Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 47

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

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)

Yes, it would be useful to mention it in the revolutions per minute article. 1292simon (talk) 11:23, 17 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 badly – 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)

Arbitrary break 1

Jojhnjoy, why do you say rpm is an American thing? As an Australian who has worked in the automotive industry designing ECU's for Australia, Canada, India, Russia and Sweden, rpm is a well known term in all those countries among engineers. Also, from reading magazines from the US, UK and Australia, rpm is the normal term used for enthusiasts. I also have many Japanese brochures that use rpm as the only measurement for a spinning engine. Definitely a common term throughout the English speaking world. I can't say for the German speaking world but this is an English encyclopaedia, so that doesn't count anyway.

Secondly, why are you saying we don't understand minutes? rpm stands for revolutions per minute. Very hard to understand rpm if you don't understand what a minute is. You have constructed a straw man and then attempt to prove your argument by destroying your straw man.

Thirdly, many European tachometers display 'R/min', which is of course just a variation of revs per minute - the '/' is just a represenation of 'per'.

Fourthly, can you give us some links to English speaking references that show 'min^-1 that is meant for consumption by the average English speaking reader. My experience is that the average reader (who isn't trained in well mathematics) doesn't know what the '-1' means. Stepho talk 23:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are you arguing that min^-1 is the appropriate unit for tachometers in an article on cars – but using an image about aircraft?

Should we replace the calibration on speedometers with knots as well? How is the altimeter in a BMW calibrated? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that image, not Jojhnjoy -- only to show that the convention exists. Because I think we should briefly mention it on the article Revolutions per minute. No other reason. From what I can tell, min^-1 is an ~~affectation~~ er, convention, used on non-German market cars by Porsche and sometimes BMW, and occasionally VW and Audi, when they're trying to seem different. It's not used by Italian, French, or Japanese cars or motorcycles. Even if it were, the normal practice in English language sources is to use rpm, and even it it weren't, the consensus on English Wikipedia is to use rpm. There's nothing wrong with min^-1, except that's not how we do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I consider rpm an US customary unit since it is neither SI nor SI compatible nor a technical unit. It could be anything, however, as far as I know it is Angloamerican. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess this might show that I am unfamiliar with it. Yes, it is well known among engineers. I already pointed that out in May. But the Wikipedia is not meant for engineers only. American, Australian and British enthusiasts my know it as the normal term for them, but does everybody else know it? The same is true for PS among German or Austrian enthusiasts when it comes to power output. However, PS is neither used in technical literature nowadays nor an offical unit. It is obsolete. I would not doubt that rpm is common in the English speaking world, however, this is not on an English topic and the Wikipedia is definitely not designed for native English speakers only. Even though I might have proven that I struggle at certain points, you would have to expect several non-native speakers to know English very well. Actually, those might even be the majority of all English speaking people worldwide.

I am not saying that you don't understand minutes, I want to express that it seems like you would want to say that readers unfamiliar with the topic don't understand minutes and that it seems weird and absurd since it does not make sense and I am not really sure what to believe. I already mentioned it would be a contradiction.

I have never seen r/min. However, from a mathematical standpoint, $r$ is a variable. To demonstrate it: $r/min={\frac {r}{min}}$ . Since $r$ is a variable, you could insert numbers: $1/min={\frac {1}{min}}$ . I am used to the $1$ instead of the variable $r$ . Maybe I should explain what min⁻¹ means. Rotational frequency depends on the amount of time we use to measure the revolutions. Therefore a time unit is mandatory in this case. Let's choose minutes. Revolutions happen in this certain amount of time, so this must be a division: We measure the revolutions per minute. Let's say we have 1000 revolutions in one minute, this looks like this: 1000/min. 1000 revolutions per minute. We divide 1000 by a minute: ${\frac {1000}{min}}$ . Unit symbols represent the dimension of the unit, however, the dimension is 1 and this means we leave out the exponent, since: ${\frac {1000}{min^{1}}}={\frac {1000}{min}}$ . But even ${\frac {1000}{min}}$ looks a bit too big. To get rid of the fraction, the only thing we could do is turning this into a multiplication. But we cannot change the amount of revolutions or their behaviour. So the only thing we could do is changing the minutes. So, we remember the exponent and we can use a cool trick: ${\frac {1000}{min^{1}}}=1000min^{-1}$ . And the fraction is gone. But let's get back to the variable $r$ . As we insert the number of revolutions, it vanishes. If we would leave it, there wouldn't be anything to do with it. Therefore, it is gone.

