Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Category:Mid-engined vehicles

Category:Mid-engined vehicles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Proposed move

It has been proposed that Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile be moved to FIA. Interested editors are invited to participate in the move discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: The discussion was closed as "no consensus". DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Riley RM#The Riley RM series 1945-57 Facebook page

An ip has just added new sections to this article: The Riley RM Facebook page and about it and Riley clubs and about them and the names of books about the Riley cars (not as citations). Is this information desirable / acceptable content? Eddaido (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It is definitely not. The purpose of the added "information" was clearly advertisement. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:LINKFARM covers why those links should not be there. The purpose of external links is to support what the article says, not as a catalogue of possible places to look.  Stepho  talk  10:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Are cars built or born?

So i keep seeing this change in tables over the years and it leaves me scratching my head each time. Was it correct before the change? Or are cars referred to as "born" in this situation? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Cars are manufactured items, not organic creatures. So "born" is definitely wrong.  Stepho  talk  10:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Great, i'll change it back (For the 10,000th time...). Thanks Stepho ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Automobiles, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Supercars.net

Is Supercars.net an accepted source? This is their self confidence level:

"SUPERCARS.NET DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Supercars.net and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk." Eddaido (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I would not say that there is anything special about their disclaimer. You will find something like that ony any website due to legal regulatories. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It might be reliable, but the question is, reliable for what? It appears to be a blog where one or more people comment on things they found on the internet. I don't see any evidence of reporting, such as traveling to a place, or contacting a subject for an interviews. They post links to YouTube videos made by others, but they don't appear to test any cars themselves. Are the blog posts subject to fact checking or editorial oversight? No evidence of that. Do they ever post corrections? Do they name their sources or show their work? I don't see evidence of that. So in the end you could cite the site only for opinions and analysis, or WP:RSOPINION. If the authors are respected and have been around a long time, then you could argue they are recognized experts. But they aren't producing original research or practicing what we normally think of as journalism. If I were to cite a post in an article, I would not just footnote it, but attribute it by name, WP:INTEXT, e.g. "Richard Owen of Supercars.net said that this was one of the most famous cars of..."

If I'm just myopic and someone finds evidence that the site does check off the boxes given above, then that would be reason to call it a reliable source in a more general sense, not limited to opinions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

They say they have published Supercars since 1996 which I suppose earns credit but they do ask for submissions and as Dennis points out there's no evidence of fact checking. I know we require the date of access when citing online sources so backtracking could be done but am I old-fashioned to be wary of unverified internet publications? If you use Google books at least you will find hard copy somewhere - almost certainly and the same with other archival sources from works like magazines first published in print. It seems to me to be far more courageous to write and publish a book (on which you might be pinned down and cross-examined) in the hope that it sells and is respected than to give something away free. And also why should the blogger's opinion be respected more than that of any WP editor? Eddaido (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Richard Owen was apparently a chief designer at Jaguar, and has a design firm. He is cited at Jaguar XJ220 but the footnote doesn't mention the COI. Owen is probably a recognized expert acceptable within the bounds of WP:SELFSOURCE, but the other contributors at supercars.net, I don't know. The other founder Daniel Guillamot [1] doesn't seem to have any particular expertise in the automotive industry. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it the very same Richard Owen? At the foot of the article linked from WP Jaguar XJ220 to Supercars as a reference he seems to describe himself thus. "ABOUT THE AUTHOR THE CAR NUT My first appreciation of cars came when my first boss took me for a drive in an old air-cooled Porsche 911. I don't remember what model year it was, but I do remember I became addicted to all things automotive from that day onwards. I’m an enthusiastic car nut who geeks out over tuned supercars, obscure classic race cars, automotive memorabilia and just about anything else car related." If he was chief designer for the unmodified car (he describes the standard headlights as "clunky" - unexpected comment from the chief designer) he would surely have said so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddaido (talk • contribs) 00:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The designer's headlights are always more elegant than on the car that they produce. The executives will insist on replacing the special shape with off the shelf reflectors and lenses, or regulators will have certain requirements that mess up the lines of the car. He's probably just saying the "director's cut" is better.

