a convention (I forgot about it, and was never sure when a convention as regarded as accepted), and I'd like to develop this further:

• The month of start of production should be provided where known to avoid ambiguity as to wether the year is an actual calendar year or a Model year.
• Model years should be avoided unless refering to a North American vehicle, or during specific discussion of the sale of a vehicle in North America. It should be noted where model years are being used (link to Model year maybe at the first mention in an article maybe?). Actually, on this subject, are model years used widely anywhere else besides the US? What about Canada?
• In the context of internationally-sold cars, the end dates of production/sale should be avoided in tables and titles - I'm not sure about this one exactly (see previous discussion).
• Also, how about making a template like Template:Vgrelease for dates of introduction for use in infoboxes? This would hopefully clarify dates somewhat with internationally-sold models.

The Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic articles are prime examples of this "year hell" - a mess of calendar dates and model years, and constant edit wars between the two. A while back I tried to clear things up by adding the month and year of introduction in Japan in the main text and header for each generation on both of these, but they've mostly been screwed around with by now. Any comments? --Zilog Jones (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

add ur suggestions here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Automobile — Typ932^{T | C}  21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. But I'm not just talking about the infobox issue. And I just noticed the longwinded recent discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles (I guess I should have started this there), which always seem to stop before any agreement is made :(. And to clarify, my main issue is with internationally sold vehicles. I have no problems with model years being prominent in articles about North American cars. --Zilog Jones (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Engine displacement

The convention implies that cubic inches should be specified for every engine. However, cu in has not been in common use for displacement since pre-1980 in the US and pre-1970 in Australia, as the convention notes. I believe that cu in need only be listed if it was ever specified by the manufacturer in press releases or brochures for the vehicle. As the convention states, if the displacement was first given in cu in and later given in L, then it should read X L (Y cu in), otherwise, if L was never given, then X cu in (Y L). --Vossanova ^o< 16:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this quite a bit, but the short version is people in different parts of the world are used to different measurements. For instance, if you tell a European that an engine is 490 cu in, they likely won't know how big it is because they don't have anything to relate the size to, but if you tell them it's 8 liters, they'll know it's pretty big. Same thing goes for North America. Like it or not, people here are still used to engines being described in cubic inches and many, if not most, find it easier to relate an engine's size in cubic inches (i.e. 1.8 L sounds bigger to some than just 108 cu in).--Flash176 (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have discussed this quite a bit, can you provide a link to the (archived) discussion? I've seen cu in being used, some of the time, for modern, big-block "muscle cars" like the 2009 Dodge Challenger and 2010 Chevy Camaro. Maybe large truck engines as well. But to demand it be included for cars with small engines seems ridiculous. Who on Earth would ask for the cu in displacement for a Chevy Aveo? .. OK, I just did a Google search for 'Aveo "cu in"' and it actually came up with results. I'm still not convinced that cu in is used often enough to warrant inclusion in every infobox, but maybe you can convince me by showing examples from other websites. --Vossanova ^o< 15:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter of defining a convention per article type. It's simply a unit of measurement and the three common ones are L, cu in, and cc. The {{convert}} template helps maintain all of this. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been scouring through various press releases, ads, and reviews for recent (American) cars, and some, but not many, use cu in. I was going to argue that very few do, but a few major reviewers do, so it's easier to argue in their favor. I really don't mind if cu in is added, and yes, the convert template makes it easy. But I still feel it should be optional. If somebody wants to add it, they can, otherwise don't argue with them because they didn't. I'm from the US, by the way - good luck arguing with a European editor that they must add cu in displacement to their European car article. --Vossanova ^o< 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time for Wikipedia like I used to (if you look at my contribs, you'll see that they've dropped sharply). I'm afraid you or someone else will have to find the previous discussions. As for requiring editors to do something, perhaps I misspoke. What I meant was that the different measurements are required on the articles, not that an editor must add them to the article. We all contribute what we want to Wikipedia, no one can make you add things you don't want to, but if a convention says it should be there, then an aditor should add the required things if they have time, instead of leaving work for someone else. Does that make any sense?

As for telling a European editor to add cu in, they already do. It isn't just North Americans making changes on this project. It's a compromise. We add show the displacement in liters of old engines from the 50s and 60s and they show their displacements in cu in. I don't understand why this bothers you so much. Most articles are almost completely unverified and the cu in displacement can usually be found when looking up a source to cite for the liter/cc displacement.--Flash176 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion template problems?

I am not familiar with the auto conversion templates, but there seems to be a problem with some of them. This version of Enzo Ferrari (automobile) had formatting issues apparently caused by the templates. Anyone know what the problem is? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Its maybe that some bot robot has added extra noinclude tags there, maybe someone has time to check those templates. --Typ932 ^T·C 03:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)