I have a lot of English material on engines, engineering, vehicles, etc. that uses min⁻¹. But I understand that readers would possibly not know what a negative exponent means. That's why we could use x/min instead. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Please correct me if I'm wrong"? You are wrong, and everyone is correcting you, but it's like talking to a brick wall. You cite not one source, and you don't care what the MOS says, and you don't care what consensus says. You're totally unwilling to collaborate. Wikipedia requires collaboration. Why discuss any further until you agree to collaborate? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Y'know, I never cease to learn things on WP. Til this discussion, I had never seen or heard of rpm rendered min⁻¹, & had it been offered in isolation, I'd have had no clue what it meant. I'll allow, being Canadian, most of the automotive magazines we get here are published in the U.S.; however, C&D, R&T, & VWT (or was it VW&P?) all routinely dealt with European products. They never once, in my experience, used anything but rpm. If you are seriously considering rendering rpm in Hertz, stop right now. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Who corrected me by telling me rpm is not an American unit? What is it if it is not US customary? Is it orignal research? Which sources do I have to cite for what? Of course I care what the MOS says: "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 (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera)." Sorry, but you don't seem to understand this. It says the units for ALL OTHER ARTICLES = NON AMERICAN ARTICLES WILL BE SI UNITS (cm³ for engine displacement!). OR NON-SI UNITS OFFICIALLY ACCPETED FOR USE WITH THE SI (min⁻¹ or /min for engine rotational frequency!). OR SUCH OTHER UNITS AS ARE CONVENTIONAL (DIN-PS for German vehicle power output!). There is NO EVIDENCE for your idea that I have to use American units in articles on German vehicles. Please read carefully: "other units (...) (such as (...) (rpm) for ANGULAR SPEED, hands for heights of horses, et cetera." This means that you may use units depending on the topic, for instance, measuring the height of horses in hands, or English railway tracks in miles and chains OR: German historical vehicle torque in kilopondmetres. BUT THERE NO SENTENCE THAT TELLS ME I MUST USE RPM FOR ROTATIONAL FREQUENCY. IT SAYS I MAY USE IT FOR ANGULAR SPEED. You know the difference between angular speed and rotional frequency? For me it is a form of respect that I assume that you know what you are talking about. Instead, you put me in charge of being dishonest. Andy Dingley made fun a typo I made. Does that help? I am willing to collaborate. But that does not mean that I am willing to surrender to absurd demands. What I understood is that you think that the general audience would neither understand /min nor min⁻¹. I would understand that some people don't understand min⁻¹ but /min is definitely self-explanatory. Everybody understands it. I would even say that min⁻¹ is self-explanatory as well. That you never heard of min⁻¹ or /min does not mean that they are uncommon. If several authors keep telling me that they don't know min⁻¹ it does not mean this is evidence for the claim that the general audience would not know it either. It just makes me ask myself whether you read scientific publications on that topic or not. Maybe the engineers I talked to were weird since they all used min⁻¹ or /min in their English publications. (I just read A promising solution for a variable compression ratio). You don't want /min since it is your opinion. But that is not important. Plase give actual rules that tell me that I have to use rpm. Give me reasons and evidence. Not opinions and absurd claims. Stop making demands of me. The MOS:UNITS says: "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units [or] non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI." I will use this rule. And by the way, cc is not SI either and must not be used. (PDF page 32) Es ist nicht zulässig, für die Einheitenzeichen und -namen Abkürzungen wie (...) cc (für cm³ oder Kubikzentimeter) (...) zu benutzen. Der korrekte Gebrauch der Zeichen für SI-Einheiten ist verpflichtend.. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The anti-American attitude, claims about SI, etc etc have all been repeatedly argued by Jojhnjoy at Talk:BMW 5 Series (E28), without anyone else agreeing that it should be min-1. Hopefully Wikipedia policy arguments aren't "won" by just getting the last word in until all dissenters are fatigued and give up?? 1292simon (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It's indeed a terrible thing when, "policy arguments are [only] "won" by just getting the last word in until all dissenters are fatigued and give up": Talk:BMW Goldfisch V16 Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not anti American. But please stop forcing [insert any fitting adjective] units on topics where they don't belong. Everbody uses and understands SI units. If [insert any fittig noun] don't use or understand them it does not mean that every non-American article automatically needs these units. The argument "readers would not understand /min" is absurd and not reasonable. MOS:UNITS encourages me to keep using SI whenever a vehicle is German. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Judging by the above, I'm not sure there's much point engaging in the conversation, but just for the heck of it: this is the English language wikipedia, and it's a general encyclopedia, not a specialist one. Using min-1 will cause huge confusion for the vast majority of readers, and the MOS appears to specifically cover the case of rpm being the sensible choice. As a British reader with an engineering Masters degree and reasonable familiarity with cars, while I understand the min-1 notation, it's just not gonna be comprehensible to the public at large. 4u1e (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"the MOS appears to specifically cover the case of rpm being the sensible choice." No. In this case, it does not. Please read carefully, it says: The primary units chosen will be SI or non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI. Since minutes are allowed to use with SI, that means that minutes are totally acceptable. Everybody knows them. Stop saying the general audience would not understand that since rpm contains minutes and claiming that rpm is understood and min is not is a contradiction. Everybody who is capable of reading knows how to use fractions and division as well. Other units as are conventional can be used, but it says "rpm for angular speed", that does neither mean "rpm for engine rotational frequency" nor "minutes must not be used" nor "the general audience does not know minutes". The rule is clear for non-American topics: Use SI or SI compatible or everything which is uncommon but fits the topic (for vehicles: Technical units). Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Everybody who is capable of reading knows how to use fractions and division as well" Not strictly speaking true, as my kids can attest. And you're not proposing using fractions or division, but rather index notation, which is far less common in day-to-day usage. Quoting - rather than paraphrasing - the MoS, the rule for non-American topics is to use "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." My experience of reliable English language sources for motor vehicles is that rpm is the conventional choice. Remember that the most appropriate sources for an article like BMW E28 are not likely to be engineering texts, but rather more general articles on the car in question. 4u1e (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Jojhnjoy, your argument is hard to follow as you seem to have changed your goal. You started out by wanting us to change rpm to min^-1. As said above, the layman has no idea what that means - true in English and I'm reasonably certain also true for laymen who speak other languages. It ain't gonna happen.

Now you have swapped to /min (although technically it should be r/min or revs/min). This has some merit and can't be dismissed out-of-hand. However, the term rpm is so well known in the English speaking world that it is like asking us to replace "dog" with "canine" in all articles. Possible but you would have to make an extremely good case for it. Pointing to German technical texts and saying this applies to layman articles in an English encyclopaedia isn't a very strong case.

Above you gave a long paragraph telling us that

min^{-1}={\frac {1}{min}}

. It was over long for engineers and unclear for laymen. It made the point that laymen are unlikely to understand it with an explanation and almost guaranteed to not understand it without an explanation. It comes back to laymen not understanding what the -1 means.

You said "from a mathematical standpoint,

r

is a variable". r is not a variable but is a unit (1 rev is one cycle is 2π radians. Which is why the units under discussion should be rpm vs r/min vs revs.min^-1. The r (or revs or cycles) is important.

You pointed that there is a difference between angular velocity and rotation frequency. Just like the difference between normal velocity and speed, the main difference is the velocity form is a vector and includes the direction of the rotational axis. In a vehicle we are only concerned about the magnitude of the rotation and the vector is not relevant to this discussion.

You keep saying that the argument is between American customary units and SI. This is a false dichotomy. There are plenty of non-SI units that not American. It could be argued that rpm is an SI derived unit because it is derived from cycles (or radians), which is allowed in SI and from minutes, which is an SI derived unit coming from seconds. And as a non-American, I am mildly insulted that you keep saying that I use American customary units (normally associated with (pounds, gallons and miles).

You have said that the speech of English technical discussions among engineers doesn't count because non-native English speakers may not understand it. But then you point to German technical literature by engineers to support your case. If the speech of English engineers is not suitable then why would the speech of German engineers be better?