Regardless of who he is, the thing about a reliable source is that it speaks for itself when readers see it. We shouldn't have to talk anyone into trusting it. Any source that raises questions every time it is cited is usually more trouble than it's worth. The footnotes are supposed to inspire confidence, not doubt. What fact are we trying to cite here? Why not just replace supercars.net with some other source? Given their lack of original research, it seems likely that any fact that is found only on this site, not published elsewhere, is untrustworthy. And it it is published elsewhere, cite the other source instead, so we don't have to fret over it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• A WHOIS shows they keep their contacts private. The domain was registered in July of 1997, but I have no idea if it has changed hands since then. Looking around at little things doesn't really give me that WP:RS vibe. Essentially, I would agree with Mr. Bratland, that quoting as opinion would be marginally acceptable but they don't appear to truly vet their information and this isn't really journalism in the technical sense. More of an aggregate of information from other websites with some experienced opinion thrown in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Engine cooling systems vs Category:Automotive cooling systems

Category:Engine cooling systems and Category:Automotive cooling systems were kind of muddled so I resorted them. Automotive cooling systems could be renamed Automotive HVAC systems for greater clarity. Engine cooling systems could refer to rocket engine cooling too, and could be renamed to specify automotive type applications only. Locomotive engines or aircraft internal combustion engines are much like automotive engines, so you might want to group some of these topics. Or just not think about it too much. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links to owner's manuals

I saw that someone added owner's manual links to Lincoln Town Car and Lincoln Continental. Are these acceptable? --Vossanova ^o< 13:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

As long as the manual is provided in the external link (as a PDF for instance), I would say that owner's manuals are even citable sources since their purpose is providing information on the vehicle they belong to. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say they are not. The problem is that unless it is the car manufacturer themselves publishing the manual, then it is copyright infringement. We can't link to others who publish information they don't own. If the site is the manufacturer, then it is fine, otherwise no. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Usually manuals are printed book(lets) and citing them would hardly be copyright infringement. On the other hand, how could we ensure whether the provided information in an external link is a copyright infringement or not? Are we supposed to check this? What if the site is allowed to provide the original owner's manuals? If the external link links to an obviously illegal site, I agree that we should not provide it. But usually the manufacturers provide their own manuals, and, as you said, linking to them is fine. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If we aren't sure about the ownership, we don't link. Copyright policy is very strict here, likely as strict or stricter than BLP policy. But yes, if you want to link to chevrolet.com to a manual for a chevrolet, that is fine, but no where else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Mini (marque)

An apparently inexperienced User:Githek has swapped Infobox brand for an infobox company - this is not a company. Or is it? The same editor made many other changes in the contents of the infobox. I've never had any interest in the article knowing nothing about the product. I just thought there might be other lurkers prepared to disagree with Githek. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You know, readers can't see the infobox's name. They only see the fields displayed. It matters a lot less which infobox is used, than the lack of fields in the options: key_people and previous_owners would be useful in both infoboxes. I'd focus on making sure all the most relevant information is in the infobox, adding fields to these templates as necessary, and not worry about the company vs brand question. Mini is a word that triggers a lot of emotion from some, so seek compromise. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. I plan to do no more than I have done - bring it to the attention of anyone interested. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Operating costs for electric cars?

The What Wikipeida is not policy says under WP:NOTSALES "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention... Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products". We aren't supposed to always give readers the kind of information you'd find in Consumer Reports or What Car?, "like model 1 costs $$$$ and model 2 costs $$$, but model 1 has xyz features." We routinely quote fuel economy, but not costs per mile. It's one thing to quote a reviewer who justifies why a given price is extraordinary and worth highlighting, but it's something else to give comprehensive dollar values broken down by model and trim level, locality, usage, etc.