You have said that Germans don't understand rpm but want us to change to min^-1 which most native English speakers don't understand. If we have to support only native German speakers or only native English speakers on English Wikipedia then obviously we have to support the English speakers. But of course we also look for a middle ground where we support both.

You have said that you have not seen r/min on dashboards. This is extremely common on European cars. Germany has a lot of European cars, so this should also be common in German. A quick look on Google images will give you plenty of examples from most of the major European manufactures.

Now, so far this is just a lot of acrimonious talk with no actual resolution. From the above you can see that min^-1 will get no support at all, that r/min might only get limited support, and rpm has a lot of support. For articles that you think German (and other) readers will have trouble understand what rpm means, you can make rpm link to revolutions per minute. This is the standard way that most Wikipedia discussions on terminology end amicably. Stepho talk 23:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Am I wrong the most common usage is (ought to be) what governs? The proposal for replacing "dog" with "canine" as a matter of accuracy does have (notional) merit, but falls afoul of terms like "lapdog" (because, AFAIK, "lap canine" has exactly no currency). It seems to me min^-1 is insufficiently commonplace to replace rpm, even if it is technically more accurate, for the same reason. (I confess, I'm now deeply conflicted at being on the side of the more common term, rather than the more technically accurate...) Sybil ^{talk to us} 02:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not change my goal, I said you could use either /min or min⁻¹. I might be mixing them up a bit but there is also no difference between 2 × 3 and 3 × 2 when you consider the result only.

That's an interesting point you made there, but the "r" is not a unit. What would it stand for? It is an auxiliary unit. Rotational frequency is the amount of rotations that don't have a dimension in a certain amount of time. Therefore, no "r" as a unit is needed.

I know what the difference between angular speed and rotational frequency is. Still this is not a rule that tells me that I must use rpm and must not use minutes. As far as I understand, people tried explaining that the general audience would not understand minutes which is completely absurd.

Maybe I am wrong when I say that rpm is American. But it is neither SI nor SI derived. People from several countries I asked were unfamiliar with it. The only person who knew it was an engineer.

I pointed to German engineers that published something in English. But I never mentioned literature in German by German engineers. Interestingly though, I expect German engineers to use minutes in German too.

If you say that English readers would not understand min⁻¹, I hardly believe it but we could still use /min. I seriously doubt that someone would not understand it.

r/min is extremely uncommon on European dashboards. Instead, at least German vehicles usually have 1/min: BMW F15, BMW E39, BMW E30, VW Lupo 3L, VW Golf VI, VW Passat 35i, Daimler V126, BMW E30, VW Golf II, Porsche 993, to be continued... Mercedes-Benz NG: min⁻¹. Please provide a European gauge cluster that has r/min.

Why wouldn't you want to use something everyone understands? That would be way easier than linking rpm. And still. I am asking for a clear rule that tells me that I must not use /min in engine and vehicle articles. MOS:UNITS allows me to use minutes in articles which are not about American topics. As far as this goes, nobody has strong arguments. When it came to MOS:UNITS, new rules were invented (rpm for vehilces is not mentioned there) and other rules were ignored (primary units are SI or units allowed with SI). I was put in charge of being anti-American and nationalist, trying to elevate one country's conventions over another. Just to make this clear: I am not from Germany. Comments such as these are unacceptable. Some of the arguments here were not strong but rather irrational. Telling me that the general audience would not understand /min is absurd. Some "facts" were even invented: "You have said that you have not seen r/min on dashboards. This is extremely common on European cars." (WP:NOR.) You provided indicators that among English speakers, rpm is common. But there is a difference between evidence and indicators. I also explained (therefore indicated) why minutes are not uncommon. Then I was told that this wouldn't be evidence. Yes, it is no evidence. But telling me that rpm is the only common term, that /min is not widely understood especially when considering that minutes are widely known, is neither. Why did you tell me about your engineering Master's degree? That does not help the discussion and to me it appears like you would want to express that you need a University diploma to understand the easiest Mathematics. The dog and canine example does not make sense here since again you pretend that minutes are extremely hard to understand. Something which would get much closer would be replacing hood with bonnet or vice versa. But in my opinion, a better example you could make here is replacing centimetres with inches, cubic centimetres with cc or cubic inches, kilograms with pounds; etc. since among native English speakers some units are common. Replacing "mm" with "in" in German vehicle articles would be considered inappropriate as it would be "elevat[ing] one country's conventions over another" even though native English speakers would understand that better. (I met Americans who would not understand that 1,75 m is height, that's why I assume that.) Replacing "/min" with "rpm" is the exact same principle. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Everyone does not understand "Power at 1/min" and "Torque at 1/min". When I see it I start wondering 1 of what per minute? Then when I see the numbers below (66 kW (89 hp) at 5500) I would understand you mean 1 revolution per minute. But why the 1? And why not writing revolutions (or the common abbreviation for revolutions per minute)? ⛐Boivie (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Why wouldn't you want to use something everyone understands?" That's what we all want - you think min^-1 will be more widely understood, while others believe that rpm is more easily understandable. Always remembering that it's an English language generalist encyclopedia. So, how do we prove it either way? 4u1e (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a good point. However, read the article "Frequency": Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time. The occurrences of a repeating event are not defined since they lack a dimension, they are a dimensionless quantity, therefore no "unit" to tell that this is a revolution is needed as the minute already indicates that this is frequency. The 1 is a simple placeholder. You could of course replace it with r or whatever. Assume the given frequency is 1000 min⁻¹. When we have 1/min or r/min, the actual frequency would always look like this: 1000/min. You would not write 1000 1/min or 1000 r/min.

I assume that 1/min is widely understood. It is clear that it refers to "x per minute". --Jojhnjoy (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe your assumption is wrong - for this target audience. What units are "conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic", in this case general articles about cars? 4u1e (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"I assume that 1/min is widely understood". At least seven editors are not willing to make that assumption, and you're not going to change any minds until you cite some evidence.