At Tesla Model S and Nissan Leaf, we have detailed tables of each model year, each battery option, city, highway and combined energy consumption, and quotes of dollar costs per mile and annually. Not every electric car article has this, but Tesla Model 3, Tesla Roadster, Tesla Model X, BMW i3, and Chevrolet Bolt all quote dollar values for operating costs, based on some number assigned for the price of electricity and gasoline. These street prices are mostly US-centric (naturally...) and only refer to a particular year.

Obviously prospective electric car buyers are eager to know whether they will save money or not compared to a gasoline car. But that is why price comparison and shopping guides exist. Wikipedia is not a price comparison or shopping guide. Given that we don't have tables of operating costs for petroleum vehicles, you can't actually compare the electric car costs to anything. And you can't convert the US dollar prices to Euros or other currency to see what you would pay in other countries, because the price of electricity and fuel is drastically different, due to different taxes, subsidies, supply and demand balances, etc. This is why that kind of detail is unencyclopedic: we have no hope of giving an objective and comprehensive assessment for each model of car.

It makes sense that broader articles about electric vehicles in general would discuss the economics of the cars, particularly tracking the changing costs of operation and ownership over time as technology and supply changes, because that's not a shopping guide. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree on that. In my opinion, the fuel price has a big impact on the cars people actually purchase. In the US, where fuel is incredibly cheap, around 5-6 times cheaper than in Austria, nobody needs cars with Diesel engines. But over here cars with Otto engines that run on petrol are VERY expensive to fuel. If you really need a car, you would always choose a Diesel vehicle since they don't need so much fuel. Uncommon in the US. In the city I live the busses on the other hand have Otto engines that run on actual gas, not on petrol. Again, I guess that's also very uncommon. The tax paid on cars depends on the engine power output, while in Germany, it depends on the engine capacity. Since electric vehicles don't have engine capacity, there is no tax for them in Germany. This means we can neither compare electric vehicle prices nor internal combustion engine vehicle prices in any way. Operating cost for cars in general does not belong into any Wikipedia articles. There are exceptions, for instance in articles on historic vehicles. But those are just a few exceptions. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Generally agree, but I think we can still publish some metrics, like range, miles per kW, similar to gas. I just don't want us provide less information than for gas. If we have to err, I would rather err on providing more info than less, simply because the technology is still new and the reader is likely interested in these metrics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

With the Tesla article it seems we can keep the encyclopaedic information and simply delete the rows/columns (i count three total in 2 tables) which list the prices. That'll solve everything right? I agree completely that Wikipedia isn't a price comparison site. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Please see Templates for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_5#Template:Comparison_electric_car_efficiency. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

User removing General Motors from articles

Lepo1862 has just been on an editing spree and removed General Motors from a whole slew of Opel articles - around 40 or so.

This isn't my area of expertise (if indeed any area is,) but is this correct behaviour - there are no edit summaries to accompany the removal.

I've not discussed it with Lepo1862 either yet, but as I've tagged him here he should be made aware of the topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

First, GM is no longer the owner of Opel. Second, Opel is the manufacturer (See VIN-numbers of Astra, Zafira and Co.). I haven´t seen Skoda, Seat, Audi,... articles saying "Skoda Auto (Volkswagen)" or "Audi (Volkswagen)".--Lepo1862 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably prompted by the recent agreement to sell subsidiaries to PSA; see report here. Eagleash (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Mini Metro (video game)

See discussion about the notability of the car. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

rpm or min-1?

Hi. To abbreviate revolutions per minute, should we use RPM or min^-1? I believe the former because it is more commonly used (in English) and therefore more likely to be recognised by the general public. (this has come up at the BMW E28 Talk Page, but really it is a policy issue and not specific to that car) Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

rpm, absolutely, per COMMONNAME. min^-1 is impossibly obscure for a general audience. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, rpm is correct, even for automotive engineers. I worked for 5 years designing ECU's for multiple firms in multiple countries and I never saw or heard min^-1 in any specs, plans, discussions or emails. It was always rpm, events per second (usually for measurements taken on a generic oscilloscope) and quite often milliseconds or microseconds between events.  Stepho  talk  01:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't ignore the min^-1 notation completely. It's obscure but not unheard of. I've seen one or two on old motorcycles, and readers will probably run into them. If they're wondering if it's the same thing, Wikipedia should probably clear it up somewhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