We sometimes display 100.0 hp (74.6 kW), and other times use 100.0 bhp (74.6 kW) or 100.0 PS (73.5 kW). Some readers won't notice the difference, but many will, and they will rightly interpret hp and bhp to be two different things. PS and hp look about the same and are casually treated as interchangeable, but it would be a mistake for a Wikipedia editor to do so. If the source gives us 100 PS we have to convert it to express it as hp or anything else. If a source gives us 100 hp, it's a mistake to change that to 100.0 hp. We have an implicit agreement with the reader that these subtle differences matter. Why else would we express it in two different ways?

Now, if we express engine speed in two different ways, some readers won't pay attention to the difference, but some will, and they will logically assume that min⁻¹ is a different kind of thing than rpm. Now we have to hope that they go somewhere and discover that they are actually redundant, and equivalent. But if they don't, we have created a misconception. And for what? Why? What is the benefit of introducing min⁻¹? We gain nothing.

We have no evidence that min⁻¹ is universally understood by English readers, but we have overwhelming evidence that rpm is. We have reason to think that using two different notations for the same thing could mislead some readers. We have no sources who say English language readers find min⁻¹ to be more clear (and "1000 /min" is just gibberish). We can't even say that min⁻¹ is true SI. We'd have to use radians or Herz, both non-starters. We have identified no benefit to using anything but rpm, and we have identified a risk. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

I asked an American, she understood 1/min. Since I don't live in the US, I cannot test this further. Which units are "conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic, in this case general articles about cars", depends on the origin of the vehicle. For instance, the Template:Infobox automobile gives two options: American or British English with either imperial or metric units. German vehicles such as BMWs always go with metric units such as SI or technical units. Therefore, neither cc nor rpm make sense since they don't fit either of these. Interestingly, MOS:UNITS says "or such other units as are conventional" which is supposed to mean that you could use kp·m for a torque figure for instance. But in this specific case, the majority of authors considers minutes to belong to the other units as are conventional; minutes are allowed to use with SI, they fit the article topic perfectly, the sources use them and in all German topic articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units and non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI. To me, using rpm on German topic articles does not make sense. Neither does using cc. These units are non-metric and non-SI. And as far as I have noticed, SI units are usually used for German topic articles. To know what an "rpm" is, you need to live in an English speaking country or need to be involved in engineering. On the other hand, "/min" is pretty easy to understand since everybody who knows how to read also learnt mathematical division in school and possibly knew minutes even before they went to school. Forcing rpm on articles where it does not belong is elevation one country's conventions over another. Authors that are used to Anglo-American units would accept metres in German car articles for instance since they know that metres are a unit of length, they would prefer inches or feet though. rpm and /min is exact the same thing. But with one difference: /min might be unknown among some authors and therefore they don't accept it and want to force their preferred rpm on other articles. Let's turn this model around: I don't try to force kilograms instead of pounds on American vehicle articles since it would be considered highly disruptive behaviour. And now think about forcing units such as cc and rpm on articles thatgo with SI, SI-derived and technical units.

When this is your definition of "evidence", then there is enough "evidence" that min⁻¹ and /min are commonly used since they have been around for ages. Possibly not in English speaking countries. But the English language Wikipedia is not meant for native speakers only, especially when considering that approximately 1 billion English speakers are non-native speakers. We would not introduce something completely new here. Minutes exist worldwide and actually the English Wikipedia would be the only Wikipedia not using them. And yes, minutes are non-SI, however, they are allowed to be used with SI. You might consider 1000/min "gibberish" but I consider it clear and understandable and even in the DIN 1301 it is the preferred way of expressing frequency. (The DIN has a noticable impact on other countries, for instance, the definition of the Pferdestärke according to DIN 66036 was copied by almost every country: 75 kp·m/s.) We could use rad or Hz, but for rotational frequency, time units are more common and also allowed. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"I asked an American, she understood 1/min. " LOLOLOLOLLLOOL.... Nope. Nope. Nope.

Real evidence looks like this:

All popular automotive media use rpm. We can't find examples of the New York Times or Motor Trend or Cars for Dummies or What Car? ever using min^-1.
Common style guides recommend rpm. They have never even heard of min^-1. See The Associated Press Stylebook 2017 page 244 (try Amazon books preview). NYT Stylebook, UPI Stylebook. The AMA Handbook of Business Writing. Other editors (above) have pointed out that even automotive engineering publications do not use min^-1.
BIPM has never heard of this nonsense. It's not real SI, and even pseudo-SI would use radians or Herz, not "revolutions". No help there.
We have zero sources telling us we should stop using rpm and start using min^-1. We can't even call this a WP:FRINGE view. It would have to have at least one published advocate to rise to the level of fringe. It's a nonexistent question. Nobody is even considering it. Instead, we have exactly one Wikipedia editor who thinks it's a good idea. A good case would be to cite experts on automotive topics, especially communicating with the general public in technical writing or automotive publications, who say that min^-1 is better. What we have here is one editor who has a personal mission to change the way the world is, using Wikipedia as a soapbox. We call that righting great wrongs, that is, tendentious editing.

Now cite something, or let it go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

What you consider "evidence" is what I consider original research. There is no Wikipedia rule that tells me that I must use rpm and must not use minutes. Please provide this rule (though I doubt you can since it does not exist.) Instead, you tell me about your theories and try proving them.

"All popular automotive media use rpm." → English Literature does not always, non-English media usualy does not, the most reliable BMW sources do never at all. So, there is no evidence. You did not take in account scientific sources, I also provided an example.
"Common style guides recommend rpm. They have never even heard of min^-1." → You can read the DIN 1301 and the SI-brochure.
"BIPM has never heard of this nonsense." → Read chapters 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 4.1 of the SI-brochure.
"We have zero sources telling us we should stop using rpm and start using min^-1." → Read MOS:UNITS. Or to use your words: We have zero sources telling us we should stop using min^-1 and start using rpm.

Since you consider min⁻¹ "nonsense", keep using judging arguments (for instance saying that min⁻¹ is "nonsense") rather than factual arugments and don't come up with a Wikipedia rule that forbids using min⁻¹, I don't want to discuss this any further. Replacing something that is based on the information provided in the sources, not unknown in scientific (English) literature and perfectly fits a German topic article that has metric/SI/technical units already, with something you prefer because you consider the original "thing" nonsense, is something I don't consider helpful. If you want to cease elevating one country's conventions over Germany's and Continental Europe's conventions and worldwide standards, I suggest that you omit replacing minutes with rpm and cubic centimetres with cc in articles on German vehicles. Please feel free to keep using those for vehicles and engines made in countries that use imperial or US customary units. Best regards not from Germany, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

English Literature does not always"^{[citation needed]}.
The reason I mention the AP, UPI, Fowler's ect is because at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#External style_guides we are told that the MOS consensus encourages us to do so, when we lack specific guidelines. The accepted style guides universally support using rpm.
DIN 1301? The "SI brochure"? I'm interested! Tell me more. Give me a citation I can verify. Vague hints are not a citation. See #1 above. I will change my mind if you show me evidence. I've been wrong before and I'm happy to admit it. I read 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 4.1 in the SI brochure, and I don't see rpm expressed as min^-1. I see no mention of engine speed. Help me out. Where does it say it?
We have all read MOS:UNITS. If 100 editors told you you are misreading MOS:UNITS, would that change your mind? What if 1,000 editors all said you are wrong about MOS:UNITS, would that do it? Is there any hypothetical set of circumstances where you could admit that you are reading MOS:UNITS backwards. It says we prefer rpm. Everyone keeps telling you that. What if 1,000,000 editors told you it says we prefer rpm, would that do it? If you are never, ever going to admit it, even if 100,000,000 editors said you're wrong, then we might as well stop discussing MOS:UNITS. If this is some kind of religious dogma that is unfalsifiable for you, then it's outside the scope of discussion. And if you cannot accede to consensus, then you cannot edit Wikipedia. If the bottom line for you is that consensus means nothing, then your values are incompatible with Wikipedia. You're allowed to believe consensus is wrong, but you must be willing to respect it.

I didn't say "min^-1" is nonsense. I said "1000 /min" or "1000 min^-1" is nonsense. Such as what you have done to the BMW 3 and 5 series articles. If you said "1000 revolutions/min" or "1000 r/min" that would makes sense. But then, r/min is just a cumbersome way of saying rpm. The problem is, a "revolution" is not an SI unit. SI says we should use Hz or rads, and that's ridiculous. Instead, you simply leave the units out entirely and write, for example, " 55 kW (74 hp) at 5800/min". Nonsense. BMW doesn't make this error. They write, "...TwinPower Turbo engine generates 200 lb-ft of torque at just 1250 rpm". They use normal English terminology for English-speaking readers. Obviously. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

♠"At least seven editors are not willing to make that assumption" You can add me, if you haven't already. :)

♠"there is enough "evidence" that min⁻¹ and /min are commonly used" Commonly where? Because it's not common anywhere I've ever seen. And the "r/min" isn't exactly ubiquitous, either. It may be found on BMW tachs, but that's given context by the fact it's on a tachometer, which is not exactly the same as turning up in WP text.

♠The distinction between hp & bhp, IMO, is a good comparison. Most readers & editors don't even know there's any difference, & will use the two interchangeably. I'll confess not knowing what the difference is, but I do know there is one. I daresay most readers encountering rpm will at least know rougly what it's dealing with, even if not all know what it means. (I've run across a few people who don't know what psi means, but have a notion it deals with pressure, putting them in a similar class.) Encountering min^-1 for the first time, with no context, is a bit like dropping in .5c, with no link, & expecting readers to get it. Which leads to the obvious question: if min^-1 is to be equated or explained, isn't it going to be explained as equal to rpm...? Which kind of blows the need for min^-1, doesn't it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Folks, there comes a time when the best thing to do is ... nothing. My suggestion would be to stop responding. Resist the temptation to add one final point. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland:

As I said, this is what I consider original research. I could give you examples that prove my point. However, I don't consider it useful, though here you go: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. This does not prove anything, I know. But your claim is not provable either.
But in this case, we don't lack specific guidelines. MOS:UNITS says that "units that are allowed with SI" should be used. That's what I am doing. DIN 1301 is rather a norm than a "style guide" that does not recommend but force you to use "1/min" without U or r. That's why you will find it all technical data sheets of German vehicles such as BMWs.
The SI-brochure lists base units and some derived units. But you could basically combine several units. For instance, force (N) and length (m) give Newtonmetres (N·m). The SI-brochure does not mention N·m as the unit symbol for torque and the Newtonmetre is still a unit: "For example, the quantity torque may be thought of as the cross product of force and distance, suggesting the unit newton metre" But the important chapters I mentioned show that frequency could be expressed in time units (s⁻¹) and since minutes are allowed to be used with SI, you could also make min⁻¹. That's how it works and it is not uncommon.
MOS:UNITS does not say that rpm must be used for engine rotational frequency and that min⁻¹ must not. (Empty) reasons, arguments and theories don't help here.

55 kW at 5800/min is no nonsense. Stop acting like you never saw that, since it appears in so many books and technical data sheets. BMW uses this in the technical data section of the E21 manual. If you would have looked that up properly, you would have noticed that this source exists, however, it cannot be retrieved online. Instead, I will link the E28 524td "short manual" here.

BMW gauge clusters have "1/min" and nothing else, even on models designed for countries with miles; as far as I know, older BMW tachometers had km/std for speed. Only a few older BMWs had a gauge showing th engine speed, however, I cannot find any good photographs showing them.

You made a very good point: I daresay most readers encountering rpm will at least know rougly what it's dealing with, even if not all know what it means. And there you say it: "knowing roughly" and "even if not all know what it means". Something everybody talks about and nobody understands. However, ss I said, /min is self-explanatory: Per minute. Even for those who live in countries where minutes are uncommon for frequency.