rpm is mainly used in the US. Worldwide, SI and SI-derived units are used: s⁻¹, /min or min⁻¹. I saw dozens of engines and I read a lot of manuals and literature on engines and I never saw rpm. Literature on engines (for instance Die Verbrennungskraftmaschine by Hans List) does not use rpm. Die Verbrennungskraftmaschine is one of the most important series of books on engines. German engineers don't use rpm. As WP:MEASUREMENT clearly states we should use SI and SI-derived units in articles on non-American and non-British topics, we should use minutes. I do not understand at all how somebody who can actually read cannot know minutes. It is completely absurd. The time given in the signature on this talk page is given in hours and minutes. The sources for non-American or non-English vehicles do not use rpm. Since a lot of well known vehicles are German (Porsche, Daimler, VW, BMW, Audi, Opel, Sachsenring, Wartburg, etc.) the original sources don't use rpm for rotational frequency but minutes. WP:MEASUREMENT: "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units [or] non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI (...)". Therefore there is nothing wrong with using minutes in articles on non-American, especially German vehicles and engines. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This is en.wikipedia.org, not de.wikipedia.org. Please stop this nonsense. Nobody is buying it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I recommend reading non-English sources. Try Russian literature for instance if you dislike German. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Nationalist posturing is considered highly disruptive. Guidelines like MOS:FLAG and WP:ENGVAR exist precisely because editors attempting to elevate one country's conventions over another are toxic to the editing process, and so we strive to keep the status quo. You are deliberately upsetting the status quo, and taking easily-read articles and making them harder to read. You selectively quoted part of the guideline and deleted the last part: "...or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera)." This is dishonest. You've made clear that you don't care what conventions are used in English, because you think English conventions are inferior. Great. That's your opinion. You must go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and propose a change. Until the MOS changes, you should follow it.

Disruptive nationalism, dishonest talk page comments, and ignoring wide consensus are likely to get you blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In this case, I would say that I may use "other units as are conventional" does not mean that I must use American conventional units in articles on German topics. The reliable sources don't use American units such as cc or rpm, as I explained earlier. The rule MOS:UNITS: In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (...) should be applied. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't have different conventions for German topics or Javanese topics or Upper Silesian topics. If you wish to change the MOS to begin having variant conventions for each country, then go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and make that proposal. No less than four editors have told you not to use these non-standard conventions. Zero editors have supported this change. Please respect consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course we don't. We have American and English conventions. In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (...). I don't think this is complicated. Which units are "other units as are conventional" depends on the topic; I explained that I would consider technical units other as are conventional when the topic is German. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The SI unit would be Hertz. Not even minute is a basic SI unit, the unit for time is second. ⛐Boivie (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The minute is a SI-derived unit and it is allowed to use it with SI. MOS:UNITS: In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You've repeated several times that is how you interpret the MOS. It's useless to go on repeating yourself. Five editors have told you your interpretation of MOS:UNITS is incorrect. Go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and they will also tell you that you are misreading it. You failed to convince a single editor, and have lost this argument. Repetition does not change that. Please accept it gracefully and move on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Authors who explain that minutes are "impossibly obscure for a general audience" cannot be stupid since their phraseology is not chosen bad – but the content does not make any sense at all, at least to me. I refuse to believe that English speaking people do not know minutes. I encountered Americans that would be completely overwhelmed when I tell them "In my place it's twenty-two-thirty-nine". However, the thing ist that they do not know hours greater than 12, the minutes aren't a problem. Therefore I doubt that English speaking people don't know minutes. Does that point out why the quantity of authors telling me that English speaking people do not know minutes does not matter to me in this case? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I am so relieved that you don't consider me stupid, "since [my] phraseology is not chosen bad". My phraseology now must be so much better than in my days at my old alma mater, The Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

COI requests

Hello. There are several requests by editors with a conflict of interest over at Talk:Carvana that could use a review. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)