Something to add: Forcing units such as rpm or cc on German (or whatever) topic articles just because you dislike or not know the units used in these countries, the sources the article is based on and in some scientific literature, even though they are easy to understand, is what I consider disrespectful and toxic to the editing process. You don't try to improve anything here. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Any objections to marking this discussion closed with {{Archive top}}? More than one editor has said they consider this resolved, and that they do not want to see it discussed further. We could repeat the entire thing with an RfC so that we can officially declare a consensus, but per WP:SNOW, that appears pointless, since it is nearly unanimous. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I would not consider this resolved but there is no point in contuning this since my point was declared nonsense due to personal opinions ignoring arguments and adhering to original research which would not help the discussion. I still recommend refraining from adding cc and rpm in German topic articles since they appear to be common for English language topics only and don't fit the other units used in these articles and sources, may remain unclear for some readers and might be interpreted as elevating one country's conventions over another which is toxic to the editing process. Best regards not from Germany, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy to have the discussion closed, thanks. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

A nescire ad non esse problēma cēterōrum usōrum est. Continuing would be pointless. Best wishes for you, 1292simon, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"Continuing would be pointless." An amazing concession. Let it be the deciding vote. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jojhnjoy and IDHT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sports sedan and Super saloon

There are two entries that seem to cover the same general subject. Both are boastful superlative (BS) marketing terms: Sports sedan and Super saloon as there are no authoritative standards or universally accepted definitions for them. Because of this, there will be countless citations claiming the special use of both of these descriptors. Nevertheless, I do not think these should be two separate encyclopedia articles. This should be as the one article about "ordinary" sedans that also discusses the term saloon that is used in certain markets. Moreover, I do not want to start an edit war regarding the various types of English. Thanks - CZmarlin (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The focus of Sport Sedan seems to be a smallish, nimble vehicle based on a sedan chassis. The focus of Super Saloon seems to be based on a slightly larger car (although not as big as the Yank Tank style such as 1950s-1970s Cadillacs) with an bigger engine. Note also that Toyota used 'Super Saloon' as one of the higher a grade levels for the Crown. Stepho talk 00:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's pure BS marketing. It's true that marketing departments hate it when a new product is part of an old category, so they make up a new category on the spot. Because that's extra more new. Regardless of considerations of notability and redundancy, keeping articles like this around makes Wikipedia complicit in deceiving readers that these categories are real. You don't create a new kind of car because you put on 1" larger diameter brakes and tuned it for 10% more horsepower. You most certainly can have one sports car that's more "focused" on peeling out at stop lights while another one has more comfort and luxury in mind, and a third is ever so slightly more practical. This is because the different brands are not all building the exact same car. They're each a little different. These noticeable differences do not mean they are in a class by themselves. The same basic thing, but with a higher grade of materials or more better shocks or whatever does not place it in a new class. It's just higher quality, more expensive bits, better engineered.

It's totally fine do describe who uses these terms, and what they intend them to mean. But the place to do that is in a sub-section of an article about the topic, such as sports car. We should expect marketers or those duped by them to perpetually want to split of new articles for these faux "new" types of cars, and we should cheerfully merge them back where they belong as part of regular housekeeping. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Images for Toyota C-HR

We need some opinions on which main image is best for Toyota C-HR. Comments at Talk:Toyota C-HR#Main images please. Stepho talk 22:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Deal. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Feel the burn

This may be trivial, but I just noticed the engine infobox here (presumably standard) has the header "combustion chamber" to describe the cylinder dimensions. This is, at best, misleading, & at worst flat wrong. Can it be corrected? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Kübelwagen/Torpedo

What am I?
Torpedo? Utility roadster?
the same thing from a more prosperous society

Smaller offroaders like the Volkswagen Kübelwagen or Citroën Méhari or early Jeeps have a bodystyle with or without doors, without roofs, and usually with folding windshields. There seems to be some confusion as to what to call them. The Méhari is called a "cabriolet SUV" on its page here (awkward, IMHO), while the Kübelwagen is referred to as a "utility roadster" which I like. In Italy, it's called a Torpedo, and it seems to suit the definition given at that entry (4-5 seats, low beltline, no permanent roof supports apart from the A-pillars). The Germans call it a "bucket car" (Kübelwagen"), presumably a reference to its open and minimalist nature.

I am aware that it is not for us to give the English language a word to describe this bodystyle, but is there a favored style amongst the existing options? I like "torpedo" but it might confuse some, and "utility roadster" is quite descriptive. Thoughts? Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

As with all car classification names, I doubt we'll ever get a single term that's totally satisfying. Based on what I suppose is listening to other people over the years, I'd instinctively refer to them as "military cars" or "beach buggies" depending on military or civilian origins, or perhaps even "jeeps".

After a quick Google it looks like "light military vehicle" is used as a type descriptor, for example, here (and there are other similar examples). Citroen refer to the new e-Mehari smiply as a convertible, here. The original is refered to as a "beach car" (surely analogous to "beach buggy") here. That gets my vote for what we should settle on. It could encompass the fun little Fiats, Mini Mokes, and most non-military cars of this shape, which were sometimes designed for utility but typically used for leisure. – Kieran T ^(talk) 09:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Military" implies these things are designed and built for armies. That may be the origin for some one them. But these ones are clearly sold to civilians. How about "quasi-military vehicles" or even "recreational quasi-military vehicles". Too many syllables? Well, maybe, but at least it avoids the more extreme misleading mental associations for readers who didn't grow up with one of the versions of mother-tongue English that others of us take for granted. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Torpedo" doesn't make it; there were models in the '30s using that as a name for a slantback sedan. "Utility roadster" is accurate IMO, tho IDK if "roadster" really meant "no doors" as much as "no roll-up windows"... They seem closer to the old speedsters, the original stripper models...but "utility speedster" is an oxymoron... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The literal translation of the German word Kübelwagen is pan vehicle – which actually makes sense. So I would recommend pan vehicle; the vehicle class would be "Off-road" while the body style is "pan". In general, the English language is very crippled compared to other Germanic languages, we could also borrow the German word Kübelwagen instead of translating it. In Dutch, the word Kübelwagen was already borrowed from German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.243.167 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Pan? Mystified I sought help from Google translate. It says Kübel translates as: bucket, pail, tub, container, latrine bucket, crapper. How reliable is that? Eddaido (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TREKphiler, Torpedo already has a meaning. Roadster is already used for older roofless vehicles (although normally with half doors), so utility roadster seems to match the concept well. Stepho talk 05:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"I agree with TREKphiler" TYVM.

I've usually seen kubelwagen translated as "bucket car". Score one for Google Translate. Aron Presley ^{still in the building} 12:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with "utility roadster" (thanks to the suitably named Teutonic Tamer who added "utility" back in 2007), it's clear and succinct. Mr.choppers | ✎ 04:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello all, I'm new here, would it be appropriate to put a list of particular parts on individual cars or is that overkill? I'm looking to learn more about cars and I thought that might be a good way to do it, it seems that parts vary slightly from model year to model year and from make to make. Technology Drive (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at the WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTMANUAL policies? I was going to ask what you mean by list of particular parts, but I don't think it matters. It's far outside policy regardless. I would head over to WikiBooks and put something like this under the make of car there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm new here, so I wasn't sure. Glad I checked with you all first. Technology Drive (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Toutes les voitures françaises cleanup

Please see WT:JCW#Invalid cleanup. This concerns the usage of |journal= in |cite journal=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, we should probably have an article on this publication. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the publication you're talking about isn't called Toutes les voitures françaises but Automobilia, a car magazine published in the past by Histoire et Collections, a kind of successor for an early magazine with the same name which covered the Paris Salon. It has a Wiki page in French, but it isn't more than a stub. --Urbanoc (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

flag icons

I vaguely remember that the Automobile project doesn't use flag icons like but I can't find the guide that says so. Can somebody point me in the right direction or at least tell me that some of my marbles are missing. I'm thinking of article List of electric cars currently available. Stepho talk 15:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about this particular WikiProject, but as many of those articles actually cover companies, I suppose for this case applies the WikiProject Companies ruling on that, which discourages them (I don't know if it's a written rule though). Here doesn't seem to be any formal ruling, with some editors considering they look "pretty" and restoring them time and time again. A particular example is the Automotive industry article, which is a horripilant collection of flags all over it, as if the article were covering sport teams instead of multinational companies. It also has a slow-moving edit war on which national pride FCA defends, if American, Italian, or both. So, to summarise, no, I don't think there's a clear rule here at the moment, and if it actually exists it was never mentioned to me. The only clear rule is the general one against flag in infoboxes (which some WikiProject ignore because of a local consensus). --Urbanoc (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG covers this. While highly discouraged from infoboxes, they are sometimes OK in tables if they actually aid in reading the table. In the case of List of electric cars currently available, the flags misleadingly overemphasize nationality, as if that's the most important fact about any electric car. It's in the very first column, and it's the only use of color in the table. Most of these manufacturers are global conglomerates, and many of them are not made in the country indicated by the flag. I'd remove the flags, but it's not helpful to simply delete them. It's arguable that a table with flags is better than a table with no country information at all. You have to go to the work of adding an entire column, spelling out the country name. Flags are a pain.

You could also argue that we have no idea what flag or country to assign to BMW Brilliance, for example. That would be a good reason to delete them altogether. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. MOS:FLAG gives me the rational I need to remove the flags from that article. Thanks. Stepho talk 23:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

What Phase is this Clio, Phase III or Phase IV

2006 Renault Clio Campus 1.1 Rear What a odd Clio. I would say it a Phase IV but it has the front and rear bumper from Phase II but it too new to be one, The Campus wasn't introduced until Phase IV in 2006 where they redesign the front and rear bumper and placed the reg plate at the bottom and not on the boot. which is the year when this was registered. It like a in between a Phase III and a Phase IV. --Makizox (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Phase III?
Or Phase IV?

Aggression, etc

Is it just me (whose valid driving license is seldom used), or are many of Wikipedia's car-related articles written in oddly obscure terms? As just one example, the word aggressive:

Chevrolet Impala: "The RSS included aggressive wheels..."
Chevrolet Cavalier: "The Z24 trim also received several other upgrades including a wider front sway bar and FE2 Sports Suspension for better handling characteristics, and less aggressive ABS anti-lock braking system."
Chevrolet Aveo: "It includes Flat White body colour with Torch Red accents, a more aggressive ground effects package, unique grille, rear spoiler and graphics package...."
Chevrolet Performance: "The rear axle has an aggressive 3.27 ratio that enhances the feeling of acceleration."
Chevrolet Avalanche: "The hood and fenders featured aggressive folds, in contrast to the soft box of the other GMT800 models."

They're Chevy-related examples, but I could have chosen other brands. And even in the snippets above, we also have "ground effects package" and "graphics package" -- both opaque for me, though perhaps I'm underinformed.

The standard response is: "If you don't like it, don't whine about it; instead, try improving it." I did try, once. But one can't confidently rephrase what one can't understand. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't totally object to using the term. It is car design/car media lingo, true. They say aggressive generally when they mean the opposite of subtle, or understated. Often the first generation of a car has a unified design, the work of a single individual with a single vision. Later the car gets tweaks and facelifts by other designers, who keep most of the overall design, but change things here and there. If they change a thing in a way that is not harmonious with the original design, they call it "aggressive" (i.e. "look at me"). It is not an obscure term; it's out there in the general interest media.[1][2][3][4][5]. I think the word aggressive came up a lot with the Mercedes-Benz SL redesign in 2008; "aggressive" was used as an alternative to "masculine", since the redesign was attributed to M-B's unhappiness with the car's poor sales to men.[6]

I don't think an encyclopedia article about a painting should ban subject-jargon like painterly or whatever. Learning about a thing includes not just a bunch of facts, but also the language associated with that thing. Aggressive is a common car-design term. It's OK for a Wikipedia article to use the word, though I would say a good Wikipedia artilce would say in the same breath why the bumper or hood cowl or cup holders are "aggressive". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I take your point about "painterly". Or at least part of it. When edumacating yourself or anyone else about the dry subject of grammar, for example, you really can't get around first learning such technical terms as "complement" [alas not one of Wikipedia's better articles] and then digesting text that uses it. Painterly is indeed useful, though inessential. But "aggressive" is so widespread hereabouts that I guessed it was near meaningless -- the car-lover's equivalent of "cool" or "edgy" or whatever.

If it means conspicuous, unsubtle, then without actually bothering to look at photos, etc, of the respective cars, how about the following guesses:

Chevrolet Impala: "The RSS included flashier wheels..."
Chevrolet Cavalier: "The Z24 trim also received several other upgrades including a wider front sway bar and FE2 Sports Suspension for better handling, and a better modulated anti-lock braking system."
Chevrolet Aveo: "It includes Flat White body colour with Torch Red accents, a more aggressive ground effects package, unique grille, rear spoiler and graphics package...." -- Having no idea what a "ground effects package might be, I can't attempt anything here.
Chevrolet Performance: "The rear axle has a higher/lower 3.27 ratio that enhances the feeling of acceleration." -- Ratio of what to what? Not knowing, I don't know if it's higher or lower, but surely it's one or the other.
Chevrolet Avalanche: "The hood and fenders had folds, in contrast to the soft box of the other GMT800 models." -- I'm guessing that "aggressive" is quite superfluous here.

-- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

♠IDK if the designers have anything to do with it; IMO, it's more the magazine writers, who are trying not to say how cool & macho they think it is. ("Sexy" is too girly.)

♠That 3.27 ratio is for the rear axle, of course; it's actually pretty tall, so the previous one had to be more like 3.00 to be more aggressive. (In this instance, the steeper gear improves acceleration, which tends to produce harder starts from the stoplight, hence "more aggressive" driving.)

♠The Avalanche may've been fairly pancake plain before, & had "bulging" added for faux hood scoops & bulged fenders, all "boy racer" appeal; having never seen the earlier truck, IDK...

♠"better modulated" is a value judgment; "more aggressive" is, in some way, addressing the driving style attached to the changes (or the one the engineers, & magazine writers, anticipate will be). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This underscores that we shouldn't be guessing. We shouldn't try to figure it out by looking at a picture -- that is original research. If reading the whole context in the source tells us what they mean by aggressive, fine, then we can clarify what is aggressive about it. If there isn't anything in the source that hints at what they meant, then we should remove the word from the article and rely instead on sources that are less ambiguous. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

BMW Z3 image dispute

Can we have some opinions on which main and rear image is best for BMW Z3 please? Comments on Talk:BMW Z3 --Vauxford (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz SL-Class (R129)‎

Things are getting out of hand at Mercedes-Benz SL-Class (R129)‎ (see the page history). Could someone familiar with content guidelines regarding car specs please look at the article? benzband (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If nothing else that's a clear edit war. I would suggest a warning then escalation. Springee (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, quite right, I've now left a note on both users' talk pages. Moving forward it would be helpful if someone (other than the involved users) was able to provide an opinion on the edit being warred over. benzband (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As one of the involved users I echo your call for another editor to have a look. 96.54.57.109 (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The added content lacks references. The formatting is horrible (majuscles, spaces, etc.). The units are mixed and varied: Use either International or American units, but not both (horsepower in the infobox but Watt in the added section). I recommend a deletion of the added content. Did someone talk to User:George Salt yet? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been attempting to determine what if any real and verifiable differences may exist, I have posted on his talk page repeatedly asking what differences exist in Australian R129s and from the first time I asked on the 13 of September he has yet to explain how the Australian SL is different. His claims to work for Mercedes are also concerning due both to conflict of interest and risk of original research, also questionable is his (now ceased) addition of copyrighted content. 96.54.57.109 (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, report this case to WP:AN/I. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Is AN/I the right place? DRN seems more content focused and I am not sure he has crossed the line as to editor conduct. I think we might still get this solved with a third opinion, so if anyone wants to familiarise themselves with the dispute and swing by User talk:George Salt feel free to put your opinion in. 96.54.57.109 (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article Suzuki Hayabusa#RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year

Hello, WikiProject Automobiles. As a prominent contributor to Suzuki Hayabusa#RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa#RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Automobiles / Halloween

Could someone from the project explain why your banner is on the Talk:Halloween page? I'm having trouble making the connection. Oddjob84 (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably some joker or vandal. Please remove it. Stepho talk 10:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks.

Done Oddjob84 (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Bentley Mark VI

A new section about buying and driving a used Bentley Mark VI has been added. It (with more additions by the same editor) is unreferenced. However, does this (buying and driving) information have a place in Wikipedia? Eddaido (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

No. WP is not a buyers guide or a how to manual. See WP:ISNOT. Stepho talk 10:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree no, not acceptable. Wiki is not meant to be a guide to owning and running a particular model. WP:NOTGUIDE. Eagleash (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

World record top speeds

On a lot of the so called hypercar articles (eg Bugatti Chiron, Koenigsegg Agera), I see claims of world records for top speeds. The claims that the vehicle reached a certain speed in a certain time is probably correct. Yet recognition by a sanctioning body such as Guinness is very rare. Typically the references are for a run conducted by the manufacturer and reported on the manufacturer's website (or by a magazine which is obviously sourced from manufacturer data). The manufacturer rarely mentions whether the run was done in both directions to average out tail winds and slope. If the run was not sanctioned by an appropriate body and not done in both directions then it is clearly not a world record. In those cases, what terminology should we use instead of "world record"? Stepho talk 00:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Just insist the source is provided in brackets behind the numbers. For example F I A or Guinness or Manufacturer or . . . Maybe that's ugly? Eddaido (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of something similar for adding a clause like "sanctioned by FIA", "sanctioned by Guinness" or "unsanctioned" or "unofficial". And mentioning the lack of running in both directions. Stepho talk 00:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

My desire for any manufacturer claimed speeds, times, power figures, etc, is between little and none. I mostly only want to mention it when I can't dig up any independent organization or media tests. And that's only for ordinary performance stats. For superlatives like a record, I wouldn't even consider mentioning it at all if the only source is the manufacturer, or a newsblog parroting the manufactuer's PR. The only organizations I'd consider reliable are FIA, or maybe the Utah Salt Flats Association, or similar. The definition of "record" isn't whatever Volkswagen or whomever says it is. You can't just make up your own category and award yourself the record. It has to be a timing or speed category that others have run in in the past. Whose record did the Chiron break, anyway? Nobody's? That's a made up "record".

The exception would be the standard that applies to Dodge Tomahawk, the same as WP:Noprices #5: "...unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention." If independent sources of good reputation give weight to the record claim made by the manufacturer, no matter how outlandish, then we should write about what they wrote about. That means more than just passing on the VW press release. Actual coverage, and a reason. Such as that this "record" made an impact, was influential, caused a reaction, or sparked a controversey. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm confident that the claims are true. In most cases the driver has a reputation that he won't want to lose. It's the spin they put on it that bothers me. To be a true world record it must be done in both directions to counter any gains from tail wind, slope, etc. Many of these so called "world records" are in one direction and then trumpeted as "world's fastest car". The feat itself is good and worthy of praise - but not a true world record. Stepho talk 22:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)